Why not baptize children?

[ex-mormon]

I thought I would liven this thread up with a:

A Fictional Dialogue on Infant Baptism
By Dave Armstrong
Zeke the “Jesus Freak”: Hey Cathy, why do Catholics baptize babies? It’s pointless since they don’t know what’s going on and can’t repent, according to Acts 2:38 and Mark 6:16.

Cathy the Catholic: But where in the Bible does it specifically prohibit the baptism of babies?

Zeke: Well . . . I guess it never says that. But . . .

Cathy: But don’t you only follow what’s plainly taught in the pages of Scripture?

Zeke: It’s a conclusion that follows from ideas that are clearly in Scripture. It’s still a biblical doctrine.

Cathy: Ah! That’s a big difference. Now we’re both in the same boat, since the Bible doesn’t explicitly teach about baptism of infants. We must make inferences. Catholics maintain that there are many strong *indications *of our view.

Zeke: Where? I’ve never seen any in 17 years of being saved.

Cathy: In Acts 16:15,33, 18:8 (cf. 11:14), and 1 Corinthians 1:16 it is stated that an individual and his *whole household *were baptized. It would be hard to say this involved no small children. Paul in Colossians 2:11-13 makes a connection between baptism and circumcision. Israel was the church before Christ (Acts 7:38, Romans 9:4). Circumcision, given to 8-day old boys, was the seal of the *covenant *God made with Abraham, which applies to us also (Galatians 3:14,29). It was a sign of repentance and future faith (Romans 4:11). Infants were just as much a part of the covenant as adults (Genesis 17:7, Deuteronomy 29:10-12, cf. Matthew 19:14). Likewise, baptism is the *seal *of the New Covenant in Christ. It signifies cleansing from sin, just as circumcision did (Deuteronomy 10:16, 30:6, Jeremiah 4:4, 9:25, Romans 2:28-9, Philippians 3:3). Infants are wholly saved by God’s grace just as adults are, only apart from their rational and willful consent. Their parents act in their behalf.

Zeke: That’s not possible. You have to repent and be born again in order to receive salvation, as John 3:5 says.

Cathy: It doesn’t exactly say that. It says that one must be born of water and the Spirit. Catholics, along with the Church Fathers such as St. Augustine and many Protestants (for example, Lutherans and Anglicans), interpret this as a reference to baptism, and a proof of the necessity of infant baptism.

Zeke: That doesn’t make sense. Water here refers to the amniotic sac when a baby is born. Babies can’t be born again. Jesus is contrasting natural with spiritual birth.

Cathy: Are you saying then that a baby can’t be saved, and will go to hell if it dies before the “age of reason”?

Zeke: No, no, I would never say that. God is too merciful to let that happen to an innocent little baby.
more…

 

[ex-mormon]

…Continued

Cathy: But you believe in original sin (1 Corinthians 15:22), inherited by all people from the Fall of Adam and Eve, right?

Zeke: Well, yeah. What are you getting at?

Cathy: Once you say that a baby can be saved, then clearly there is a justification for baptizing infants, since there are factors other than their own consent which enter into the question of their salvation. Thus, you have arrived at a more *communal, covenantal view of salvation *(see, for example, 1 Corinthians 7:14, 12:13), rather than the individualistic notion that many evangelicals have. The reality of original sin makes baptism desirable as soon as possible, since it removes the punishment and guilt due to sin and infuses sanctifying grace. This is why most Protestants through history, including Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Reformed, and Presbyterians, have baptized infants.

Zeke: Now wait a minute. Surely you don’t believe that baptism actually does anything, do you? It’s only a symbol.

Cathy: You evangelicals always seem to deny that matter can be a conveyor of grace, and too often frown on the idea of sacraments, which are physical, visible means whereby grace is conferred.

Zeke: We don’t believe in those things because they’re unbiblical. The Bible talks about the Spirit giving grace (John 6:63, Romans 8:1-10), not matter. Catholics are always getting weird about things such as statues, relics, rosary beads, the wafer of communion, and holy water. This usually degenerates into idolatry.

Cathy: I disagree. God Himself took on flesh in Christ. Paul’s handkerchiefs healed the sick (Acts 19:12), as did even Peter’s shadow (Acts 5:15)! Likewise, baptism is said to regenerate sinners. Acts 2:38 speaks of being baptized for the forgiveness of your sins. 1 Peter 3:21 says baptism . . . now saves you (cf. Mark 16:16, Romans 6:3-4). Paul recalls how Ananias told him to be baptized, and wash away *your sins *(Acts 22:16). In 1 Corinthians 6:11 Paul sure seems to imply an organic connection between baptism (washed), sanctification and justification, whereas evangelicals separate all three. Titus 3:5 says that he saved us, . . . by the washing of regeneration. What more biblical proof is needed? Is this all to be explained as “symbolic”?

