Why not baptize children?

[flameburns623]

**My question to someone of that belief (anabaptist):
**What makes you think an 8 year old understands this? I don’t think someone at that age can really understand that concept. I don’t think even some teenagers understand that concept. There’s probably adults who don’t get that.

No one–mark it–NO ONE really ‘understands’ the concept of Trinity. We can all ‘apprehend’ it–catch a glimpse of the general idea–but no one really has a full grasp of the ideas involved.

Likewise–a child can ‘apprehend’ some of the basic ideas behind what Baptism is and does, though the child cannot fully comprehend it. Their understanding will grow and mature over the years, if they continue in their faith. Is it possible that some kids could arrive at such an apprehension earlier? Yes, and in most Protestant/Evangelical churches, a child would be admitted to baptism as soon as they could display a requisite degree of understanding. The most important thing for anabaptists is the ability to excercise ‘saving faith’. Again, always bear in mind that for anabaptists, baptism doesn’t save anyhow–one is saved by one’s faith. So long as one is not being willfully disobedient and therefore putting into doubt one’s profession of faith–one could defer baptism well into adulthood with no risk to the fate of one’s soul.

In the Mormon Church, their Scriptures decree that no one is to be baptised earlier than eight, even if a particular child is a theological prodigy. But by the same token–if said child dies before the age of eight, LDS Scriptures decree that such a child will not be held ‘accountable’–this is the implication of the idea of an ‘age of accountability’. God, according to LDS teaching will hold NO unbaptised child accountable for sin prior to the age of eight–whether the child is born of Mormon parents, Catholics, Buddhists, or atheist parents. AFTER the age of eight God presumably judges children as their individual mental capacities render them accountable, but until they attain to the ‘age of accountability’ in LDS teaching–the age of eight–they are, by Divine decree, of a certainty, always and everywhere, not accountable. IF one accepts the LDS Scriptures as Divinely inspired, of course.

 

[tkdnick]

flameburns623:

The most important thing for anabaptists is the ability to excercise ‘saving faith’. Again, always bear in mind that for anabaptists, baptism doesn’t save anyhow–one is saved by one’s faith. So long as one is not being willfully disobedient and therefore putting into doubt one’s profession of faith–one could defer baptism well into adulthood with no risk to the fate of one’s soul.

I’ve also heard of people being baptized multiple times because they believe it’s really just an outward sign of dedicating themselves to Christ. So any time they feel they need to “rededicate” themselves, they get baptized. That’s one of the things that started Scott Hahn on his journey to Catholicism

 

[majick275]

paul barlow:

our children are only baptised when they are ready maybe your church could learn from us on this point. the age of 8 is the earlist a child can be baptised its up to the child,parents and bishop to judge when the right time is. But the child has to want it. now those little babies in your cdhurch i still wonder how they are chosing to follow chirst. What gives you the right to take away there choice.

There is a different process in the LDS church for baptizing children over the age of 8. They have to be treated as converts then and the full time missionaries get involved. The authority then moves from the bishop to the mission president. Just a little “stigma” for those parents who didn’t have their kids “ready” by age 8. Do you really believe that an 8 year old is going to express “wants” contrary to their parents wishes in this situation? Please… this isn’t a true choice. The scriptures tell us that parents are responsible for bringing up their children in the church. This is not a difference between Catholics and Mormons. How many parents do you see every sunday in your sacrament meeting giving the bread and water to little kids under 8? Do you feel they are taking those children’s choice? come on now… they are trying to teach their children to follow Jesus as they understand it. Catholics are trying to help their children do the same by removing the effects of original sin through baptism, then guiding their children through the various sacraments as they become able to understand and benefit from them.

 

[amgid]

This post is in response to post #29 of the thread “ex-mormon wants to talk”. I am posting it here as requested by the moderator.

majick275:

Have you read the book of Acts? Whole families were baptized. Corinthians… same thing.

he word that is used is “household”:

Acts 16:

15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.This does not mean that infants were also baptized. In those days baptisms were performed by immersion. It would have been dangerous to baptize an infant. The family pet was also part of the “household”. So does that mean that the family pet was also baptized? In another place Paul writes:

Romans 16:

10 Salute Apelles approved in Christ. Salute them which are of Aristobulus’ household.

11 Salute Herodion my kinsman. Greet them that be of the household of Narcissus, which are in the Lord.
So does that mean that all the two days old infants were also “greeted” and “saluted” as here directed?

The Bible does make it clear that baptism replaced circumcision.

