Baptism of babies & infants

[ParkerD]

Didn’t you argue in the thread on original sin that God had not taught Adam and Eve about sin? If God did not teach them, how did they teach their children?

Rebecca J,
God had not taught Adam and Eve about sin in the Garden of Eden, but He did begin to teach them about sin after they had made the initial choice to sin and hence were cast out of the Garden of Eden and lost the physical presence of God. They could still hear His voice, and could be taught and were taught about the plan of Salvation including the atonement of Christ. They taught these teachings and also the law of sacrifice to their children, including to Cain and Abel.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Placido,
When Paul wrote about preaching “another gospel,” I have no doubt that this kind of doctrinal change was among the kinds of changes he was writing about. The Bible backs up all that I said above. You just don’t happen to see it. The Holy Ghost and its confirming witness also “backs up all that I said above.” You just don’t happen to have asked, or to have received an answer if you did ask in prayer about these specific doctrines.

Since you are so fond of telling people what and how they should pray; Try asking God to give you the gift of saying YES to TRUTH and NO to what is not true.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca J,
God had not taught Adam and Eve about sin in the Garden of Eden, but He did begin to teach them about sin after they had made the initial choice to sin and hence were cast out of the Garden of Eden and lost the physical presence of God. They could still hear His voice, and could be taught and were taught about the plan of Salvation including the atonement of Christ. They taught these teachings and also the law of sacrifice to their children, including to Cain and Abel.

You realize this makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

[placido]

Placido,
I personally would not use the word “classes”. I would use the words “stages of growth.” So babies and infants are in a “stage of growth” where the atonement has already saved them.

The problem is that you consider your personal opinion / understanding to be the gospel. Where does the Bible tell you that babies and “infants are in a stage of growth where the atonement has already saved them”?

As to your question of “where does the Bible say that,” I have cited relevant scriptures about that subject already during this thread. I’m not sure if you’re asking me to cite them again, or to come up with one that says “infants do not need baptism to be saved by free grace.” If the latter is what you’re looking for from me, then the Bible does not include a verse like that so I will not cite one.

Yet you expect me to just accept your word as if it were Christ’s gospel.

You can infer that verses say that everyone needs to be baptized, but I don’t agree with that inference and I have cited verses that demonstrate that the Savior did not teach that infants needed baptism nor did the apostles.

You don’t agree with what I say and I don’t agree with what you say - what then?

Placido,
When Paul wrote about preaching “another gospel,” I have no doubt that this kind of doctrinal change was among the kinds of changes he was writing about. The Bible backs up all that I said above. You just don’t happen to see it. The Holy Ghost and its confirming witness also “backs up all that I said above.” You just don’t happen to have asked, or to have received an answer if you did ask in prayer about these specific doctrines.

The Bible backs up all that I said above. You just don’t happen to see it. The Holy Ghost and its confirming witness also “backs up all that I said above.” You just don’t happen to have asked, or to have received an answer if you did ask in prayer about these specific doctrines …

That is what happens when individuals happen to know who “don’t happen to see”, who “don’t happen to ask and receive” etc.

placido

 

[ParkerD]

The problem is that you consider your personal opinion / understanding to be the gospel. Where does the Bible tell you that babies and “infants are in a stage of growth where the atonement has already saved them”?

Yet you expect me to just accept your word as if it were Christ’s gospel.

You don’t agree with what I say and I don’t agree with what you say - what then?

The Bible backs up all that I said above. You just don’t happen to see it. The Holy Ghost and its confirming witness also “backs up all that I said above.” You just don’t happen to have asked, or to have received an answer if you did ask in prayer about these specific doctrines …

That is what happens when individuals happen to know who “don’t happen to see”, who “don’t happen to ask and receive” etc.

placido

Placido,
I’m OK with your beliefs, especially the fairly recent modification in understanding or teaching about where infants who had not been baptized go if they die as infants. I appreciated that clarification of belief.

“Of such is the kingdom of Heaven.” I know that to be true. Christ loves infants and little children as they are, as He taught. I know that to be true. Peace to you and all.

