Age Of Accountability

[jadams_4242]

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?

Would yu punish your 2 month old?

[Catholic Girl]

I also need to include Acts 2:38-39.

Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

"For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."

I don't see Peter saying "Repent, and each of you be baptized EXCEPT infants and young children until they reach the age of accountabilty in the name of Jesus Christ....."

"Each of you" is very inclusive. The promise is for you and your children.

No, there is no exclusion here.

*****I realize that I should qualify that I KNOW Peter is not calling babies and young children to repent. He's talking to the adults. Telling them to repent and get everyone in the household baptized and that this promise is for EVERYONE.

[Kate]

I also need to include Acts 2:38-39.

I don't see Peter saying "Repent, and each of you be baptized EXCEPT INFANTS in the name of Jesus Christ....."

"Each of you" is very inclusive. The promise is for you and your children, with the exception of your babies and young children, of course....

No, there is no exclusion here.

Yes, but that certainly doesn't say that the promise is for each of them all at the exact same time. Again, you see that Peter states says to repent first. How is an infant able to repent?

[Rommelator]

I think that Tad Callister has significantly cast doubt upon the biblical and historical justification for the baptism of infants in his book The Inevitable Apostasy and the Promised Restoration. Pages 221-231 therein respectively deal with this subject. He ably refutes many of the Catholic proof texts yanked from the Bible to support infant baptism.

I have yet to see Catholics deal with this work in any sort of responsible, scholarly way. If someone could point me to a responsible critique of this work I would be much obliged.

As for the biblical justification for the blessing of babies, perhaps Mark 10:16 can cast some light on the subject.

14 ...and [Jesus] said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

16 And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.

[Kate]

I also need to include Acts 2:38-39.

I don't see Peter saying "Repent, and each of you be baptized EXCEPT infants and young children until they reach the age of accountabilty in the name of Jesus Christ....."

"Each of you" is very inclusive. The promise is for you and your children.

No, there is no exclusion here.

*****I realize that I should qualify that I KNOW Peter is not calling babies and young children to repent. He's talking to the adults. Telling them to repent and get everyone in the household baptized and that this promise is for EVERYONE.

To be honest with you here, none of your posts have shown any validity to infant baptism. This particular scripture is only working for you because you are choosing to apply your own interpretation of it and that is quite a stretch at that. You seem a bit defensive, so maybe it's a good time to agree to disagree.

~Kate

[Catholic Girl]

Yes, but that certainly doesn't say that the promise is for each of them all at the exact same time. Again, you see that Peter states says to repent first. How is an infant able to repent?

You quoted me before I added the qualifying statement. Of course Peter is talking to the adults--telling them to repent. Peter is very clear and inclusive when he says "each of you." He wants the adults to repent and be an active part in bringing their own families to Christ.

I would imagine if I were sitting there with my young children, toddler, and baby listening to Peter, in no way would I think he was excluding them. Peter is further specific when he says that the promise is for you (those adults he's already addressed) AND YOUR CHILDREN.

Well, I have children under the age of accountability. Are they still children?

[Kate]

You quoted me before I added the qualifying statement. Of course Peter is talking to the adults--telling them to repent. Peter is very clear and inclusive when he says "each of you." He wants the adults to repent and be an active part in bringing their own families to Christ.

I would imagine if I were sitting there with my young children, toddler, and baby listening to Peter, in no way would I think he was excluding them. Peter is further specific when he says that the promise is for you (those adults he's already addressed) AND YOUR CHILDREN.

Well, I have children under the age of accountability. Are they still children?

I don't think you are reading my posts very well. Yes they are children. I refuse to go any further with this debate. You are refusing to acknowledge that one can talk about children (posterity). The promise will be to you and your children (each of them when they are able to repent and follow the criteria that he has set out very plainly in the New Testament.

[Catholic Girl]

To be honest with you here, none of your posts have shown any validity to infant baptism. This particular scripture is only working for you because you are choosing to apply your own interpretation of it and that is quite a stretch at that. You seem a bit defensive, so maybe it's a good time to agree to disagree.