I hadn’t heard of that before. Where does not say that in the Bible? According to the Bible, baptism predates the ministry of Christ. John the Baptist began baptizing well before the ministry of Jesus had begun, and the Jews seem to be perfectly accepting of the idea. They didn’t say to him, “Now that is a strange new idea, what do you call that thing?” And if baptism is something that existed among the Jews before the ministry of Christ, hence before the law of circumcision was done away, then it cannot be a substitute for circumcision.

You might want to look at the Gospel of John where Jesus tells us that no one can enter heaven without baptism.

Baptism is indeed necessary for salvation.

That coupled with his words in Matthew about letting the children come to him are informative. (lest there be the mistaken thought that these were children old enought to be baptized we have the gospel of Luke that specifies that they even brought infants to him)

Little children were indeed brought unto Him, but that does not mean that they were baptized:

Matthew 19:

13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.

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

15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.

Mark 10:

13 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.

14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

---

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

Luke 18:

15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.

16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

A reading of Romans 6:3 seems to indicate that members of Christian families had all been baptized. (regardless of age)

I have read Romans 6:3 in its full context, and I fail to see how it justifies infant baptism.

Where in the Bible do you see age restrictions on baptism?

In the Bible, all the examples we have of people being baptized have been adults. None have been of children. Furthermore, the Bible makes it clear that baptism was intended for the remission of sins after repentance:

Mark 1:

4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judæa, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

Luke 3:

3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;Infants can neither sin nor repent; therefore baptism is of no avail to them. How can a one day old infant sin, or repent for that matter? It is absurd.

amgid

 

[amgid]

Chris-WA:

Why would you ask that question? What would restrict us from baptizing children?

Because the Bible clearly states that baptism is for repentance unto the remission of sins. And every intelligent person knows that an infant can neither sin nor repent. How can a newborn infant sucking away at its mothers breast sin or repent? It is absurd. Therefore it is equally absurd to baptize them “unto repentance for the remission of sins”.

amgid

 

[amgid]

justingreener:

Your first scripture is the only one that seems to apply to this discussion.

Even that scripture doesn’t apply! By “children” in that scripture is meant “descendents”. It doesn’t mean infants or even small children.

The others either talk about adult baptism and some don’t talk about baptism at all.

I know! Makes you wonder why he would want to do it. Your guess is as good as mine.

But Acts 2:38,39 talks about child baptism but that seems to support the mormon position not the Catholic position. When kids are 8 they seem to fit title children not infants.

Like I said, it neither refer to infants or small children. It simply means descendents.

As far as you having your traditions you can do that but so can the mormons. So before you start asking for biblical support to peoples beliefs you should look at your

A valid point.

amgid

 

[amgid]

Chris-WA:

So there is no biblical justification for waiting to 8 years old? Do LDS get this strictly from their own scriptures?

Yes, the “age of 8” comes strictly from LDS scripture.

amgid

 

[amgid]

Chris-WA:

If there is no specific prohibition against it in the bible than I fail to see how one could justify a certain age for baptism on a biblical basis.

There is not “specific prohibition” in the Bible; but biblical scripture clearly mandates against it. See post above. As far as the age of 8 is concerned, that is specified to us in LDS scripture.

amgid

 

[majick275]

Please… are you claiming then that if LDS people baptized at 8 sin as adults then they are out of luck because they already were baptized and that was their “remission of sins”.

Obviously there is a difference between baptism and “standard” repentance/forgiveness. Something occurs in baptism that is only needed once but provides eternal benefits.

You might want to check the original text regarding “household” and just what that meant. Notice no evidence in the Bible of age restrictions on baptism. Your comments on pets being part of the household are the only thing ridiculous here.

I have no problem with saluting and greeting an entire family, infant(s) included. LDS people greet children at church and on home/visiting teaching visits.

Read Colossians chaptere 2 for a good example of baptism replacing circumcision.

The Bible shows us entire groups of people, whole families, etc. being baptized. No mention of exclusions of children is there to be found.

You need to read the whole book of Romans not just one verse. Baptism is necessary for MANY reasons. One of which is “new life”. We want our children to live their entire earthly existence with this spritual based new life rather than the carnal life tainted by original sin.

The sacrament of reconciliation is for absolving personal sins. Baptism removes original sin. Read Matthew chapter 9. Did Jesus baptize the paralytic?

