Another Question On Baptism...

[goldenchild17]

I have been in a rather lengthy discussion and seem to be doing okay. But I am having trouble understanding this question. I don't do very well with all these terms and stuff so I thought I'd run it by here. What does the Church say about this?

[quote]Goldenchild, you have argued on the basis of 1 Peter 3:21 that baptism saves.  This is certainly valid, but you, as a Catholic, are arguing that baptism saves [i]ex opere operato[/i], whereas Peter seem to argue that baptism saves when occupied by the word of the Spirit and faith/repentance (an answer of a good conscience to God).  Could you explain how you deal with the Reformed view of the efficacy of baptism (the sign and the thing signified, the latter being given through the former by the word of the Spirit and faith)[/quote]

[phatcatholic]

your opponent's words are unnecessarily [url="http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=16917&dict=CALD"][b]convoluted[/b][/url]. i'll explain what i can.

first, this from [url="http://www.domestic-church.com/CONTENT.DCC/19990301/SCRMNTL/quiz.htm"]Domestic-Church.com[/url] explains what [i]ex opere operato[/i] means in relation to the sacraments:[list]
[*][b]Q: [/b]What does the Latin phrase "ex opere operato" have to do with the valid administration of the Sacraments? (Bonus: what is the other, very similar phrase, and what does it mean?)

[b]A. [/b]The sacraments, if administered by one with proper power and authorization, with the proper intention, and using the prescribed matter and form, operate "Ex opere operato." That means "by the deed done;" that is, by the very fact of the action's being performed. The point is that the validity of a sacrament is not dependent on the personal holiness or faith of the minister, since Christ is the principal minister and it is He who is actually conferring grace, not the human minister.

The other, similar phrase, "ex opere operantis," means "from the doer of the deed," and refers to the disposition of the minister or recipient.
[/list]also note that the proper [i][b]form[/b][/i] of baptism is "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." the proper [i][b]matter[/b][/i] is water. the proper [i][b]intent[/b][/i] is to forgive all sin, grant gifts of the Holy Spirit, and join into the family of God.

now, to look at his phrase again:

[quote]Goldenchild, you have argued on the basis of 1 Peter 3:21 that baptism saves.  This is certainly valid, but you, as a Catholic, are arguing that baptism saves ex opere operato, whereas Peter seem to argue that baptism saves when occupied by the word of the Spirit and faith/repentance (an answer of a good conscience to God).  Could you explain how you deal with the Reformed view of the efficacy of baptism (the sign and the thing signified, the latter being given through the former by the word of the Spirit and faith)[/quote]

essentially, he wants you to explain why baptism confers grace b/c of the particular form, matter, and intent that is used and not just b/c we have faith. protestants believe that baptism is efficacious (does something) b/c of their faith alone, not b/c of any particular form, matter, or intent. he also contends that this is Peter's belief, but he doesn't really support how he has come to this conclusion.

to disprove the Reformed understanding of how the sacraments work you just have to look at the significance of the form, matter, and intent that appear in the bible. here's 1 Pet 3:21 in context:

[b]1 Pet 3:18-22[/b]
[b]18 [/b]For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit;
[b]19 [/b]in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison,
[b]20 [/b]who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved [i][b]through water[/b][/i].
[b]21 [/b]Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, [i][b]not as a removal of dirt[/b][/i] from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
[b]22 [/b]who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

i think these verses show the significance of water in our baptism. if it was just our faith that instituted the grace of the sacrament--if the water was not important--then the action of the baptism (the pouring of water onto the head or the dunking of a person into a body of water) would simply effect the removal of dirt. but, Peter says that eight persons were saved through the water, and that baptism corresponds to this. thus the action of baptism and the matter that is present is important. if this be the case, then the argument that baptism saves ex opere operato is defended.

i think i have understood this latin phrase correctly. you may wish to hear from others before putting my response to use.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

Edited September 14, 2004 by phatcatholic

[goldenchild17]

Okay, well he gave me a little simpler explanation and I think I understand it now.

