Purpose for Infant Baptisms

[Ignatius]

thecourt**:

				[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5909962#post5909962) 				
			 My issue with Catholics is that you force baptism on infants instead of allowing the child, when they can understand their fallen state and make a decision for themselves, or be agent unto themselves.

As St. Paul the Apostle tells us in the Holy Scripture, Baptism is the new Circumcision. Just as circumcision was the means of entry to the People of God (Israel) in the Old Testament so Baptism is the means of entry to People of God (The Catholic Church) for the New Testament.
This is also when the child is dedicated to Jesus Christ for the sanctification of their souls and invoke the protection of of Jesus Christ. Something any responsible parent should do for their Child.

 

[thecourt]

Friend, if I have spread misinformation about your beliefs and practices, please show me where.

I’m happy to learn more about this. Here are a couple of my initial questions:

1. Are Mormons baptized for the dead? Do you have their permission to do this for them? If so, how is this determined, and what do you do when a dead person says, “No, thanks”?
2. When are these dead presented with the gospel and exactly how is that done?

1.Yes Permission is necessary if the a living relative makes a objection. The average person baptized for decades and have no living relatives. God being just and no respecter of persons make the opportunity available to those who have died, where they are now so if they are not interested in the opportunity, it is their choice.

They are presented in the hereafter where we will go when we die before being resurrected.
It is done who are doing missionary work in the hereafter who have died.

 

[jmcrae]

1.Yes Permission is necessary if the a living relative makes a objection. The average person baptized for decades and have no living relatives. God being just and no respecter of persons make the opportunity available to those who have died, where they are now so if they are not interested in the opportunity, it is their choice.

This is totally incoherent. What are you trying to say, here?

They are presented in the hereafter where we will go when we die before being resurrected.
It is done who are doing missionary work in the hereafter who have died.

So, dead people are baptizing dead people?

 

[Randy_Carson]

1.Yes Permission is necessary if the a living relative makes a objection. The average person baptized for decades and have no living relatives. God being just and no respecter of persons make the opportunity available to those who have died, where they are now so if they are not interested in the opportunity, it is their choice.

Would it be safe to say from your silence that I have not misrepresented your beliefs as you implied previously?

So, your assumption is that someone who has been dead for a long time has no living relatives to object, so they are baptized by proxy.

Again, where is the free will that you claimed Catholics are violating by baptizing infants? You haven’t given any response to that question.

Additionally, you have yet to tell me why God commanded the Jews to violate the rights of their children by circumcising them without their consent.

I look forward to hearing from you on these points.

 

[thecourt]

Would it be safe to say from your silence that I have not misrepresented your beliefs as you implied previously?

So, your assumption is that someone who has been dead for a long time has no living relatives to object, so they are baptized by proxy.

Again, where is the free will that you claimed Catholics are violating by baptizing infants? You haven’t given any response to that question.

Additionally, you have yet to tell me why God commanded the Jews to violate the rights of their children by circumcising them without their consent.

I look forward to hearing from you on these points.

The violation of free will of infant baptism is your doing ordinance itself. When was the infant allowed to say I do not want this?

 

[FCEGM]

The violation of free will of infant baptism is your doing ordinance itself. When was the infant allowed to say I do not want this?

Piffle! A good parent knows to give what is best for the child; an infant isn’t free to choose milquetoast and jam over mother’s milk. So it is with baptism that the infant’s inclusion in the covenant established by Christ strengthens it for its life in Him. If he or she chooses later in life to disassociate itself with that incoporation into Christ, then the gift of free will is actually diminished because one has entered into slavery to sin and not the freedom given to it in Christ through its baptism. And, as has been continually pointed-out to you, God Himself established the pattern with the circumsion of infant Jewish males.

In the ancient world of those societies where circumcision was practiced it was the Jews alone who circumcised infants, whereas the other societies waited until the boy was about to enter manhood, thus it was a rite of passage associated with fertility. For the Jews, though, circumcision (and later Baptism with the Christians) was a sign of a covenant entered into with God. So you have to wonder how early Jewish Christians would see the denial of entrance into the New Covenant for their infants to be an improvement on the Old Covenant with its circumsion of male children into that Covenant. If the New Covenant surpasses the Old, why would it exclude the infants and little children of believers when infants had formerly been included? Fortunately, they didn’t have that concern.

 

[thecourt]

Piffle! A good parent knows to give what is best for the child; an infant isn’t free to choose milquetoast and jam over mother’s milk. So it is with baptism that the infant’s inclusion in the covenant established by Christ strengthens it for its life in Him. If he or she chooses later in life to disassociate itself with that incoporation into Christ, then the gift of free will is actually diminished because one has entered into slavery to sin and not the freedom given to it in Christ through its baptism. And, as has been continually pointed-out to you, God Himself established the pattern with the circumsion of infant Jewish males.

In the ancient world of those societies where circumcision was practiced it was the Jews alone who circumcised infants, whereas the other societies waited until the boy was about to enter manhood, thus it was a rite of passage associated with fertility. For the Jews, though, circumcision (and later Baptism with the Christians) was a sign of a covenant entered into with God. So you have to wonder how early Jewish Christians would see the denial of entrance into the New Covenant for their infants to be an improvement on the Old Covenant with its circumsion of male children into that Covenant. If the New Covenant surpasses the Old, why would it exclude the infants and little children of believers when infants had formerly been included? Fortunately, they didn’t have that concern.

