Baptism of babies & infants

[ricko]

The purpose of “suffer the little children” was not for the purpose of baptism as Jesus did not baptize anyone. It was to make it clear that the kingdom of God was for everyone.

Joseph Smith of course did not believe in infant baptism so naturally he would write that long chapter about it in the BOM. But if you look at the bible, infant baptism is not only not condemned but is certainly implied. Jesus said “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter heaven” Jesus did not say women must be baptized but in the statement it is certainly implied. “A man” constitutes everyone of every race or gender and he did not put an age requirement on baptism. “Repent and be baptized” is used many times by the Mormons to disprove infant baptism. This does not work however as the requirement to “repent” is not required of children. Since they have nothing to repent of it does not apply to them.

If infant baptism was so terrible as written in the BOM, then the same message would be in the bible but it is not. Proving once again that the BOM teaches a different gospel and the bible has warned us about that.

 

[ParkerD]

A child is just as incapable of intrinsic moral understanding as an infant is. The point is irrelevant.

There are lots of things Christ did which surprised the Apostles and so much to teach that it doesn’t surprise me that this MAY have been the first time the subject came up since it may also have been the first time that people brought their children to Jesus. It is also possible that the disciples just weren’t getting it from previous (unrecorded) events, as it is often shown in the gospels how the disciples need to be repeatedly reminded of certain facts.

Promethius,
My child aged twelve has “intrinsic moral understanding.”

It is more probable that Christ never taught that infants needed to be baptized, and that the apostles rebuked the people because they thought the Savior’s time was more valuable to spend teaching adults than blessing infants. But the Savior clearly taught that the infants were just as precious, that He could bless them, and that adults needed to become as a little child by learning to have the faith of a child and the humility of a child.

 

[ParkerD]

The purpose of “suffer the little children” was not for the purpose of baptism as Jesus did not baptize anyone. It was to make it clear that the kingdom of God was for everyone.

Joseph Smith of course did not believe in infant baptism so naturally he would write that long chapter about it in the BOM. But if you look at the bible, infant baptism is not only not condemned but is certainly implied. Jesus said “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter heaven” Jesus did not say women must be baptized but in the statement it is certainly implied. “A man” constitutes everyone of every race or gender and he did not put an age requirement on baptism. “Repent and be baptized” is used many times by the Mormons to disprove infant baptism. This does not work however as the requirement to “repent” is not required of children. Since they have nothing to repent of it does not apply to them.

If infant baptism was so terrible as written in the BOM, then the same message would be in the bible but it is not. Proving once again that the BOM teaches a different gospel and the bible has warned us about that.

Rick O,
If they don’t need to “repent” (which I certainly agree with), then I assume you’re saying they need to be baptized because of “original sin.” Why did Jesus never speak about that, teach about that, nor his apostles other than an obscure reference by Paul that said Adam brought sin into the world?

How does “man” end up meaning “infant”? I certainly agree that it is “man” or “woman”, but I doubt that any translator would take the Hebrew word and have it mean “infant” in the translation.

 

[promethius]

Promethius,
My child aged twelve has “intrinsic moral understanding.”

It is more probable that Christ never taught that infants needed to be baptized, and that the apostles rebuked the people because they thought the Savior’s time was more valuable to spend teaching adults than blessing infants. But the Savior clearly taught that the infants were just as precious, that He could bless them, and that adults needed to become as a little child by learning to have the faith of a child and the humility of a child.

The catholic church does not consider someone who is 12 to be a “child”. At that point they are adolescent. The age of moral cognition is generally considered to be 7 within the church, which is why at that age a child is allowed to begin the process for confirmation.

As already stated, baptism is the initial impartation of God’s grace. It does not good to have a huggy moment with a child if you don’t baptise them. There are plenty of other arguments in favor of children before the age of moral conscience and children being baptised as well, including the fact that it is called the equivalent of circumcision for the new covenant… and circumcision was CERTAINLY open to infants. I think it’s a shame when some protestants dismiss the significance of how the new covenant mirrors the old, it really kills the depth of the faith and makes it something two dimensional.

 

[ricko]

Rick O,
If they don’t need to “repent” (which I certainly agree with), then I assume you’re saying they need to be baptized because of “original sin.” Why did Jesus never speak about that, teach about that, nor his apostles other than an obscure reference by Paul that said Adam brought sin into the world?