[quote]Well, this is a fundamental divide between Protestants and Catholics.  The Reformed faith agrees that the sacraments do actually impart grace, specifically, in this case, baptism imparting the grace of salvation.  However, salvation is only imparting by baptism if God regenerates that person and gives them faith.  Thus, the sign (water baptism) brings about the thing signified (salvation) only if the sign (water baptism) is accompanied by faith.  Catholics believe the sign automatically confers the thing signified regardless of faith.[/quote]

So can baptism impart it's grace without faith? Or what exactly does the Church teach on this? Or is it like St. Hippolytus says and the parent or another family member can represent the child's faith?
St. Hippolytus.
"And they shall baptize the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family. And next they shall baptism the grown men; and last the women. (Apostolic Tradition 21.3-5)"

Basically, is the main difference between Catholics and Protestants on this issue that faith must be present for the baptism to be efficacious? And if so, how do we explain our position biblically?

[Cure of Ars]

This is from the CCC;

[quote][b]Faith and Baptism [/b]

1253 Baptism is the sacrament of faith.54 But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The catechumen or the godparent is asked: "What do you ask of God's Church?" The response is: "Faith!"

1254 For all the baptized, children or adults, faith must grow after Baptism. For this reason the Church celebrates each year at the Easter Vigil the renewal of baptismal promises. Preparation for Baptism leads only to the threshold of new life. Baptism is the source of that new life in Christ from which the entire Christian life springs forth.

1255 For the grace of Baptism to unfold, the parents' help is important. So too is the role of the godfather and godmother, who must be firm believers, able and ready to help the newly baptized - child or adult on the road of Christian life.55 Their task is a truly ecclesial function (officium).56 The whole ecclesial community bears some responsibility for the development and safeguarding of the grace given at Baptism. [/quote]

[url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm#1253"]http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm#1253[/url]


Through baptism an infant is born again and enters in to the body of Christ. Babies are not excluded from the body of Christ and grace. Because the baby does not have the ability to have faith the baby depends on the faith of the parents, godparents, and the entire Church.

Edited September 14, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[goldenchild17]

Okay, so let's see... Faith is required for baptism to be efficacious. It doesn't have to be the faith of the recipient(as in the case of an infant), but can be represented by a parent or other family member? Is this right? But faith still needs to be present? Can you explain to me how this differs from the reformed protestant viewpoint? Do they believe the faith has to come from the recipient? I'm not sure how reformed Protestants and us Catholics differ on this.

[phatcatholic]

i think the difference is that, in Reformed thinking, the recipient's faith is what brings about the grace, which is just symbolized thru the actions and matter of the sacrament. however, in Catholicism, faith brings a person to the sacrament, which brings about the grace by the actions performed and the matter used.

put another way....

in Reformed thinking, the recipient's faith brings to him the grace he receives. in Catholic thinking, the recipient's faith brings him to the sacrament, which brings to him the grace he receives.

however, b/c i've never really thought about this disctinction before, i could be wrong. what do u all think?

[Cure of Ars]

It's all grace although through faith and baptism we enter into deeper into grace and God's own life. So I don't think we can say that we had faith before we had grace. I would think that the reformed protestant position would agree but I am not sure.

I would guess that the reformed protestant viewpoint would be that the baby can not depend on the faith of the parents.

[goldenchild17]

Okay, that is what I'm thinking the difference is come down to. So how does one start to explain that the baby's faith can depend on the faith of a parent? Maybe, well the quote I gave below by St. Hippolytus is pretty clear that it can happen. And also use the passages in Scripture where the whole families(greek includes infants) were baptised on the faith of one member? Just thinking out loud here...

[StColette]

The faith of the parents is very important in the baptism of a baby. And also upon the faith of the godparents. Godparents are given to babies at their baptism to insure that the child will grow up in the faith and the godparents also serve as a testimony to the child's faith. That they will take it upon themselves to ensure that the child will be brought up in the Church.

-----------

Biblical invidence that Baptism includes infants

Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, "Repent and be baptized.." Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized." This is confirmed in the next verse.

Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. God's covenant family includes children. The word "children" that Peter used comes from the Greek word "teknon" which also includes infants.

Biblical Examples of baptism of households which included children

Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word "household" comes from the Greek word "oikos" which is a household that includes infants and children.

Acts 16:33 - Paul baptized the jailer (an adult) and his entire household (which had to include children). Baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason.