 

[placido]

Placido,
I’m OK with your beliefs, especially the fairly recent modification in understanding or teaching about where infants who had not been baptized go if they die as infants. I appreciated that clarification of belief.

Most probably you are refering to “limbo”. That means you do not even know the diffrence between theological speculation and Church Dogma. Theologians are free to speculateon any issue until the Church finally comes in and makes an authoritative decision on the issue. Calling that a modification is a blatant lack of understanding. The clarification of the Trinity and the Biblical canon, hundreds of years after Christ, was not “recent modifications” but a question of Church intervention to come up with a binding decision.

placido

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I do not agree about your statement that says “if you accept the New Testament Christian teaching of original sin”, because I do not agree that the New Testament teaches the concept of “original sin.” But even if it did (which Christ did not teach and Paul did not teach and Peter did not teach and John did not teach and James did not teach), then the Old Testament teachings about the sacrificial lamb and the sacrificial goat teach that the blood sacrifice atones for the sins of the people, representative of Christ’s atonement.

Gabriel of 12;
Anyone can argue why the sky is not blue. Let’s be realistic here. You dont disagree with biblical Christian teachings of orginial sin from antiquity, You reject them. For one your founder of your theology does not come on the scene until the 1800’s. This Christian biblical teaching or original sin has existed a thousand years before your founder was ever concieved to reject them. Your theology does not agree with the Apostolic Church because it does not get invented by your founder 1800 years later. How can you pretend to interpret an ancient document such as the bible canonized by the Catholic Church who lives out the scriptures from antiquity.

I dont buy your 18th century interpretation of new revelations, using arguments that do not suffice reason, history, facts. I can appreciate your honesy by when stating “you dont know” but to include the word “we” dont know is not a matter of reasoning, but a one stance agenda to disagree by linguistic hurdels and unproven grammatical 20th century interpretations when tested against the sacred text. This salvation subject is not a matter to argue as one does in a courtroom, as you have displayed here. Salvation is proclaimed and lived out.

Parker D;
I have already disagreed and still disagree with your statement that said “Jesus teaching that No one can enter the Kingdom of God without Water and the Spirit.” I have already written why I disagree completely with the translation you have used for that verse.

Yes you have rejected this biblical verse from Jesus himself; Here are your words (The words “No one” are definitely a translation, and as I stated to Ricko earlier, **I don’t think we know **what connotation Jesus was conveying…The verse can be interpreted to mean what you have said–I certainly agree that it can. I disagree with that interpretation, and that is my right. We will not come to an agreement about the meaning of that verse).

Gabriel of 12;
Amen, you have a right, as does everybody in a courtroom setting. You have side stepped some strong biblical references and examples given of baptism saves now and “no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of Water and Spirit” (baptism). You have not answered if John the baptist was born without sin? If your 18th century theology believes that infants are born without sin, then you should have no problem accepting the ancient teaching of the Virgin Mary’s immacculate conception". You see how your theology begins to falter?

Arguing the scriptures as if in a legal courtroom, deals with only one subject, in doing so, your argument falls, because God’s Word in the full context cannot contradict itself. This is how the Catholic Church has taught these past 2000 years, believing all of God’s word, where no teaching contradicts itself in either Old Testamen revealed in the New Testament.

If you can reject Jesus own Words that “NO ONE Can enter the Kingdom of God” without first being born of water and Spirit, (baptism which saves you now). By stating “We dont know” to include all in your courtroom. Rejects the Apostles, early church fathers who taught what Jesus meant. That is why your rejection from the 21st century of what Jesus said, contradicts your theology, if Jesus truly meant what he said when speaking to a Learned teacher of the law Nicodemus,a lawyer like your self (hypothetically) took Jesus to mean something other, but as we read on Jesus clarifies what he meant from John 3:5-12. Jesus reveals things of the Kingdom on how one enters. An infant born has not entered the kingdom of God yet, unless he be born of water and spirit, because “NO ONE” may enter without baptism period.