My point is prior to ordinance of infant baptism and not having it done. Of course, as a teen or adult they can walk away from Catholicism.

No one here has recognized the principle of agency, or freedom to choose, for the infant. You folks, based on this ordinance being done, the infant has no agency. It must be done.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The purpose for Infant baptism is obeying Jesus so that souls will go to heaven.

 

[diggerdomer]

My point is prior to ordinance of infant baptism and not having it done. Of course, as a teen or adult they can walk away from Catholicism.

No one here has recognized the principle of agency, or freedom to choose, for the infant. You folks, based on this ordinance being done, the infant has no agency. It must be done.

I may not understand you correctly, so please clarify if I don’t, but I think this has been addressed, most usefully by the analogy of feeding/nutrition. Do we deprive infants of nourishment because they have no freedom to choose?

 

[Randy_Carson]

The violation of free will of infant baptism is your doing ordinance itself. When was the infant allowed to say I do not want this?

When was the Jewish infant allowed to say, “Tell the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that I do not want this”?

When are the dead for whom Mormons are baptized allowed to say, “I do not want this”?

I have asked these questions repeatedly; when will you answer them?

 

[crowcounty]

yes it forgives sins but it is also the new circumcision and or mark of the new covenant.

 

[Ignatius]

My point is prior to ordinance of infant baptism and not having it done. Of course, as a teen or adult they can walk away from Catholicism.

No one here has recognized the principle of agency, or freedom to choose, for the infant. You folks, based on this ordinance being done, the infant has no agency. It must be done.

Now I see your point of confusion. Baptism is not a simple ordinance which is an empty action. Baptism is a Sacrament which confers the sanctification and grace of Jesus Christ on the child.

Also, as I previously pointed out:
"As St. Paul the Apostle tells us in the Holy Scripture, Baptism is the new Circumcision. Just as circumcision was performed at 8 days old and was the means of entry to the People of God (Israel) in the Old Testament so Baptism is the means of entry to People of God (The Catholic Church) for the New Testament.
This is also when the child is dedicated to Jesus Christ for the sanctification of their souls and invoke the protection of of Jesus Christ. Something any responsible parent should do for their Child.

 

[panevino]

… The unbaptized have a choice in the state they are after death to be baptized, by proxy by someone who lives now. …

what verse/s do u use to back up this?
Apologies if u already posted them.

 

[thecourt]

Randy Carson is good example of the lack of respect for a infant’s agency, or freedom to choose to be baptized or not because infant baptism is unnecessary.

Do you understand agency, or freedom to choose for oneself, versus in your view, denial of that and it must happen because you said so?

 

[diggerdomer]

Randy Carson is good example of the lack of respect for a infant’s agency, or freedom to choose to be baptized or not because infant baptism is unnecessary.

Do you understand agency, or freedom to choose for oneself, versus in your view, denial of that and it must happen because you said so?

Infant baptism does not deny agency, freedom to choose, etc. Again, I think a useful analogy is providing nutrition to infants – because infants are incapable of exercising agency and freedom, should we then NOT feed and nourish them?

 

[crazzeto]

I find it rather curious that a member of LDS would be questioning infantbaptism on the grounds of free will. Anyway, I’m really curious where in SS does it state that all baptisms must be so called “believers baptisms”. Is this something originating from with in SS? Or is it instead something which originates with a belief, which some people see as being logical, and later the belief is read into SS.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Randy Carson is good example of the lack of respect for a infant’s agency, or freedom to choose to be baptized or not because infant baptism is unnecessary.

Do you understand agency, or freedom to choose for oneself, versus in your view, denial of that and it must happen because you said so?

Does a Mormon infant have a choice of attending or not attending Mormon Church? Of course not. His parents are choosing the religion for him. Catholic children have their First Communion at the age of accountability.

 

[thecourt]

Christine77 claims that infant will be forced to become a member of my church. Yet we have no unnecessary ordinance known as infant baptism and when older as a child, can make a choice if they wish to be taught the gospel and be baptized in the church.

Catholics do not do this since infants MUST BE BAPTIZED without question.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Christine77 claims that infant will be forced to become a member of my church. Yet we have no unnecessary ordinance known as infant baptism and when older as a child, can make a choice if they wish to be taught the gospel and be baptized in the church.

Catholics do not do this since infants MUST BE BAPTIZED without question.

I rather doubt that a Mormon child of say 7-9 years of age would resist being baptized. They are much too obediant at that age. Now say if you waited until they were 16, you might find some who would decline.

 

[crazzeto]

Christine77 claims that infant will be forced to become a member of my church. Yet we have no unnecessary ordinance known as infant baptism and when older as a child, can make a choice if they wish to be taught the gospel and be baptized in the church.

Catholics do not do this since infants MUST BE BAPTIZED without question.

Then you were never Catholic, and do not understand the faith. There is no such Cannon, no such entry in the Catechism and I challenge you sir to find it.

We Catholics do typically baptise infants because it makes sense to do so. Christ was quite clear, no one born only of flesh will win the kingdom. We can hope God has some mechinism to save unbaptised babies, but we can’t know. This is why be baptise infants. We must be baptised as an infant? Where in the heck did you get that from?