1 Cor. 1:16 - Paul baptized the household ("oikos") of Stephanus. Baptism is not limited to adults.

Baptism and healing based on another's faith

Acts 16:15 - further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia's faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents' faith, not the children's faith.

Matt. 8:5-13; Luke 6-10 - the servant is healed based upon the centurion's faith. This is another example of healing based on another's faith.

Mark 9:22-25 - Jesus exercises the child's unclean spirit based on the father's faith. This healing is again based on another's faith.

Joshua 5:2-7 - God punished Israel because the people had not circumcised their children. This was based on the parent's faith. The parents play a critical role in their child's salvation.

[url="http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#baptism-III"]http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#baptism-III[/url]

God Bless,
Jennie

[goldenchild17]

Well, I'm starting to get really confused in my discussion. I really am having a hard time understanding his exact argument and having a hard time answering him. I seem to be changing my position, even thought I don't mean to. It's just happening. So, yeah. Anyways, here's the thread.
[url="http://www.christianguitar.org/forums/showthread.php?t=83092&page=7&pp=15"]http://www.christianguitar.org/forums/show...92&page=7&pp=15[/url]
The latest of people to discuss this with me starts at the beginning of page seven, Donny.
I think I went the wrong direction with this, but I'm not sure how, or what to do next. If somebody has time I would appreciate it if this thread could be looked at and advice given to me on what to do next. Thanks.

[Cure of Ars]

I think you are doing alright. The only argument that was confusing was the comment that you made in regards to John the Baptist. Nothing that you can’t bounce back from.


What I would do is ask one of the following questions at this point what ever one you feel would work best.

You seem to be saying that salvation is not a free gift but one needs the work of faith? (In 1 Thessalonians 1:3 Paul calls faith a work.) Is your position not works salvation? For Catholics salvation is by grace alone. NOTHING you do can earn it. Because of this babies have the ability to enter into the family of God. They do not have to wait to be able to do works, they can rely on their parent's faith. But because God has given those of the age of reason the grace to do the work of faith it is then required of the individual. In fact, salvation is a process and when a baby grows in grace and has the ability to have faith, by grace, then it is required for salvation.




Do you believe that it is not possible for babies to enter into the Kingdom of God because the do not have faith? If so then why does Jesus say the following, “Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein” (Mar 10:15) and “But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.” (Luk 18:16)




The bible does not explicitly address the issue of infant baptism. The reason for this is because it was not an issue. This was because the apostles were already doing the practice and no one questioned what the apostles were doing so it did not need to be addressed. To try to find out what the apostles taught we can go to the tradition of the Church to see what they did. Here are more examples of what the early Church fathers believed in regards to infant baptism. One even knew and studied under the apostle John. Polycarp was a direct pupil of the apostle John and he said the following;

[quote]Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and Saviour?
(Polycarp,Martyrdom of Polycarp,9(A.D. 156),in ANF,I:41)[/quote]

Polycarp was 86 when he said this before his martyrdom. He includes his childhood as part of the time following Christ before he had the ability of faith.

The following is a quote from Irenaeus who studied the faith under Polycarp who studied under the apostle John.

[quote]For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God--infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies,2,22:4 (A.D. 180),in ANF,I:391) [/quote]

And from the doctor of Grace Augustine;

[quote]"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).[/quote]




I would look at the following links from the reference section for more quotes.


--[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_of_Infant_Baptism.asp"]Early Teachings of Infant Baptism[/url]
--[url="http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/infant.htm"]On Infant Baptism[/url]
--[url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a110.htm"]Did Tertullian Reject Infant Baptism?[/url]

Edited September 19, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[Cure of Ars]

I need to make a correction. I am not 100% sure how old Polycarp was when he died. If my claim that he was 86 at is death is not true then my argument could be wrong. More research needs to be done. Although he would have to be in his 90's when he died if he was not baptized as an infant, which is unlikely.

I don't want you to be blind sided if I am wrong.

[goldenchild17]

Another question. What about babies that aren't baptised, where do they go? Do we know? By what means can we have an idea?

[Cure of Ars]

There in God's hands and his mercy. I think this is all we know.

[StColette]

That's my understanding of it as well, Cure. We are not for certain what an unbaptized baby's fate is we can only rely on the mercy of God and find comfort in Christ's love for children which is made evident in the Gospels.