How does “man” end up meaning “infant”? I certainly agree that it is “man” or “woman”, but I doubt that any translator would take the Hebrew word and have it mean “infant” in the translation.

Obscure? The bible certainly can be obscure to those who don’t have the guidance of the Catholic Church. Once you are guided by the Church, those verses no longer are obscure. Take Acts 15:20 which forbids the eating of blood. The Jehovah Witnesses use this same verse to prove their case of refusing blood transfusions.

So Parker, please tell me, is the bible saying we can’t drink blood or is it saying something else?

Yes Parker, this IS A TEST!

 

[ParkerD]

Obscure? The bible certainly can be obscure to those who don’t have the guidance of the Catholic Church. Once you are guided by the Church, those verses no longer are obscure. Take Acts 15:20 which forbids the eating of blood. The Jehovah Witnesses use this same verse to prove their case of refusing blood transfusions.

So Parker, please tell me, is the bible saying we can’t drink blood or is it saying something else?

Yes Parker, this IS A TEST!

The whole chapter 15 of Acts is a very important chapter. Thanks for bringing it up. It is talking about the Gentiles who were being converted, and also “certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed” (v. 5) who thought the Gentile converts needed to be circumcised and to keep the law of Moses, and “there had been much disputing.” (v. 7) But the apostles and elders met together and straightened out the disputes, and asked that letters be written to the Gentile converts with the reminder you noted.

So even though the law of Moses had been fulfilled in Christ’s atonement and resurrection, the part of the law of Moses dealing with not eating blood was considered still important. Circumcision was not necessary for the Gentile converts. But at no time is there any inference that infants were needing to be baptized in lieu of being circumcised. However, with the disputes evident in the church as new converts came into it in different areas, one can easily see how certain people could argue that the age of baptism should be the same age as the circumcision under the law of Moses had commonly occurred. The difference is that baptism is always talked about as the baptism of repentance, whereas circumcision is talked about as a sign of the old covenant. Baptism had been done by John the Baptist and his followers, but under the new covenant gospel the gift of the Holy Ghost was given after baptism, as noted in Acts 19:2-6. The two go together: the baptism by water and the baptism by fire, as the Savior had taught to Nicodemus in John 3.

 

[placido]

Promethius,
If infant baptism were expected and taught, then why did the apostles “rebuke” those who were bringing the infants to Christ? Of course they would not have rebuked them. They would have said, “bring them and we will baptize them.”

Here is the verse in Luke 18:15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.

And Jesus rebuked them, yet you think the apostles were right and Jesus wrong.

You have made the assumption that every household must have infants in the household. Why do you make that assumption (other than to prove that the apostles must have changed their mind about the need to baptize infants)? I don’t think the apostles changed their mind, or that Jesus changed His mind on the subject.

The opposite of what you just said is an assumption that every household must not have infants. You have to make that assumption in order to prove that infant baptism is wrong.
But the fact remains: the Bible knows no age limit for baptism.

placido

 

[placido]

Rick O,
If they don’t need to “repent” (which I certainly agree with), then I assume you’re saying they need to be baptized because of “original sin.” Why did Jesus never speak about that, teach about that, nor his apostles other than an obscure reference by Paul that said Adam brought sin into the world?

There we go again. If a passage in the Bible seems to prove Catholic doctrine, it has to be discredited - in this case it is “obscure”.

How does “man” end up meaning “infant”? I certainly agree that it is “man” or “woman”, but I doubt that any translator would take the Hebrew word and have it mean “infant” in the translation.

“Man” did not end up meaning “infant”, it ended up meaning “a member of human race” and I suppose an infant is a member of human race too.

placido

 

[promethius]

The difference is that baptism is always talked about as the baptism of repentance

I think we need to clarify that that SOME protestants talk about baptism that way, and then further clarify that protestants as a whole make up about 1/3rd of Christianity. By and large, the overwhelming majority of Christians hold to the catholic (small c) position on baptism.

Baptism had been done by John the Baptist and his followers, but under the new covenant gospel the gift of the Holy Ghost was given after baptism, as noted in Acts 19:2-6. The two go together: the baptism by water and the baptism by fire, as the Savior had taught to Nicodemus in John 3.