 

[tkdnick]

amgid:

In the Bible, all the examples we have of people being baptized have been adults. None have been of children. Furthermore, the Bible makes it clear that baptism was intended for the remission of sins after repentance:
Mark 1:
4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judæa, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

Luke 3:
3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

I fail to see how either of these verses indicate that only adults were baptized. There is no mention anywhere here of only adults being baptized.

Acts 16:32-33 says, “So they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to everyone in his house. He took them in at that hour of the night and bathed their wounds; then he and all his family were baptized at once.” I will grant to you that it is POSSIBLE that the other verses you indicate with the word “household” MIGHT not include infants (though I don’t see that argument as probable). However, this is different. This says he and his family. The likelihood that it would mention “family” and not include children is essentially ZERO. If only the jailer and his wife were baptized, wouldn’t it have said “the jailer and his wife”. family is indicative of parents and children.

 

[arieh0310]

Since amgid loves to quote Origen when he postulated on the pre-existence of the soul amgid should note that Origen advocated the baptism of infants. He wrote that “according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants” (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). Also, the Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, “The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

Scripture infers infant baptism and history shows no other tradition.

 

[isaac.madsen]

The doctrine on baptism at the age of 8 is, in fact, supported mainly by LDS scripture, as we do believe it is translated more directly than the bible, but there are biblical references that can be found.

Salvation of children: Except ye become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven, Matt. 18: 3.

This statement tells us that children are pure, that they do not, in fact have the ability to sin.

So why, then, do we do proxy baptisms for children? First, genealogy is imperfect. Many dates don’t match up. You’ll find all sorts of imperfections in genealogy, which is why it is so difficult. Thus, we do baptisms for all the dead because of these inaccuracies. We have no way of knowing for sure if some of these people even existed. Our goal is that every person will have the opportunity (in this life or the next) to discover our religion. Whether or not they accept it is completely up to them.

 

[tkdnick]

isaac.madsen:

This statement tells us that children are pure, that they do not, in fact have the ability to sin.

No offense, but that is completely illogical. You can’t honestly tell me that kids don’t know when they do something wrong.

 

[isaac.madsen]

I’m sorry. I’ll elaborate. What I mean to say is that children ought to, by the age of 8, know right from wrong. Certain children are far ahead of that mentality by the age of 8. Some are still lagging behind in that mental capacity.

This can be a very touchy subject, and I won’t say that anyone will go to hell for believing one way or the other. Any one person’s eternal salvation doesn’t depend on when they believe baptism should take place. God judges our hearts and our desires, and if we have been taught wrong, I believe that God’s judgement will be upon the one who first taught an incorrect principle.

I simply recognize the different belief that you have. I don’t condemn it. If your child is baptized at birth, more power to you, but what of those people who never had a chance to be baptized because of their circumstances, and yet lives a Christian life? I cannot for one second believe that they receive eternal damnation.

 

[majick275]

Neither does the Catholic church. There is much about the Catholic doctrine on baptism to be learned from the catechism.

 

[tkdnick]

isaac.madsen:

I simply recognize the different belief that you have. I don’t condemn it. If your child is baptized at birth, more power to you, but what of those people who never had a chance to be baptized because of their circumstances, and yet lives a Christian life? I cannot for one second believe that they receive eternal damnation.

Thank goodness! Me neither! I’m pretty sure our two churches have similar beliefs about those who die before baptism, specifically children. We trust them to the mercy of God.

From our Catechism:
paragraph 1258 “The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.”

paragraph 1259 “For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.”

paragraph 1260 “Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.”

paragraph 1261 “As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them’, allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.”

 

[paul_barlow]

majick275:

There is a different process in the LDS church for baptizing children over the age of 8. They have to be treated as converts then and the full time missionaries get involved. The authority then moves from the bishop to the mission president. Just a little “stigma” for those parents who didn’t have their kids “ready” by age 8. Do you really believe that an 8 year old is going to express “wants” contrary to their parents wishes in this situation? Please… this isn’t a true choice. The scriptures tell us that parents are responsible for bringing up their children in the church. This is not a difference between Catholics and Mormons. How many parents do you see every sunday in your sacrament meeting giving the bread and water to little kids under 8? Do you feel they are taking those children’s choice? come on now… they are trying to teach their children to follow Jesus as they understand it. Catholics are trying to help their children do the same by removing the effects of original sin through baptism, then guiding their children through the various sacraments as they become able to understand and benefit from them.

i find no stigma in waiting until the child is ready. my third daughter was nine when she requested Baptism. no bullying or pushing was used. any parent that makes a child do something is wrong and if their bishop was in tune he would be concerned and talk to the parents. i understand that you baptise your children in love but i just argue that your doctrine is wrong. the parents are just tring to help there children

 

[paul_barlow]

“When an infant dies, will it be exalted into the celestial kingdom? Some members of the class expressed the thought that because children die before reaching the age of accountability they will be exalted into the celestial kingdom the same as those who live and endure to the end upon the earth. Others feel that those infants who die before eight years of age will still have to be tried and tempted at some time after the resurrection just as adults are here and that they will have to earn their place in the celestial kingdom after enduring such trials. Will you give us some help on the question?”