So if the infant does not reach the age of reason and dies before this adult age of reason and sin. What happens to the soul of the unbaptised infant? How and when does he enter the Kingdom of God? If Jesus states “NO ONE” enters without rebirth of baptismal water and Spirit?

Again, I am not here to entertain you with Lawyering tactics of argument, it is known LDS are enlightened by such arguments. To disagree or to include verbage as “we dont know” to include your opponents, is not reasoning belief’s and understanding. But has displayed a personal agenda to argue already historical Christian doctrines written in Stone from eternity, with a new 18th century theology which contradicts the bible.

P.S The bible came after the Church, and the Catholic Church canonized the official bible. This is well known fact from both religious circles and secular historians. No need to argue this, accepting this fact may begin the road to a TRUE Christianity from antiquity, unbroken today.

Peace be with you

 

[ricko]

Romans 5. Verse 12 says that “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin.” And look at the evidence throughout verses 15–19: “Many died through one man’s trespass. . . . For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation. . . . Because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man. . . . Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men. . . . By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.”

By one man sin came into the world, it came to all men. There are no exceptions. It is a sin contracted and not committed. Every male and female born of the flesh contracts this sin called original sin. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6). One of the results of original sin is that we all must die. Infants, children, adults, all must die. We are born of the flesh not of the Spirit. We are not born holy. We come into the world as creatures of God. We cannot enter heaven with the stain of any sin. “Nothing defiled can enter heaven”.

Through baptism we are “born again”, all sin is washed away and we become children of God. Through baptism we become members of the body of Christ which is His Church and we receive the Holy Spirit. As the Bible tells us, the promise is to you and your children (cf. Acts 2:39).

 

[ParkerD]

Ricko, Gabriel of 12 and Placido,
I wanted to acknowledge each of your posts, and to thank each of you for your earnestness and devotion to your beliefs. I think you have communicated them well.

I suppose that I would be interested in knowing why one thinks Jesus was baptized when He was thirty and not when He was an infant, if baptism in infancy is the perfect way to do things (since He was perfect and Mary knew she was raising a Child who would be the ever-present example to eventually the whole world of how they should live their lives in the gospel)?

One thing that has quite amazed me is the thinking that seems to come across that the church of 150-200 AD had perfect knowledge of how the writings that became the Bible should be translated from their original language into Latin or Greek with absolute certainty as to what the original intent and meaning was. I don’t understand based on that idea, why there are different Catholic translations of the Bible into English. I still like the Douay-Rheims translation best out of the Catholic translations.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Ricko, Gabriel of 12 and Placido,
I wanted to acknowledge each of your posts, and to thank each of you for your earnestness and devotion to your beliefs. I think you have communicated them well.

I suppose that I would be interested in knowing why one thinks Jesus was baptized when He was thirty and not when He was an infant, if baptism in infancy is the perfect way to do things (since He was perfect and Mary knew she was raising a Child who would be the ever-present example to eventually the whole world of how they should live their lives in the gospel)?

One thing that has quite amazed me is the thinking that seems to come across that the church of 150-200 AD had perfect knowledge of how the writings that became the Bible should be translated from their original language into Latin or Greek with absolute certainty as to what the original intent and meaning was. I don’t understand based on that idea, why there are different Catholic translations of the Bible into English. I still like the Douay-Rheims translation best out of the Catholic translations.

Weren’t some originally in Greek?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Ricko, Gabriel of 12 and Placido,
I wanted to acknowledge each of your posts, and to thank each of you for your earnestness and devotion to your beliefs. I think you have communicated them well.

I suppose that I would be interested in knowing why one thinks Jesus was baptized when He was thirty and not when He was an infant, if baptism in infancy is the perfect way to do things (since He was perfect and Mary knew she was raising a Child who would be the ever-present example to eventually the whole world of how they should live their lives in the gospel)?

Mary and Joseph were Jewish. They would have had Jesus circumsized on the 8th day after His birth. Though Mary is an integral part of bringing God Incarnate into the world, caring for Him, raising Him, it is Jesus who fulfilled the Old Covenant and created the New Covenant. In Him and through Him.