In actuality, Acts 19 talks about the fact that baptism is “of penance.” That is NOT the same thing as saying a baptism of REPENTANCE. Penance is a impartation of Grace from God, freeing us from original sin. Baptism is an act of original grace from God, it does not hinge on repentence. In acts 19, we also see that as they could affirm their faith, they were immediately subject to the sacriment of Contrition (as adult catechumens are in the Catholic church) and that Paul immediately enacted confirmation upon them.

I don’t see how quoting a scriptural support for two sacraments of the church really helped your position much…

 

[ParkerD]

There we go again. If a passage in the Bible seems to prove Catholic doctrine, it has to be discredited - in this case it is “obscure”.

“Man” did not end up meaning “infant”, it ended up meaning “a member of human race” and I suppose an infant is a member of human race too.

placido

Placido,
Of course an infant is a member of the human race. The question is whether every infant in the world that has died without baptism needed that “sacrament” or if not (according to the kind of reasoning I am reading in these responses) then they “didn’t have God’s grace”. I disagree strongly. The atonement gave them God’s grace. The fact they haven’t sinned and do not need to repent means they already qualify to receive God’s grace.

Read Romans 4:6-10 and you will find Paul writing about uncircumcision and yet “blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” (v.8) Read Romans 5. Note v. 13, “sin is not imputed when there is no law.” In verse 15, grace is described as the “free gift”, and this thought is continued in v. 18 in saying that “the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.”

In Romans 5:19 Paul writes “as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” Look back at verse 12 by comparison. Paul writes “as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” Yet he also wrote in verse 13 “sin is not imputed when there is no law.”

The intent of Paul’s writing can be inferred to mean that Adam’s sin made every human soul thereafter “sinners”, or it can be inferred to mean that “sin” applies when “the law” applies, and spiritual death applies when “the law” applies, and that Christ’s gift of grace was truly a “free gift” that “came upon all” meaning every human soul.

Children do not sin until they are knowledgeable enough to know what living “the law” means. Until then, for them “there is no law” and instead there is “free grace” through Christ’s atonement.

Paul describes his own baptism in Acts 22:16 when he says that Ananias had said “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins.” Clearly, baptism is an act of washing, of cleansing for those who need cleansing, for those who have sinned by their own acts of sin.

Peace to each of you.

 

[placido]

Dear ParkerD, I thank you for your contributions in this tread. Let’s continue with this constructive dialogue.

Placido,
Of course an infant is a member of the human race. The question is whether every infant in the world that has died without baptism needed that “sacrament” or if not (according to the kind of reasoning I am reading in these responses) then they “didn’t have God’s grace”.

Yes, every infant, being a human being, needs baptism (John 3:5) but if he/she dies without receiving the sacrament, then that is not the child’s fault but a punishable negligence on the part of the parents (see Joshua 5:2-9). God’s grace doesn’t annul the role of baptism.

I disagree strongly.

Disagreeing doesn’t affect the truthfulness of a doctrine.

The atonement gave them God’s grace.

So, after discrediting Paul’s “obscure reference” you are now discrediting Jesus’ teaching in John 3:5 as well?

The fact they haven’t sinned and do not need to repent means they already qualify to receive God’s grace.

That is your fallible opinion!

grace is described as the “free gift”

Even with the “free gift” we still need John 3:5.

The intent of Paul’s writing can be inferred to mean that Adam’s sin made every human soul thereafter “sinners”, or it can be inferred to mean that “sin” applies when “the law” applies, and spiritual death applies when “the law” applies, and that Christ’s gift of grace was truly a “free gift” that “came upon all” meaning every human soul.

Can mean “this” and can mean “that” – as long as the Catholic understanding is excluded from consideration, you have no problem.

Children do not sin until they are knowledgeable enough to know what living “the law” means. Until then, for them “there is no law” and instead there is “free grace” through Christ’s atonement.

The “free gift” through Christ’s atonement does not annul baptism.

Clearly, baptism is an act of washing, of cleansing for those who need cleansing, for those who have sinned by their own acts of sin.

“For those who have sinned by their own acts of sin”? Is that a verbatim quotation of Scripture or your fallible opinion? Don’t you think those “brought forth in iniquity and conceived in sin” (Psalm 51:2-5) need cleansing since nothing unclean can enter heaven?

placido

 

[ParkerD]

Dear ParkerD, I thank you for your contributions in this tread. Let’s continue with this constructive dialogue.