~Kate

Defensive? Isn't that what I'm supposed to be here? I'm defending infant baptism.

I provided you the biblical support for infant baptism. I asked for your evaluation of those, yet the only blanket non-specific response you want to offer me is that "none have shown any validity"?

I think it would be courteous to be specific about why these particular scriptures are "only working for me because I am choosing to apply my own interpretation of it and that is quite a stretch at that."

First of all, it is NOT my own interpretation of it. It is that of the Catholic Church. It is from an Nihil Obstat article.

I really would like an LDS to try to specifically refute those cited biblical passages as not being supportive of infant and young children baptism if Kate won't.

[johnny]

Rommelator

I think that Tad Callister has significantly cast doubt upon the biblical and historical justification for the baptism of infants in his book The Inevitable Apostasy and the Promised Restoration.

Please provide the "historical justification" ... Since the earliest times, Baptism has been administered to children. Below is a quote from Irenaeus, he was a second-century bishop who had a personal link with the generation of the apostles through his mentor Polycarp. For more see the link below:

Infant Baptism

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/infant.htm

• Irenaeus "He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).
  

As for the biblical justification for the blessing of babies, perhaps Mark 10:16 can cast some light on the subject.

Mark 10:16 does not cast doubt on infant baptism because Jesus did not baptize ... it simply reveals that Jesus blessed.

[Kate]

Defensive? Isn't that what I'm supposed to be here? I'm defending infant baptism.

I provided you the biblical support for infant baptism. I asked for your evaluation of those, yet the only blanket non-specific response you want to offer me is that "none have shown any validity"?

I think it would be courteous to be specific about why these particular scriptures are "only working for me because I am choosing to apply my own interpretation of it and that is quite a stretch at that."

First of all, it is NOT my own interpretation of it. It is that of the Catholic Church. It is from an Nihil Obstat article.

I really would like an LDS to try to specifically refute those cited biblical passages as not being supportive of infant and young children baptism if Kate won't.

I haven't given blanket non-specific responses, and you posted one scriptural reference (unless I missed another) that doesn't show any such thing. I gave you specific criteria that is to be met for baptism and you did not even consider or respond to it. And...I was quite specific about why your reference didn't really support it. You must not be reading my posts very well.

[johnny]

Kate

This being said, how is an infant capable of meeting the conditions and doing what is required after?

The conditions of repentance and belief do not apply to an infant because an infant is not capable of believing and does not need to repent because they have no personal sin. Baptism is only the first stage, the later stages of observing what Christ taught comes later in the infants life.

[Kate]

Kate

The conditions of repentance and belief do not apply to an infant because an infant is not capable of believing and does not need to repent because they have no personal sin. Baptism is only the first stage, the later stages of observing what Christ taught comes later in the infants life.

Ok, show me where it says this in the Bible.

[johnny]

Kate

Ok, show me where it says this in the Bible.

As a Catholic I am not Bible only. If what I have presented is not consistent with the Bible then please show me those verses.

[Kate]

Kate

As a Catholic I am not Bible only. If what I have presented is not consistent with the Bible then please show me those verses.

I understand and respect that you are not Bible only. My argument lies in the idea that the Bible sets out criteria to be met for baptism, and that the only argument I am hearing is that those criteria may wait until after baptism. I do not find that to be supported.

~Kate

[johnny]

Kate

I understand and respect that you are not Bible only. My argument lies in the idea that the Bible sets out criteria to be met for baptism, and that the only argument I am hearing is that those criteria may wait until after baptism. I do not find that to be supported.

Your criteria for repentance is faulty because an infant has no personal sin to repent.

Your criteria for belief is faulty because an infant is incapable of believing.

Obeying commandments before baptism is not a criteria, obeying commandments comes after baptism.

[Kate]

Kate

Your criteria for repentance is faulty because an infant has no personal sin to repent.

Your criteria for belief is faulty because an infant is incapable of believing.

