johnny Posted October 21, 2008 Posted October 21, 2008 Lightbearer Children are holy and are alive in Christ, therefore they are not accountable for sin, their parents are accountable to God and when the children arrive at the age of accountability then they are accountableChildren are not holy, children by nature are children of wrath (Eph 2:3).Children need baptism, all have sinned (Rom 3:23), children have sinful flesh (Rom 8;3).
saemo Posted October 21, 2008 Posted October 21, 2008 I am a Christian who believes in Padobaptism (infant baptism). I'm also an ex-mormon of 19 years. I have 3 wonderful children 9, 20 months and 5 months. What I am wondering is how anyone who has raised children can believe that kids aren't just as sinful as the rest of us? When my 20 month old is doing something wrong he is looking around to see if anyone is looking. He knows exactly what he is doing. My 9 year old has know right from wrong for many years. if my children aren't accountable to God before they are 8, why are they accountable to me as a parent? Should I not discipline my kids till they are 8? Why do I put myself before God? The reason I discipline my kids is because they are violating the law of God which commands them to honor and obey. They are sinning. I as a parent am holding them accountable to God's law and according to the LDS I am doing so before God holds them accountable to God's law. If I discipline my children for anything besides their failure to obey God's law I am sinning. I am to raise them in the fear and admonition of the Lord. They are to be taught from day one to honor their parents. To obey even when they don't want to, just as we are to obey God when our desire is otherwise. There is none without sin, yet somehow children are exempt. Would the parents of young children who hold to the LDS view of "age of accountability" explain why their children who rebel against them are accountable to them as parents, but not accountable to God?I don't know your beliefs, but my belief is that the personal sins you are speaking of is not why we baptize infants.I don't believe an infant or a child is capable of personal sin because to sin requires knowledge that ones actions are sinful. Though your little ones are sneaking, they are doing so innocently. They may understand that they will get in trouble with you, but do they really understand the action they are sneaking is sin? A trespass against God? Not at so young an age.Once they are able to understand that certain actions are in fact sinful, then they have the mercy of God to forgive them of those sins. Until then, they are just being innocent kids.
emeliza Posted October 21, 2008 Posted October 21, 2008 KateTry John 3:3,5 ... Jesus taught "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God". Jesus who was without personal sin was baptized to fulfill all righteousness.Jesus was an adult. He also said except a MAN be baptized of water and of the spirit. It does not speak of infants. I would say the age of 8 is a little young to be considered a man, but not totally unreasonable. I believe in the jewish religion it is 13 so we are closer than an infant.Now I don't knock infant baptism because generally the covenant being made is between the parents, godparents and congregation with God, not the child. Both my children were baptized at my old church and I believe I made the covenant.
johnny Posted October 21, 2008 Posted October 21, 2008 emelizaJesus was an adult. He also said except a MAN be baptized of water and of the spirit. It does not speak of infants. I would say the age of 8 is a little young to be considered a man, but not totally unreasonable. I believe in the jewish religion it is 13 so we are closer than an infant.In John 3 I understand MAN as being human kind since this would include females in his teaching. My point with Jesus is that Jesus was baptized even though he had no personal sin.
emeliza Posted October 21, 2008 Posted October 21, 2008 emelizaIn John 3 I understand MAN as being human kind since this would include females in his teaching. My point with Jesus is that Jesus was baptized even though he had no personal sin.I agree with Jesus being baptized even without sin. I do not agree that MAN means human beings. I believe it means older human beings. MAN and woMAN. But we can disagree. That is why we are in different churches.
Jason Posted October 21, 2008 Posted October 21, 2008 My point with Jesus is that Jesus was baptized even though he had no personal sin.At age 30.
tomfoolery Posted October 21, 2008 Posted October 21, 2008 At long last! Someone has done something to change me from a lurker, to a member. So here we go.I think that you are misconstruing the scriptures here, johnny, and I wish to respond to that. Forgive me if I offend you as that is not my intention. (just as a side note. I'm responding from the KJV of the Bible)Children are not holy, children by nature are children of wrath (Eph 2:3).The scripture goes like this:"Among whom (speaking of Satan) also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others."To me, this does not say that children are of wrath, but that before conversion to Christ, Paul and the Ephesians were "Children of Wrath" or in other words: followers of Satan to one degree of another. This scripture says nothing of the "nature" of children or of any man, for that matter. It just states that everyone has sinned at some point before their conversion.Children need baptism, all have sinned (Rom 3:23), children have sinful flesh (Rom 8;3).These next scriptures also seem to me that they do not specifically imply children, though I suppose that one could extend them reasonably to make it so, but I would hesitate to stretch it that far.As far as infant baptism goes. It really comes down to whether you believe in continuing revelation.