Yes, every infant, being a human being, needs baptism (John 3:5) but if he/she dies without receiving the sacrament, then that is not the child’s fault but a punishable negligence on the part of the parents (see Joshua 5:2-9) (THESE VERSES SAY NOTHING ABOUT THE PARENTS BEING PUNISHED FOR NOT CIRCUMCISING THEIR SONS IN THE WILDERNESS). God’s grace doesn’t annul the role of baptism.

Disagreeing doesn’t affect the truthfulness of a doctrine.

So, after discrediting Paul’s “obscure reference” you are now discrediting Jesus’ teaching in John 3:5 as well?

That is your fallible opinion!

Even with the “free gift” we still need John 3:5.

Can mean “this” and can mean “that” – as long as the Catholic understanding is excluded from consideration, you have no problem.

The “free gift” through Christ’s atonement does not annul baptism.

“For those who have sinned by their own acts of sin”? Is that a verbatim quotation of Scripture or your fallible opinion? Don’t you think those “brought forth in iniquity and conceived in sin” (Psalm 51:2-5) need cleansing since nothing unclean can enter heaven?

placido

Placido,
I explained Paul’s teachings–I did not discredit them. I had said a verse that has been used to justify the teaching of original sin has an obscure meaning, and I explained that verse.

I have just read the Douay-Rheims translation of John 3. Here is a way to get there:
olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

Christ knew that the words He was going to say to Nicodemus would be read by others. I think when He used the word that was going to be translated into the word “man” He knew full well that there might be the kind of confusion you have brought to the translation by assuming it means “every soul who has ever lived.” Yet Christ goes on to answer Nicodemus’ question about a man being “old” not being able to enter into his mother’s womb. If Christ intended the meaning to include infants or especially to be predominantly applicable to infants, He would have clarified that doctrine at this very point in His teaching. He knew the law of circumcision was applied soon after a boy’s birth under Jewish law, and knew that the law of circumcision was going to no longer apply after His crucifixion. He knew of the potential for confusion as to the age of baptism.

Later in John 3, when John the Baptist is asked about the baptisms that Jesus is doing, John explains that those baptisms are acceptable. Verse 26 says of Jesus, “he that was with thee beyond the Jordan, to whom thou gavest testimony: behold, he baptizeth and all men come to him.”

Jesus had every opportunity to have clarified or taught that infants needed to be baptized. He never taught that doctrine–not once. He never baptized infants, but He was indeed baptizing and “all men come to him.” Do you picture in your mind infants crawling to Him to be baptized?

---

Going to your last paragraph and responding, still using the Douay-Rheims translation for Psalm 51:7 For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me.

Who had the sins when David was conceived? Not David! It was David’s mother who had sins, because she was human and was old enough to make choices in her life such that she was capable of sinning.

Peace to you and all.

 

[Spiritoftruth]

Jesus had every opportunity to have clarified or taught that infants needed to be baptized. He never taught that doctrine–not once. He never baptized infants, but He was indeed baptizing and “all men come to him.” Do you picture in your mind

Christ never taught the word trinity, nor did he say scripture alone was the only “true” source of revelation. Interesting.

 

[Bill_Pick]

lETS SEE WHAT THE bIBLE HAS TO SAY

Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new “circumcision” for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.

Job 14:1-4 - man that is born of woman is full of trouble and unclean. Baptism is required for all human beings because of our sinful human nature.

Psalm 51:5 - we are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the necessity of baptism from conception.

Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?

Matt 19:14 - Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.

 

[ricko]

The whole chapter 15 of Acts is a very important chapter. Thanks for bringing it up. It is talking about the Gentiles who were being converted, and also “certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed” (v. 5) who thought the Gentile converts needed to be circumcised and to keep the law of Moses, and “there had been much disputing.” (v. 7) But the apostles and elders met together and straightened out the disputes, and asked that letters be written to the Gentile converts with the reminder you noted.

So even though the law of Moses had been fulfilled in Christ’s atonement and resurrection, the part of the law of Moses dealing with not eating blood was considered still important. Circumcision was not necessary for the Gentile converts. But at no time is there any inference that infants were needing to be baptized in lieu of being circumcised. However, with the disputes evident in the church as new converts came into it in different areas, one can easily see how certain people could argue that the age of baptism should be the same age as the circumcision under the law of Moses had commonly occurred. The difference is that baptism is always talked about as the baptism of repentance, whereas circumcision is talked about as a sign of the old covenant. Baptism had been done by John the Baptist and his followers, but under the new covenant gospel the gift of the Holy Ghost was given after baptism, as noted in Acts 19:2-6. The two go together: the baptism by water and the baptism by fire, as the Savior had taught to Nicodemus in John 3.