He began His ministry first by being baptized, and teaching baptism as the initiation into the Kingdom of God. Why wait until then? All things are done in God’s time. Why wait 100 or 500 or 2000 years? Only God knows.

Jesus Himself did not require baptism to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. He was free from sin and is God, who brings us to Him by showing us the Way and giving us the graces found in the Sacraments.

One thing that has quite amazed me is the thinking that seems to come across that the church of 150-200 AD had perfect knowledge of how the writings that became the Bible should be translated from their original language into Latin or Greek with absolute certainty as to what the original intent and meaning was. I don’t understand based on that idea, why there are different Catholic translations of the Bible into English. I still like the Douay-Rheims translation best out of the Catholic translations.

Sacred Tradition, what is written and passed on orally, has existed since Jesus taught the Apostles, and they in turn taught others, and so on and so forth. The knowledge of all that Christ gave us is entrusted to His Church, beginning with Peter, and the other Apostles. Jesus guides His Church, through the power of the Holy Spirit, that He gave to the Apostles and the Church at Pentacost.

The OT used by the early Christians, was that in wide circulation at the time in Jerusalem. The Septuagint. It was a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. The NT began as writings of the Apostles, and those who followed them. Tradition states, that as the Apostles began to be killed, and Jesus had not yet returned (as His followers believed He would before their deaths), the Apostles and others wrote the teachings of Jesus Christ down. The perfect interpretation comes from Christ’s Church, what has been preserved and handed down for 2000 years.

The Early Church Fathers record that the four Gospels and the letters of Peter and Paul were in wide circulation among the bishops of the churches (as each apostolic see is referred to). Other early writing were in circulation as well, such as the didache and the letters of St. Clement.

In all the Church, there was one Gospel, one Apostolic teaching. As heresies arose, the bishops held councils to discuss and clarify doctrines that were in relationship to the particular heresy. What is known now as the Bible began to solidify with the Montanist heresy, which, was coming from a man and two women who were claiming to be prophet and prophetess. They were creating new scriptures, that were in opposition to what the Church had held and protected. The council of the time declared that no new scripture could be added to the Apostolic teachings, as, what Jesus had revealed, and what the Apostles taught, regarding our Salvation was and is perfect, and needs no further additions.

Always, there has been Tradition associated to the teachings of the Apostles. The liturgy, the maintaining of the leadership of the Church, the practices, the prayers, are all held by the Church as Sacred, but are not canonized in scripture.

To the translation, the Gospels and letters have long been translated into different languages. As they were circulated they were translated, as the needs of each church (see) were in many different languages.

The language in Rome was Latin, of course. St Jerome took the Greek Septuagint and the earliest writings he could find of the NT books and translated them into Latin. This is the roots of the Douay-Rhymes. The Latin Church used this translation, almost exclusively, until the 1960’s, when the reforms of Vatican II declared the Mass should be said in the language of the people. And, that translations of the Bible should also be made available in the language of the people.

If you read enough Catholic theoligcal writings, you will run into the phrase “retrieved from Tradition”. The practice of using the language of the people was retrieved from Tradition, as, this was the practice in the early church. It is why there are Latin, Greek, Syrica, etc. rites to begin with.

The American Bible that came from this change in practice, is the New American Bible. You can read in the introductions the process of translation. Since St. Jerome’s time, there have been great advances in language translation. Also, the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls provided another ancient source to compare to, providing additional means in preserving the original intent of the Apostolic writings.

To any other Bible transaltion, such as the King James, there is history of each one. King James decreed a Bible be translated into the language of the people. Which, falls in the time frame of Elizabethan English, the same language of Shakespear. You can google on the method of translation that was used for this Bible. Also, books that the Protestant reformers did not agree with were removed by the King’s church.

Hope that answers what you were asking.