Answer: From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith until now, articles have been published repeatedly answering the question in relation to the salvation and exaltation of little children. It would be well if we could get some questions settled once and for all time so that they will not have to be repeated. It would be well if members of the Church would do more studying of the fundamental principles of the gospel as the Lord has commanded us to do.

Little children who die before the age of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom. The Prophet Joseph Smith received this knowledge by vision in the Kirtland Temple, January 21, 1836. On that occasion it was shown that “. . . all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.” (D.H.C., Vol. 2, p. 381.) Serious thinking would tell us that if these children are saved, they are not subject to a later trial by the temptation and buffeting of Satan. The Savior taught his disciples when in their presence this doctrine as plainly as words can tell.(Matthew 18:6-10; 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16.) Revelations given in our day also show that little children who are deprived of the experiences in mortal life are, by eternal decree, redeemed from the temptation of Satan.(D. & C. 29:46-48; Mosiah 15:24-25; Moroni 8:10-24.) Such revelations are perfectly clear and should be beyond dispute.

OUR ETERNAL FATHER IS JUST

Our Eternal Father is just, as well as merciful. It would be an injustice to little children who die in early life to deprive them of the opportunity to obtain all the blessings that are promised to adults who are faithful and true in this life. A doctrine which would deprive little children of such blessings borders on the corrupt teaching which has persisted almost since the passing of the ancient apostles and which is one of the outstanding notions which points so clearly to the apostasy in primitive days. It will be interesting to have a glimpse at this abominable practice and doctrine which has brought misery to the souls of thousands of parents who have lost their little ones.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The absolute necessity of this sacrament [baptism] is often insisted on by the Fathers of the Church, especially when they speak of infant baptism.” It quotes St. Ireanaeus as saying: “Christ came to save all who are reborn through Him to God, infants, children, and youths” (infantes et parvulos et pueros). This reference attributes these words to St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin.” And again: “Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without the participation of His sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church, which hastened to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ.”(The Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 265, Article on Baptism.)

St. Ambrose is quoted as having said that “No one is excepted, not the infant, not the one hindered by any necessity.” In the Pelagian controversy are found similarly strong pronouncements by the Councils of Carthage and Milevis, and of Pope Innocent I. The explanation is made that because of the church’s belief in the necessity of baptism as a means to salvation, as was already noted by St. Augustine, the Church committed the power of baptism in certain contingencies even to laymen and women.

Catholic theologians are unanimous in declaring that “infants dying without baptism are excluded from the beatific vision,” but concerning the state of such souls in the next world they do not agree. While it is certain that unbaptized infants must endure the pain of loss, (Paena Domni), it is not at all certain that they are subject to the pain of sense (Paena Sensus). St. Augustine taught that unbaptized infants would not be exempt from the pain of sense, but at the same time it would be of the mildest form. St. Gregory Nazianzen expresses the belief that such infants would suffer only the pain of loss. . . .

Since the twelfth century, the opinion of the majority of theologians has been that unbaptized infants are immune from all pain of sense.(Ibid., p. 267.)

 

[majick275]

No, no bullying or pushing that I ever saw BUT it was a different process and that in and of itself lends itself to “stigma”. I disagree with you in general on any parent “making” their child do something is wrong. Obviously parents have a responsibility to make children do certain things. (eat healthy, proper hygeind, go to school, etc.) I totally agree with your last sentence:

“the parents are just tring to help there children”

Exactly why Catholics baptize their children.

 

[paul_barlow]

so this position of your church then denies the little children can return to live with god. Why they have not sinned are you saying the theif on the cross was more worthy than a little child had the theif been baptised. so if the Lord Jesus Christ can forgive a true sinner and allow him into the kingdom of heaven. Are you trying to say that he would ban the little children from coming to him. your doctrine is wrong i am sorry but little children are perfect in the sight of the lord. Any other view can not be supported by scripture.