Zeke: I gotta run. I have some questions for my pastor . . .

Food for thought and a lot of scriptures to look up!

God Bless,
ex-mo

 

[isaac.madsen]

I have to admit that was entertaining. Zeke certainly didn’t seem to know where he was coming from. By no means did all his arguments fit within “Mormon Doctrine.” The LDS use a lot of symbols, though many are not immediately visible to one looking at our symbol. The most visibly symbol (of course) is the angel Moroni that stands atop most of our temples. There is a great deal of symbolism used in the temples. For example, the oxen beneath the baptismal font (used for baptisms for the dead) represent the tribes of Israel. Temple clothing is a symbol of purity. Inside the temple, we wear only white.

The sacrament, which both of our religions practice is a very important symbol. In fact, we consider the sacrament one of the most important ordinances performed in our church. These things are not mere symbols. They are cleansing rituals, similar in ways to that of the Catholic church. There are a great many other symbols, but I don’t need to go into them all. It is important to understand the meanings behind the symbols because a symbol is never only a symbol.

I am not here to criticize or proselyte. I am here to gain a better understanding of Catholicism. By all means, teach me. Though you won’t sway my beliefs (they are engrained within my soul), I am sure that my understanding will increase. The more that I can learn about each religion, the easier that it will be for me to find a common ground with anyone. This is my goal: to love all people, despite what I may see as a weakness. We are all spiritual beings. Let us not content one with another, but learn from one another, that we may each grow.

May God be with you,

Isaac Madsen

 

[amgid]

arieh0310:

Since amgid loves to quote Origen when he postulated on …

I like quoting LDS scripture even better! Allow me to quote you what the Lord has said about infant baptisms:

Moroni 8:

4 And now, my son, I speak unto you concerning that which grieveth me exceedingly; for it grieveth me that there should disputations rise among you.

5 For, if I have learned the truth, there have been disputations among you concerning the baptism of your little children.

6 And now, my son, I desire that ye should labor diligently, that this gross error should be removed from among you; for, for this intent I have written this epistle.

7 For immediately after I had learned these things of you I inquired of the Lord concerning the matter. And the word of the Lord came to me by the power of the Holy Ghost, saying:

8 Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.

9 And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children.

10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach–repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children.

11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.

12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!

13 Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell.

14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.

15 For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism.

16 Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for perfect love casteth out all fear.

17 And I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me; wherefore, I love little children with a perfect love; and they are all alike and partakers of salvation.

18 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.

19 Little children cannot repent; wherefore, it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of God unto them, for they are all alive in him because of his mercy.

20 And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption.

21 Wo unto such, for they are in danger of death, hell, and an endless torment. I speak it boldly; God hath commanded me. Listen unto them and give heed, or they stand against you at the judgment-seat of Christ.

22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing–

23 But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works.

24 Behold, my son, this thing ought not to be; for repentance is unto them that are under condemnation and under the curse of a broken law.

25 And the first fruits of repentance is baptism; and baptism cometh by faith unto the fulfilling the commandments; and the fulfilling the commandments bringeth remission of sins;

26 And the remission of sins bringeth meekness, and lowliness of heart; and because of meekness and lowliness of heart cometh the visitation of the Holy Ghost, which Comforter filleth with hope and perfect love, which love endureth by diligence unto prayer, until the end shall come, when all the saints shall dwell with God.amgid

 

[majick275]

No, that is what Joseph Smith said about baptism. Since he is what 2 Peter chapter 2 was talking about I don’t see it as relevant.

 

[PaulDupre]

paul barlow:

But a lot of your doctrinal arguements are based on your ECF. you can not pick and choose they are either inspired hense being made a saint or they are not and they are then false prophets (teachers)

Paul,
Being canonized a saint has nothing to do with being a prophet or being “inspired”. It has to do solely with living a life of exceptional holiness.

Even exceptionally holy people can be mistaken in their ideas about things.

St. Augustine was not a pope and had no authority to declare binding doctrine on the Church, though his writings in general are brilliant and very instructive. Hence he is designated a “Doctor (teacher) of the Church”.
Paul

 

[Tmaque]

I’m curious, why do you LDS think infant baptism became the norm? What was the impetus? What drove the early Christians to introduce such an awful heresy into their faith?