 

[placido]

I suppose that I would be interested in knowing why one thinks Jesus was baptized when He was thirty and not when He was an infant, if baptism in infancy is the perfect way to do things

Jesus was circumcised as a baby (eight days old). Baptism has replaced circumcision. You are knowledgeable enough to know that.

placido

 

[placido]

I suppose that I would be interested in knowing why one thinks Jesus was baptized when He was thirty and not when He was an infant, if baptism in infancy is the perfect way to do things

Now, dear ParkerD, Jesus was baptized when He was 30 as you correctly stated. You prefer to follow this example, but do you follow His other example when He was circumcised as a baby? If not, where did your authority to pick and choose come from?

placido

 

[ParkerD]

Mary and Joseph were Jewish. They would have had Jesus circumsized on the 8th day after His birth. Though Mary is an integral part of bringing God Incarnate into the world, caring for Him, raising Him, it is Jesus who fulfilled the Old Covenant and created the New Covenant. In Him and through Him.

He began His ministry first by being baptized, and teaching baptism as the initiation into the Kingdom of God. Why wait until then? All things are done in God’s time. Why wait 100 or 500 or 2000 years? Only God knows.

Jesus Himself did not require baptism to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. He was free from sin and is God, who brings us to Him by showing us the Way and giving us the graces found in the Sacraments.

Sacred Tradition, what is written and passed on orally, has existed since Jesus taught the Apostles, and they in turn taught others, and so on and so forth. The knowledge of all that Christ gave us is entrusted to His Church, beginning with Peter, and the other Apostles. Jesus guides His Church, through the power of the Holy Spirit, that He gave to the Apostles and the Church at Pentacost.

The OT used by the early Christians, was that in wide circulation at the time in Jerusalem. The Septuagint. It was a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. The NT began as writings of the Apostles, and those who followed them. Tradition states, that as the Apostles began to be killed, and Jesus had not yet returned (as His followers believed He would before their deaths), the Apostles and others wrote the teachings of Jesus Christ down. The perfect interpretation comes from Christ’s Church, what has been preserved and handed down for 2000 years.

The Early Church Fathers record that the four Gospels and the letters of Peter and Paul were in wide circulation among the bishops of the churches (as each apostolic see is referred to). Other early writing were in circulation as well, such as the didache and the letters of St. Clement.

In all the Church, there was one Gospel, one Apostolic teaching. As heresies arose, the bishops held councils to discuss and clarify doctrines that were in relationship to the particular heresy. What is known now as the Bible began to solidify with the Montanist heresy, which, was coming from a man and two women who were claiming to be prophet and prophetess. They were creating new scriptures, that were in opposition to what the Church had held and protected. The council of the time declared that no new scripture could be added to the Apostolic teachings, as, what Jesus had revealed, and what the Apostles taught, regarding our Salvation was and is perfect, and needs no further additions.

Always, there has been Tradition associated to the teachings of the Apostles. The liturgy, the maintaining of the leadership of the Church, the practices, the prayers, are all held by the Church as Sacred, but are not canonized in scripture.

To the translation, the Gospels and letters have long been translated into different languages. As they were circulated they were translated, as the needs of each church (see) were in many different languages.

The language in Rome was Latin, of course. St Jerome took the Greek Septuagint and the earliest writings he could find of the NT books and translated them into Latin. This is the roots of the Douay-Rhymes. The Latin Church used this translation, almost exclusively, until the 1960’s, when the reforms of Vatican II declared the Mass should be said in the language of the people. And, that translations of the Bible should also be made available in the language of the people.

If you read enough Catholic theoligcal writings, you will run into the phrase “retrieved from Tradition”. The practice of using the language of the people was retrieved from Tradition, as, this was the practice in the early church. It is why there are Latin, Greek, Syrica, etc. rites to begin with.

The American Bible that came from this change in practice, is the New American Bible. You can read in the introductions the process of translation. Since St. Jerome’s time, there have been great advances in language translation. Also, the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls provided another ancient source to compare to, providing additional means in preserving the original intent of the Apostolic writings.

To any other Bible transaltion, such as the King James, there is history of each one. King James decreed a Bible be translated into the language of the people. Which, falls in the time frame of Elizabethan English, the same language of Shakespear. You can google on the method of translation that was used for this Bible. Also, books that the Protestant reformers did not agree with were removed by the King’s church.