Obeying commandments before baptism is not a criteria, obeying commandments comes after baptism.

First of all...I did not set that criteria into place...Jesus Christ did. That is my point. No where did He say to baptize infants and then later they could meet the criteria.

Also, in my post, I said obeying the commandments was required after baptism.

This is from post #39

"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...""

[johnny]

Kate

First of all...I did not set that criteria into place...Jesus Christ did. That is my point. No where did He say to baptize infants and then later they could meet the criteria.

Also, in my post, I said obeying the commandments was required after baptism.

No where did He say it cannot occur in stages ...

[Kate]

Kate

No where did He say it cannot occur in stages ...

Where does He make an exception when He puts those requirements BEFORE baptism?

[johnny]

Kate

Where does He make an exception when He puts those requirements BEFORE baptism?

- Repent is not a requirement for a infant if they have no personal sin to repent.

- Belief is not a requirement for an infant if they are not capable of belief

[tomfoolery]

In Place of Circumcision

Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). 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.

This isn't necessarily true. Baptism is reffered to as a rebirth of a person (or being born again), so it seems perfectly acceptable for Paul to relate baptism to circumcision and not be referring to infant baptism.

[johnny]

tomfoolery

This isn't necessarily true. Baptism is reffered to as a rebirth of a person (or being born again), so it seems perfectly acceptable for Paul to relate baptism to circumcision and not be referring to infant baptism.

The parallelism is that if infant circumcision was appropriate for entrance into the Old Covenant, infant baptism is now appropriate for entrance into the New Covenant. In Colossians 2:11â??12 Paul compares Christian baptism to Jewish circumcision: â??In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.â?

See link for more information:

An Explanation of Infant Baptism

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0003fea4.asp

[Kate]

Kate

- Repent is not a requirement for a infant if they have no personal sin to repent.

- Belief is not a requirement for an infant if they are not capable of belief

Which validates my position that an infant does not require baptism. We seem to be going in circles with responses.

[jadams_4242]

tomfoolery

The parallelism is that if infant circumcision was appropriate for entrance into the Old Covenant, infant baptism is now appropriate for entrance into the New Covenant. In Colossians 2:11â??12 Paul compares Christian baptism to Jewish circumcision: â??In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.â?

See link for more information:

An Explanation of Infant Baptism

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0003fea4.asp

Ok lets accept the circumsism analogy of yours. Now tell me; do yu have any daughters? did Abraham. Isaic, jacob e.t.c...?

[johnny]

Kate

Which validates my position that an infant does not require baptism. We seem to be going in circles with responses.

Your position that "an infant does not require baptism" is not consistent with the Bible.

We are not born in a state of holiness, we not born of the Spirit. We are born of the flesh (John 3:6), in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3). We are dead in sin (Eph 2:1). We are by nature children of wrath (Eph 2:3). All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23).

Through baptism we are born of the Spirit (John 3:5.7). Baptism washes away our sins (Acts 22:16). Through baptism we are quickened (Col 2:12-13). Nothing unclean has an inheritance in the kingdom of God (Eph 5:5), the blood of Jesus cleans cleanseth us from all sin (1John 1:7).

[Kate]

Kate

Your position that "an infant does not require baptism" is not consistent with the Bible.

We are not born in a state of holiness, we not born of the Spirit. We are born of the flesh (John 3:6), in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3). We are dead in sin (Eph 2:1). We are by nature children of wrath (Eph 2:3). All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23).

Through baptism we are born of the Spirit (John 3:5.7). Baptism washes away our sins (Acts 22:16). Through baptism we are quickened (Col 2:12-13). Through baptism we are born of the Spirit (John 3:5-7). Nothing unclean has an inheritance in the kingdom of God (Eph 5:5), the blood of Jesus cleans cleanseth us from all sin (1John 1:7).

I really do disagree that my position is not consistent with the Bible, quite the opposite. But you refuse to show how anything I have said is discounted in the Bible.

I guess that's as far as we'll go though.

~Kate