There is no evidence of persecution related to baptism. The main issues that bothered Rome were the idea of the Real Presence(which proves this was taught by the apostles, but that’s another argument), and the concept of the brotherhood of man which they celebrated during the agape meal(love feast). The Romans saw imbued in these two practices, cannibalism and incest.

The early Christians could have deflected much persecution just by changing these two practices. They would not do it even in the face of death. Why would they not change these practices but then introduce something like infant baptism which had no bearing on their fate?

 

[paul_barlow]

Tmaque:

I’m curious, why do you LDS think infant baptism became the norm? What was the impetus? What drove the early Christians to introduce such an awful heresy into their faith?

There is no evidence of persecution related to baptism. The main issues that bothered Rome were the idea of the Real Presence(which proves this was taught by the apostles, but that’s another argument), and the concept of the brotherhood of man which they celebrated during the agape meal(love feast). The Romans saw imbued in these two practices, cannibalism and incest.

The early Christians could have deflected much persecution just by changing these two practices. They would not do it even in the face of death. Why would they not change these practices but then introduce something like infant baptism which had no bearing on their fate?

when your ECF were struggling to remeber the teachings of the pure church after the aposles had died. they were swayed with an understanderble disire to save the young children. They had missed the point that a child is saved by the grace and mercy of Christ. It’s not until we become sinful that we need to work on our repentance. REMEBER CHRIST IS LOVE and an infant has no need to undergo repentance.

 

[isaac.madsen]

Why did it become the norm? That’s simple to answer. The Catholic church became the main Christian religion, often forcing Catholicism upon the minds of others through the Crusades and other such events. This point cannot be debated. It’s a fact.

Thus, most Christian religions today have grown from Catholicism. Why infant baptism then? Because that is the only doctrine really practiced until the time of Joseph Smith. So why and when was it introduced? That’s a question I hoped could be answered by Catholics. Christ certainly said nothing on the subject of infant baptism, as far as the New Testament is concerned.

Also, why was Christ not baptized as an infant? He waited until he was thirty! John had been baptising for years at that point. Why then, did Christ wait? Christ led by example, and this is an example to me that it doesn’t matter what age you are baptized at, so long as you are baptized.

Also, the important thing to be considered in Mormon baptism is that we wait until the child understands what baptism is about. We don’t wish to force our relgion on anyone: especially our own children. We let them make that decision for themselves when the time is right. I’ve known many people who could have been baptized at 8 years old, but waited far beyond that because they didn’t wish to be baptized yet. In Catholicism, the child has no choice but to be baptized. Is not agency an important attribute of Christianity?

May God be with us all,

Isaac Madsen

 

[majick275]

Just a quick question following your post, If 8 is the proper age for baptism (JST of Genesis) then why did Jesus wait until 30?

My own thinking is that Jesus came to fulfill the old covenant so he was circumsized at 8 days. He brought the new covenant when he started his ministry with his own baptism.

I like the Catholic practice of baptism and confirmation being diferentiated so that infants can be baptized but the truly informed decision needed to profess a specific faith and be “confirmed” occurs later in life when one is truly ready to exercise their free agency.

As far as history goes it is the Catholic position that infant baptism was the norm from the beginning of Christ’ church. We know from history that it was the established practice BEFORE the Catholic church gained the ability to come out of hiding form persecution and gain any “temporal power”. I think a variety of baptismal doctrines were practiced well before JS. The anabaptists were around long before then.

 

[Tmaque]

isaac.madsen:

Why did it become the norm? That’s simple to answer. The Catholic church became the main Christian religion, often forcing Catholicism upon the minds of others through the Crusades and other such events. This point cannot be debated. It’s a fact.

We have documented evidence that it was being done in the 2nd century. It was the norm long before Constantine came along. My question still stands as you have not answered it. If you had READ my post you would have understood that I was refering to it’s occurence during the time of the Roman persecutions.

isaac.madsen:

Thus, most Christian religions today have grown from Catholicism. Why infant baptism then? Because that is the only doctrine really practiced until the time of Joseph Smith. So why and when was it introduced? That’s a question I hoped could be answered by Catholics. Christ certainly said nothing on the subject of infant baptism, as far as the New Testament is concerned.

Baptism by immersion was being practiced everywhere in New England by the time JS came long. Jospeh Smith did not re-introduce it!

isaac.madsen:

Also, why was Christ not baptized as an infant? He waited until he was thirty! John had been baptising for years at that point. Why then, did Christ wait? Christ led by example, and this is an example to me that it doesn’t matter what age you are baptized at, so long as you are baptized.