Hope that answers what you were asking.

Rebecca J,
Thanks for this thorough and enlightening explanation. I appreciate it.

 

[ParkerD]

Now, dear ParkerD, Jesus was baptized when He was 30 as you correctly stated. You prefer to follow this example, but do you follow His other example when He was circumcised as a baby? If not, where did your authority to pick and choose come from?

placido

Placido,
My parents did have me circumcised.

I understand that your belief is that baptism replaced circumcision, and therefore should be done at about the same age as circumcision. I have been trying to explain that the new covenant was based on new teachings either replacing, fulfilling or expanding upon the old teachings, and replaced the old covenant in many more ways than baptism replacing circumcision. “New wine” was not put into “old bottles.” But I do understand the rationale you have explained. Thanks, and have a wonderful day, all.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

A note to this board;

Parker D, has revealed something to me, that amazed me from his humble comments May God bless Parker D…

The many Catholics who posted here, come from many different parts of the World, speak different languages, come from different cultures, never met in person, never attended the same Parish. But yet all though we are all different, our Catholic Faith never contradicts itself. The New Testament truly comes alive in the One body, One faith, One baptism, in One Lord Jesus Christ from his One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Truth does not conflict with the Will of God.

Peace of Jesus Christ be with you all

 

[placido]

Placido,
My parents did have me circumcised.

I see we are making some progress. Your parents made the decision without your consent but you don’t accuse them of anything. It is just fine so long they didn’t take the decision to have you baptized. To baptize a baby without his/her consent is more frightening than to circumcise a baby without his consent.
BTW, was your circumcision done based on culture or religion? (I am asking this because we, in Africa, have several pagan cultures that prescribe the circumcision of male babies and infants).

placido

 

[RebeccaJ]

A note to this board;

Parker D, has revealed something to me, that amazed me from his humble comments May God bless Parker D…

The many Catholics who posted here, come from many different parts of the World, speak different languages, come from different cultures, never met in person, never attended the same Parish. But yet all though we are all different, our Catholic Faith never contradicts itself. The New Testament truly comes alive in the One body, One faith, One baptism, in One Lord Jesus Christ from his One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Truth does not conflict with the Will of God.

Peace of Jesus Christ be with you all

Peace be with you.

 

[Cynthia_T]

The explaination by John Martignoni on his Apologetics site titled “Infant Baptism and Original Sin” How to defend the Church’s teachings regarding Infant Baptism and Original Sin from the Bible is extremely well done. biblechristiansociety.com/download It’s a free download and he has other great talks on his site too. One of my favourites is “Was Hitler Right?” My favourite part in the Baptism talk, is when he questions why Protestants expect us to prove Infant Baptism in the Bible but then will not show us anywhere in the Bible where it says to contracept. He puts it much better than myself. Check it out.

 

[Christian55]

Last update - 00:00 10/11/2008
U.S. Jewish group to Mormons: Stop baptizing Holocaust victims
By Associated Press
Tags: Holocaust, Mormons

This article reveals the Mormon practice of performing posthumous baptisms of Jews who died in Nazi concentration camps. I would urge all of you to read this article, by Associated Press, and others related to it. A documentary also aired on TV about this practice. The Mormon representatives did not deny taking names of Jews, who died during the Holocaust, and performing “posthumous baptisms” in the Mormon Temple.

**The list must surely include babies and infants. So, what would this posthumous Mormon baptism-by-proxy of babies and infants mean for the souls of these Jewish children?
**
Here are a few quotes from the article:

"Holocaust survivors said Monday they are through trying to negotiate with the Mormon Church over posthumous baptisms of Jews killed in Nazi concentration camps, saying the church has repeatedly violated a 13-year-old agreement barring the practice."

“Using genealogy records, the church also baptizes people who have died from all over the world and from different religions. Mormons stand in as proxies for the person being baptized and immerse themselves in a baptismal pool.”

For the full article, follow this link:

haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1036093.html