johnny Posted October 21, 2008 Posted October 21, 2008 tomfooleryAt long last! Someone has done something to change me from a lurker, to a member. So here we go.Welcome to the board â?¦To me, this does not say that children are of wrath, but that before conversion to Christ, Paul and the Ephesians were "Children of Wrath" or in other words: followers of Satan to one degree of another. This scripture says nothing of the "nature" of children or of any man, for that matter. It just states that everyone has sinned at some point before their conversion.You are making my point, you say â??everyone has sinned at some point before their conversionâ?. We are by nature the children of wrath or children of the devil. After we are born again we children of God. Before we are born again we are dead in sins. Through baptism we are born again.These next scriptures also seem to me that they do not specifically imply children, though I suppose that one could extend them reasonably to make it so, but I would hesitate to stretch it that far.Children have flesh. I would include children in â??all have sinnedâ? because children have sinful flesh.As far as infant baptism goes. It really comes down to whether you believe in continuing revelation.Or it comes down to if you believe in apostolic tradition, infant baptism is an apostolic tradition.
saemo Posted October 21, 2008 Posted October 21, 2008 As far as infant baptism goes. It really comes down to whether you believe in continuing revelation. Catholics believe in continuing revelation, are you saying you don't?
Lightbearer Posted October 21, 2008 Posted October 21, 2008 Lightbearer Children are not holy, children by nature are children of wrath (Eph 2:3).Children need baptism, all have sinned (Rom 3:23), children have sinful flesh (Rom 8;3).According to your interpretation of scripture. However, I was stating the LDS position. We do not believe that children are "tainted" with "original sin" but are saved through the mercy of Christ. We get this also from here:(Moses 6:53-62) "And our father Adam spake unto the Lord, and said: Why is it that men must repent and be baptized in water? And the Lord said unto Adam: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden. Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world. And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying: Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good. And it is given unto them to know good from evil; wherefore they are agents unto themselves, and I have given unto you another law and commandment. Wherefore teach it unto your children, that all men, everywhere, must repent, or they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God, for no unclean thing can dwell there, or dwell in his presence; for, in the language of Adam, Man of Holiness is his name, and the name of his Only Begotten is the Son of Man, even Jesus Christ, a righteous Judge, who shall come in the meridian of time. Therefore I give unto you a commandment, to teach these things freely unto your children, saying: That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory; For by the water ye keep the commandment; by the Spirit ye are justified, and by the blood ye are sanctified; Therefore it is given to abide in you; the record of heaven; the Comforter; the peaceable things of immortal glory; the truth of all things; that which quickeneth all things, which maketh alive all things; that which knoweth all things, and hath all power according to wisdom, mercy, truth, justice, and judgment. And now, behold, I say unto you: This is the plan of salvation unto all men, through the blood of mine Only Begotten, who shall come in the meridian of time."It is a contemptible heresy to say that children are capable of committing sin and a mockery to God to say they need baptism. This is not a doctrine that is supported by the Bible, the scriptures you sight can be interpreted differently from your interpretation and all you really have is a tradition of men that has been denounced by God as abominable in His sight.
johnny Posted October 21, 2008 Posted October 21, 2008 LightbearerIt is a contemptible heresy to say that children are capable of committing sin and a mockery to God to say they need baptism. This is not a doctrine that is supported by the Bible, the scriptures you sight can be interpreted differently from your interpretation and all you really have is a tradition of men that has been denounced by God as abominable in His sight.I am not saying â??children are capable of committing sinâ?. â??original sinâ? is not personal sin.