Christ was not baptized as an infant because Jews don’t baptize infants, they circumcize them. John the Baptist was not performing a sacrament, he was asking people to repent and be symbolically washed through baptism. This was spontaneous baptism for anyone that wanted it. It didn’t become sacramental until Christ made it so.

It doesn’t matter what age you’re baptized? I agree.

isaac.madsen:

Also, the important thing to be considered in Mormon baptism is that we wait until the child understands what baptism is about. We don’t wish to force our relgion on anyone: especially our own children. We let them make that decision for themselves when the time is right. I’ve known many people who could have been baptized at 8 years old, but waited far beyond that because they didn’t wish to be baptized yet. In Catholicism, the child has no choice but to be baptized. Is not agency an important attribute of Christianity?

Oh please, what 8 year old, having been brought up their whole life saying, “I know the Church is true”, will refuse baptism. At that age most kids still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and you’re claiming that they suddenly have discernment?. If understanding was really so important you would wait until they were 12 or 13.

 

[majick275]

quick additional observation. I think too many folks LDS or not underrate the influence of Sidney Rigdon in helping JS develop the doctrine of the LDS church. A study of this man and the beliefs he brought with him is certsinly of interest in this area.

 

[Tmaque]

paul barlow:

when your ECF were struggling to remeber the teachings of the pure church after the aposles had died. they were swayed with an understanderble disire to save the young children. They had missed the point that a child is saved by the grace and mercy of Christ. It’s not until we become sinful that we need to work on our repentance. REMEBER CHRIST IS LOVE and an infant has no need to undergo repentance.

The ECF’s weren’t trying to remember anything. Have you read the ECF’s? You mean they just suddenly couldn’t remember at what age baptisms should be made avaliable to children?? They experienced collective amnesia?? That’s incredible.

They missed the point of LDS doctrine? That’s incredible as well. Nowhere in the documents of the early Church do we find LDS understanding or practice regarding original sin and baptism. The EO lean the LDS way, I will admit, yet they also practice infant baptism which negates the possibility that they ever embraced anything resembling LDS doctrine on this subject.

 

[Zakuska]

The only thing Christ did for children under 8…

Matt 19
13 ¶ Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his ahands 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.

Put his hand on them and blessed them.

Romans 8
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to aelection might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

Hmmm, No original Sin?

Rom. 4: 25
25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Rom. 5: 16
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

Rom. 5: 18
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Christ took the Original Sin out of the way. Hmmm all men everywhere are justified before God, becuase of Christ.

 

[tkdnick]

isaac.madsen:

The sacrament, which both of our religions practice is a very important symbol. In fact, we consider the sacrament one of the most important ordinances performed in our church. These things are not mere symbols. They are cleansing rituals, similar in ways to that of the Catholic church.

Isaac,
Maybe you could expound on this a little. The LDS I have had conversations with say that the bread and water served at sacrament meeting are only symbols so as to recall the covenants made with Christ. I’ve never had any of them say that ‘the sacrament’ actually “does” anything.

 

[tkdnick]

isaac.madsen:

this is an example to me that it doesn’t matter what age you are baptized at, so long as you are baptized.

EXACTLY! It doesn’t matter what age, so why not as infants?

 

[Zakuska]

tkdnick:

EXACTLY! It doesn’t matter what age, so why not as infants?

Do Infants have the capacity to “Know good from evil”?

Romans 9
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to aelection might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

Baptism is for some one who can make a choice. Infants don’t choose to be born.

 

[arieh0310]

Zakuska:

Do Infants have the capacity to “Know good from evil”?

Romans 8
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to aelection might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

Baptism is for some one who can make a choice. Infants don’t choose to be born.

That’s not how Romans 8:11 reads in my Bible. The RSV reads as:
*
11: If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you.*

 

[Zakuska]

Sorry Romans 9… went and changed it.

 

[tkdnick]

Zakuska:

Do Infants have the capacity to “Know good from evil”?

Romans 8
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to aelection might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

Baptism is for some one who can make a choice. Infants don’t choose to be born.

No, infants don’t know good from evil. But I would make the case that children A LOT younger than 8 do. Also, I’m not sure what knowing good from evil has to do with entering into God’s covenant family (what baptism does for us) and removing the stain of Original Sin (also what baptism does for us).

I’m not sure what Bible you’re using to get that really strange quote from, but here’s two Bibles including the KJV, which is the only approved LDS version.

Here’s the verse Romans 8:11 from the KJV:
But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

And from the NAB:
If the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, the one who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also, through his Spirit that dwells in you.

Also, I’m not sure what your quote, or the others have to do with infant baptism.