Well you certainly tiptoed around that simple question without answering it. That shows me you are unable to reason on your own and reasoning is a gift of the Holy Spirit. The simple answer is NO, the drinking of blood is not forbidden. I won’t tell you why right now, I’ll just wait and see if you really want to learn something here or not. If you cannot determine why the drinking of blood is not forbidden and you don’t ask why then I will have my answer about you.

Peace

 

[ParkerD]

lETS SEE WHAT THE bIBLE HAS TO SAY

Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new “circumcision” for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.

Job 14:1-4 - man that is born of woman is full of trouble and unclean. Baptism is required for all human beings because of our sinful human nature.

Psalm 51:5 - we are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the necessity of baptism from conception.

Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?

Matt 19:14 - Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.

Bill,
You have re-stated every verse you cited differently than the text itself.

Why would the apostles have thought they needed to “rebuke” those who brought their infants to Christ for His blessing, if those infants were needing to be baptized? This just doesn’t make sense to me that the apostles would have done this if indeed they or Jesus were in the practice of baptizing infants. I think it is unmistakeably clear that they did not have that practice going on.

 

[promethius]

Bill,
You have re-stated every verse you cited differently than the text itself.

Why would the apostles have thought they needed to “rebuke” those who brought their infants to Christ for His blessing, if those infants were needing to be baptized? This just doesn’t make sense to me that the apostles would have done this if indeed they or Jesus were in the practice of baptizing infants. I think it is unmistakeably clear that they did not have that practice going on.

You still haven’t answered why you don’t include the fact that Jesus corrected the disciples who were WRONG to have rebuked the people bringing children to Him. Why acuse bill of something and then turn around and do exactly what you just condemned?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Jesus had every opportunity to have clarified or taught that infants needed to be baptized. He never taught that doctrine–not once. He never baptized infants, but He was indeed baptizing and “all men come to him.” Do you picture in your mind infants crawling to Him to be baptized?

Parker, do infants crawl to church where they learn about God? Of course they don’t. They are brought there by their believing parents. Are Jewish infants expressing a desire to be initiated into the Old Covenant? A family is a Christian community. It makes perfect sense to initiate infants into their Christian community.

There is no precedence, scriptural or traditional, that infants have been excluded from, or are not in need of, the New Covenant, which baptism initiates them into.

 

[ParkerD]

You still haven’t answered why you don’t include the fact that Jesus corrected the disciples who were WRONG to have rebuked the people bringing children to Him. Why acuse bill of something and then turn around and do exactly what you just condemned?

Promethius,
I didn’t re-explain because to me the verses are self-explanatory. They say (Douey-Rheims):
Luke 18:15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he might touch them. Which when the disciples saw, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus, calling them together, said: Suffer children to come to me and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 17 Amen, I say to you: Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a child shall not enter into it.

This was a teaching moment. What did the Savior choose to teach the apostles? It appears quite clear from the text that He wanted to emphasize both that children already inherit the kingdom of God (“for of such is the kingdom of God”) and that those who are adults should be receptive like a child to enter the kingdom of God.

The implication is that Jesus did touch the infants, blessing them. I see no teaching or implication that Jesus thought those infants needed to be baptized, nor did He teach the apostles that those infants needed to be baptized. Quite the contrary: He said adults needed to be receptive like a child.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

If Catholicism is the fulfillment of Judaism through Jesus Christ our Lord. Judaism entered their infants into the Old covenant by “Circumcision” and presentation of her infants. The first Christians were Jews, who were accustomed to the Law of circumcision. We know from the Epistles of Paul a pharisee (lawyer of the law) taught his Judeo-Christian communities that “Baptism” replaced circumcision.

By circumcision one entered into the Old Covenant of God.

By Baptism one enters into the New and everlasting covenant of God where his KIngdom is. Now what Judeo-Christian from the first century to today would reject their infants from entering into the Kingdom of God? “Baptism saves you now” from infancy to a person in his death bed, this Grace from God is not earned but freely given to all. No one is excluded from God’s will that all be saved.