Kate Posted October 21, 2008 Posted October 21, 2008 I will answer that question with a question.Where are the examples in the Bible where young children raised in a family of believers were then baptized upon reaching the age of accountability?Ok, if you insist on answers being questions, here is mine: Where are the examples of infants of a family of believers that are baptized while infants?~Kate
3DOP Posted October 21, 2008 Posted October 21, 2008 Lightbearer quotes a Latter Day Scripture, Moroni 8:8-26, for giving the LDS view of infant baptism. There is a passage in the Koran where it claims that Jesus cannot be God merely because He ate food. As though we hadn't noticed. At this point the Koran clearly doesn't have a grasp of what it claims to oppose. I think the same observation can be made of this attempt to oppose infant baptism. Moroni 8"Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin...3DOPCatholics and I think most Protestants will agree that children are not capable of actual sin. The children however are not whole. Without exception they misbehave and eventually sin. Catholics and most Protestants believe it is because of the wounds of original sin passed on to the heirs of Adam. So from the beginning of the Latter Day scriptural polemic, it makes a false assumption and begins by opposing something that no one believes. Namely, it proposes that the reason pedobaptists think children need baptized is because we think they have actually sinned. Continuing... Moroni 8...wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me. And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children. 3DOPI thought Mormons didn't believe in any effects of the Fall of Adam upon his heirs. Yet, here we see that Christ has taken it from the little children. I have heard Mormons rail against the idea of original sin, but what is "the curse of Adam" if it isn't original sin passed on to Adam's offspring? Now its okay with me for purpose of this thread that Mormons believe it is taken away without baptism. Mormons know that the early church didn't have the Book of Moroni, right? So where in the Former Day Scriptures do we see that it is so clear that the curse of Adam is taken away from the little children so clearly that to baptize them is not merely an error of someone who is doing their best with the light they have, but "solemn mockery"? Solemn mockery? I couldn't take that charge seriously in my wildest dreams. The only mockery I am familiar with in regards to infant baptism takes place when people who are ignorant of the nuances of the teaching behind the practice, and the biblical and traditional foundations for the teaching, make up some kind of nonsense about how it must mean that pedobaptists think babies are depraved hell-bound sinners. Moroni 8Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teachâ??repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children. And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins. But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world...3DOPThis is incompatible with Catholic Tradition. We don't believe our first birth gives us a life of supernatural grace. We think that is why Our Lord said twice that to enter the kingdom of God, one must be "born again". The first birth isn't good enough. Now, of course you would hold that the Latter Day Scriptures declare otherwise and they clearly do, but again, how are the so-called "solemn mockers" never having heard of Moroni supposed to know that the first birth has brought children alive in Christ, apparently back to the beginning? Now that I have heard of this idea, I am not inclined toward it because if Moroni could misunderstand the reason for infant baptism, I can't have confidence in this following remarkable claim. Moroni 8...if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism! Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell. 3DOPThis argument is as certainly based on misunderstanding as what I cited above from the Koran. And what is the final state of the infant in what Moroni calls "endless hell"? The torutres of hell fire? No, for the punishment of orignal sin is only deprivation of the vision of God. The punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell.---Pope Innocent III, 1198-1216, Denz. 410I have asked this more than once over the years without seeing an answer, so my guess may be wrong. Do Mormons say that every dead baby goes to the highest places in the celestial kingdom? If I am not mistaken, LDS eschatology holds to three different states of salvation which avoid hell. But I am not so sure that the "endless hell" of the unbaptized baby is any worse than the low kingdoms that Mormons seem to imagine. The only "hell" that unbaptized infants can experience is negative. No positive punishment. They can therefore live a painless existence forever where they can enjoy every good of which a natural man is capable. This is the very picture given by Dante in his poetic journey through hell around 1300. Since then, there has been more and more speculation among Catholics about how we may hope for more with regard to infants. I don't tend to believe it, but maybe that is because the "hell" of the infants is a fine existence. I think a lot of people would love it. It seems fitting to me that some would live good and just lives as natural men and women for eternity, and it will be a noble and dignified station. The real irony is that the "heaven" desired by people who don't want to be "praying and praising all the time" would have been theirs if they had died as an unbaptized infant! MoroniBehold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell. 3DOPThe difference between the natural eternity of an unbaptized infant and the supernatural atmosphere of heaven is a gulf so great that it cannot be exaggerated. If I must go down to hell because I would that my grandchildren were baptized for the reasons I have expressed above, so be it. Besides the humble fisherman, God chose a Hebrew scholar, St. Paul, to show that Christianity understood the Mosaic covenant. I don't think Muhammad understood the Christians. He was supposed to be a prophet and when he spoke of the Christians, we would expect a prophet to know what he is talking about. That God wouldn't explain to Moroni why we baptize infants, and that Moms and Dads and grandparents and godparents who make this mistake "must go down to hell" is incredible to me. I am sorry to be so critical. But It is one thing for you to hold to believer's baptism. It is another thing altogether to have a prophet who doesn't even understand the issues proclaiming damnation to well meaning people who if we are wrong have good intentions and motives. Moroni 8For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism. Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for perfect love casteth out all fear. And I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me; wherefore, I love little children with a perfect love; and they are all alike and partakers of salvation. For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity. Little children cannot repent; wherefore, it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of God unto them, for they are all alive in him because of his mercy. And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption. Wo unto such, for they are in danger of death, hell, and an endless torment. I speak it boldly; God hath commanded me. 3DOPPretty much repetition here. Take note though. "God hath commanded me." He is speaking as a prophet here, right? Catholics and Protestants like me and my kids and my parents are on our way to hell if believing that unbaptized infants will live a pain free, active and satisfying natural life forever, we would that they might have supernatural life through baptism? Moroni 8Listen unto them and give heed, or they stand against you at the judgment-seat of Christ. For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothingâ?? But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works. Behold, my son, this thing ought not to be; for repentance is unto them that are under condemnation and under the curse of a broken law. And the first fruits of repentance is baptism; and baptism cometh by faith unto the fulfilling the commandments; and the fulfilling the commandments bringeth remission of sins; And the remission of sins bringeth meekness, and lowliness of heart; and because of meekness and lowliness of heart cometh the visitation of the Holy Ghost, which Comforter filleth with hope and perfect love, which love endureth by diligence unto prayer, until the end shall come, when all the saints shall dwell with God."3DOPI understand the arguments for believer's baptism. In my opinion, the Former Day Scripture alone is inconclusive. I believe in infant baptism on the authority of the Catholic Church. I thought I had encountered the most rigorous of believer's baptizers in college where we used similar arguments as Moroni does for why it is foolish to baptize babies. We didn't one time examine what Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and many others believe. We just mocked the "Baby Sprinklers", as we called them. We never bothered to learn what they said about the Old Testament precedent of circumcision for infants, a ceremonial rite with some similarities, and New Testament parallels to what the pedobaptist thinks takes place in baptism. We just mocked. I was appalled at my own ignorance when I began to study the issue. It seems problematic that someone claiming to be a prophet of God doesn't seem better informed than my Baptist comrades and I were. Speaking with similar assurance, he gravely warns of an impending doom that could be no more sobering. Way over half the Christian world is in the same danger, according to the prophet, for being in a state he calls "the gall of bitterness" whatever that means. Our mistake/error/sin is an exhibition of bitterness? Wo unto such, for they are in danger of death, hell, and an endless torment. I speak it boldly; God hath commanded me.---This is so terribly disproportionate punishment to the offense that I am convinced that Moroni couldn't have said it unless he thought that pedobaptism implies eternal baby torment. It obviously does not, and a prophet of God would not oppose with so much vehemence, that which hardly any individuals have believed, and no church has ever taught. I just thought of something...I'll be fair and offer some help...Maybe you guys believe he was speaking of groups of pedobaptists in the early Americas? Okay. Okay. That might get him off the hook with me. But you can't apply what Moroni says to what the Catholic and Protestant Christians believe...that is unless you can find someone who believes in eternal baby torment. Is that fair? 3DOP
Kate Posted October 21, 2008 Posted October 21, 2008 Ok, I know I said I would respond so I'll do so. Johnny, one question I have since you seem to agree with me for the most part except the original sin part...is where in the Bible does it say that original sin must be repented of before baptism? For what was asked me earlier:My thoughts are this. Throughout the New Testament, there are conditions one must meet to be baptized. They include:Repentence: Matt 3:8 "Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance" Acts 2:38 "Repent and be baptized"Receive His word: Acts 2:41 "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized..."Believe His word: Acts 8: 36,37 "...what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest."What is required once you are baptized? to be disciples of Christ and obey the commandments.Matt. 28:20 "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you..."This being said, how is an infant capable of meeting the conditions and doing what is required after?~KateThere are many more you can find.
Kate Posted October 21, 2008 Posted October 21, 2008 Catholic Girl:Do you believe baptism is required of everyone, including those who come from a family of believers? Then why make the implication that if an infant is born into a family of believers that they would be required to be baptized as an infant instead of when they are the age of accountability?~Kate
Bat-Man Posted October 21, 2008 Posted October 21, 2008 What I am wondering is how anyone who has raised children can believe that kids aren't just as sinful as the rest of us? When my 20 month old is doing something wrong he is looking around to see if anyone is looking. He knows exactly what he is doing.Sin requires actual knowledge of good (God) and evil (Satan), not just knowledge of someone else (like an earthly parent) or what that someone else claims to know, so the fact that a 20 month old child has learned what an earthly parent likes or don't like doesn't necessarily mean that child has attained knowledge of good and evil.My 9 year old has known right from wrong for many years.Again, the fact that your 9 year old child has known what YOU call right and wrong, and what some other people who agree with YOU call right and wrong, doesn't necessarily mean that 9 year old child has attained actual knowledge of good (God) and evil (Satan).If my children aren't accountable to God before they are 8, why are they accountable to me as a parent?In what sense do you believe your children are accountable to you?Have they entered into a contract with you in which they agreed to obey you?The fact that you punish your children when they don't do as you say, and that you reward them when you do what they say, doesn't necessarily mean they have attained a (memorable) knowledge of good (God) and evil (Satan). It could be... as a possibility... that they simply know enough to stay out of trouble with you and others like you without gaining any actual knowledge of God or Satan.Should I not discipline my kids till they are 8?Yes, you should "discipline" them, if by "discipline" you are referring to teaching or training your children in the way (you believe) they should go, just as God disciplines them to teach them the way He wants them to go.Why do I put myself before God?Are you saying you actually do? I wouldn't recommend doing that.I think you should teach them to go to God for their own answers, just as you have or should be doing, while sharing with them what God has taught you and at no time violating their own agency.
Calm Posted October 21, 2008 Posted October 21, 2008 I find Brant Gardner's discussion about Moroni 8 (and 6) interesting for a number of reasons, one of which is that Moroni may not be speaking against infant baptism as is practiced today, at least not all such.The particular disputation that concerns Mormon is the baptism of “little children.” Note that this is not specifically infant baptism, though it certainly includes that. The Book of Mormon specific instruction is that concerned with little children, not infant children. This may or may not be significant. We do not get enough information to clearly understand the nature of the disputed rite.It has been asserted, however, that this is an example of how the Book of Mormon responds to issues prevalent in Joseph Smith’s day, when there were certainly disputations concerning the Catholic practice of infant baptism, and the reaction to that which required informed baptisms, necessarily indicating that infants should not be baptized, being unable to intelligently accept the meaning behind the symbol.This assumption of modern issue-influence also assumes that the modern context was the influence because it can be demonstrated, and it also assumes that there was no ancient influence creating the same questions and issues. This is where the difficulties with our Mesoamerican documentation come in to play, for our evidence for the nature of religious rites comes from after the Conquest, and center on the Aztec beliefs, which post-date the Book of Mormon. However, we are now examining a period in the Book of Mormon that is at the close, and the time-depth difference is smaller. Once again, the persistence of religion in non-modern societies does suggest the probability of cultural continuity over much longer time periods than exist in this modern and rapidly changing world.The Aztecs practiced an infant-washing ritual that was so similar to the Catholic baptism that it was declared to be a baptism by sympathetic Spanish Fathers. The presence of a religious belief system that produced the need to wash (and spiritually cleanse the infant) could easily influence Christian baptismal practice, just as it did in the Old World.Some time after 100 AD, the Didache gave the following rules for baptism:“And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. (“Didache” Early Christian Fathers. Ed. Cyril C. Richardson. Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.1970, p. 174).The interesting part of this is the dual provision for immersion, and casting water on the head. The clear preference is for immersion, a point that is clear from other early sources of baptismal practices (Paul F. Bradshaw. The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship. Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 155). What makes the casting of the water on the head is that it is specifically mentioned as requiring the act to be repeated three times. The Didache is a document written in Greek, and certainly Greek funeral practices would be familiar to many in the Greek speaking world. The Greek preference for disposing of the dead was burial, but there was a provision for the merciful symbolic burial of someone by casting three handsful of dirt on the head. That was considered a sufficient burial if one did not have the time. This is the precise model that we see being adopted into the Didache community’s baptismal practice. The baptism has adopted the Pauline association of death and resurrection. Therefore, the immersion is the analog of a full burial. When one is unable to perform the rite properly, however, the Greek symbolic burial informs the Christian symbolic baptism, and three handsful of water “bury” where the actually burial was three handsful of dirt.It is this cross-breeding of symbolic content that could easily have occurred to give rise to the suggestion for the need of infant baptism.I think all readers, both believing and critical, should be careful not to assume too much into this passage about the practicioners of infant baptism in specific (past and present) denominations though it does point out that it is an incorrect practice.Brant also makes the point that it is being taught that baptism should only be given to those who understand not only sin, but also about choice and agency. Even if children have agency, they do not always understand it (this is a big problem with abuse because children don't recognize they have a real right to tell an adult "no" in certain situations; of course, others seem to be quite capable of this from day one, but they may mean it differently than an adult does who understands the implications of his decision) nor do they understand sufficiently the consequences of using such agency. Because we must voluntarily sin, we must voluntarily accept the redemption from sin through baptism. The issue is one of timing. The baptism of little children recognizes the need for baptism, but misunderstands the relationship of baptism to the ability to exercise agency. We cannot sin until we are responsible for our actions, therefore, there is no need for baptism until that time. The idea of baptizing little children therefore simply misapplies the principles.http://frontpage2000.nmia.com/~nahualli/LD...oni/Moroni8.htm---As to the Bible showing families baptizing children of what we consider now the age of accountability, I have no problem with the idea that at different times the Lord issues different procedures based on underlying principles. Baptism must be delayed until the age of accountability, but the Lord could also choose to have other criteria that would delay it even further in certain eras...just as priesthood and sealing restrictions have varied, still based on the consistent underlying principles.As to why he might change these restrictions, I can only speculate so I'll leave it at that except to point out that it seems to me in past ages, ties between the community a child grew to adulthood in were much more stable for most than they are in this day where families are at time far away from other extended family as well as moving every few years (I am now curious about how often families moved in the past, in various decades of the 1800s and how that has changed until our current patterns)...perhaps you can see where my speculation leads me at this time.
Catholic Girl Posted October 21, 2008 Posted October 21, 2008 Catholic Girl:Do you believe baptism is required of everyone, including those who come from a family of believers? Then why make the implication that if an infant is born into a family of believers that they would be required to be baptized as an infant instead of when they are the age of accountability?~KateOf course. We know the baptism of infants to be the correct practice due to the Church's tradition and the teachings of the Fathers of the Church.
Kate Posted October 21, 2008 Posted October 21, 2008 Of course. We know the baptism of infants to be the correct practice due to the Church's tradition and the teachings of the Fathers of the Church.Ok, I can understand and respect that that is your belief, but you have no scripture to back it up, right? Just wondering.
Catholic Girl Posted October 21, 2008 Posted October 21, 2008 Ok, if you insist on answers being questions, here is mine: Where are the examples of infants of a family of believers that are baptized while infants?~KateYeah--I'll produce that just as soon as you produce examples of young children raised in a family of believers being baptized upon reaching the age of accountability.
Kate Posted October 21, 2008 Posted October 21, 2008 Yeah--I'll produce that just as soon as you produce examples of young children raised in a family of believers being baptized upon reaching the age of accountability.Yet the criteria that Jesus Christ requires for baptism could be followed by those who have reached and age of accountability, whereas an infant would not be able to meet that criteria.
Catholic Girl Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 Ok, I can understand and respect that that is your belief, but you have no scripture to back it up, right? Just wondering.Of COURSE the Bible backs it up.From Catholic Answers:Christ Calls All to BaptismAlthough 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 Christâ??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 Lukeâ??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, â??Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of Godâ??" (Luke 18:15â??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"â??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? And here:In Place of CircumcisionFurthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11â??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. Specific Biblical References?But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paulâ??s preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16). In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture. Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.
Catholic Girl Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 Yet the criteria that Jesus Christ requires for baptism could be followed by those who have reached and age of accountability, whereas an infant would not be able to meet that criteria.Could you be specific about the criteria?
Kate Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 Could you be specific about the criteria?I was, didn't you read my post? Post #39
Catholic Girl Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 I was, didn't you read my post? Post #39Yeah, sorry--I had missed it since I only read the first sentence initially and it seemed as if it were addressed specifically to Johnny to respond.While I evaluate that, perhaps you can respond to those examples I provided from the Bible that support the baptism of Infants.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.