Why not baptize children?

[Robert_in_SD]

Zakuska:

Better yet… where in the bible does the word “original sin” appear?

The very verse Ive shown show that Christ took Adams sin out of our way.

The effect of Adam’s sin upon all of humanity (e.i. original sin) is described here…

[12] Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned – …
…[16] And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification.
[17] If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
[18] Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.
[19] For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous. (Rom 5:12-19)

and here…

[21] For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.
[22] For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
[23] But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. (1 Cor 15:21-23)

and here…

[1] And you he made alive, when you were dead through the trespasses and sins
[2] in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience.
[3] Among these we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of body and mind, and so we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. (Eph 2:1-3)

The necessity of baptism for salvation is found here…

[5] Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (Jn 3:5.)

And of course the early church fathers (even before Constantine) talked about baptizing the children. St. Hippolytus of Rome (circa 215 A.D.) said:

Baptize first the children; and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them. (The Apostolic Tradition, 21.)

And Origan wrote (circa 244 A.D.)

The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants." (Commentary on Romans, 5, 9.)

And in 252 the Council of Carthage condemned the opinion that infants must wait unti the eighth day after birth to be baptized, as was the case with circumcision. (St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letter 64 (59), 2.)

The Church has always taught that baptism is: (1) necessary for the forgiveness of sin

Catechism of the Catholic Church:
**For the forgiveness of sins . . . **
1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.66 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

and (2) available to infants.

Catechism of the Catholic Church: **The Baptism of infants **

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.51

1251 Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them.52

1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole “households” received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.53

51 Cf. CIC, can. 867; CCEO, cann. 681; 686,1.
52 Cf. LG 11; 41; GS 48; CIC, can. 868.
53 Cf. Acts 16:15,33; 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16; CDF, instruction, Pastoralis actio: AAS 72 (1980) 1137-1156.

 

[paul_barlow]

your using constantine as a sorce but he only converted on his death bed. were’s the evidence from scripture and the aposles that says babies need baptism.

 

[paul_barlow]

**Catechism of the Catholic Church: The Baptism of infants

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.51

1251 Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them.52

1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole “households” received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.53

51 Cf. CIC, can. 867; CCEO, cann. 681; 686,1.
52 Cf. LG 11; 41; GS 48; CIC, can. 868.
53 Cf. Acts 16:15,33; 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16; CDF, instruction, Pastoralis actio: AAS 72 (1980) 1137-1156. **

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.51

a child is not born with a fallen nature the fallen nature is in those that can not recognise the divine nature of god. he does not send us into the world as sinners we chose to sin. you are denying the lord jesus christ when you claim an innocent is with sin.

1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole “households” received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.53

you mean apart for the first two hundred years oh and the teachings of the saviour on children. no the infants would not a child is free of sin. However when you claim they have sin then in fact you sin.

 

[Catholic_Guy]

paul barlow:

your using constantine as a sorce but he only converted on his death bed. were’s the evidence from scripture and the aposles that says babies need baptism.

Where is the evidence in scripture that states they don’t need baptism?

In Christ,
Catholic Guy

 

[Zakuska]

Tmaque:

It’s clear from the verses you posted that we have inherited Adam’s sin. “Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned” See that word “all”, that means everyone. Not all but children, all…meaning ALL human beings.

YOU said Christ destroyed original sin. Implying that it is automatically removed from everyone. I said show me where it says that.

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.

Like I said… Christ destroyed original sin.

The free gift of imortality comes to all men unconditionally.

Again Robert SD. Im fully with you that baptism is required “to enter the Kingdom”. But its not required to receive Imortality.

Baptism is for the remission of sins.

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; )

Again Infants have no sin becuase they have not the capacity to do such.

 

[Chris-WA]

isaac.madsen:

Here is the Jospeh Smith translation of GENESIS 17:11-12

11 And I will establish a covenant of circumcision with thee, and it shall be my covenant between me and thee, in their generations; that thou mayest know for ever that children are not accountable before me until they are eight years old.

Wow, I didn’t know that Joseph Smith tampered with Genesis as well. Don’t you just love how Joseph Smith invented ways to support doctrines of the church? Just rewrite certain verses of the bible to say whatever you want, claim it was divine revelation, and presto–you’ve got instant support for whatever doctrine you want to introduce. That’s a scene right out of Orwell’s 1984, when the “Ministry of Truth” would rewrite history every time they wanted to change something they didn’t like.

Any time somebody claims that they have received divine revelation to add to, delete from, or change holy scripture, if alarms don’t go off in your head, something is definitely wrong.

 

[Chris-WA]

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.

How the heck do you know that? Did you come up with this on your own or did you read it somewhere?

 

[Chris-WA]

paul barlow:

your using constantine as a sorce but he only converted on his death bed. were’s the evidence from scripture and the aposles that says babies need baptism.

Paul, I think it’s more correct to ask where does it say that children cannot be baptized? Christ and the Apostles told us that baptism is necessary for salvation and to baptize all nations. They never specficied an age limit or a restriction of whom not to baptize. Therefore, how can you possibly arbitrarily decide that there is an age limit? This age limit is a modern invention that has no basis in scripture or the tradition of the Christian church.

 

[amgid]

Chris-WA:

Paul, I think it’s more correct to ask where does it say that children cannot be baptized?

Because the Bible implicitly teaches the contrary.

Christ and the Apostles told us that baptism is necessary for salvation and to baptize all nations.

The exclusion of infants is implied.

They never specficied an age limit or a restriction of whom not to baptize.

An age limit is not specified in the Bible, but it is implied. The Bible clearly states that baptism in unto repentance for the remission of sins; and every intelligent person knows that an infant can neither sin nor repent.

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 repentancefor the remission of sins;

Therefore, how can you possibly arbitrarily decide that there is an age limit?

The decision by the LDS Church on an age limit is not made “arbitrarily”. It is given to by revelation from the Lord.

This age limit is a modern invention that has no basis in scripture …

This age limit is a revelation from the Lord that has every basis in scripture.

… or the tradition of the Christian church.

That may be true. The LDS church is not bound by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

amgid

 

[flameburns623]

Tmaque:

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.

For the record: when I was pressured by the Lutherans to make a profession of faith at age 6–I tearfully but adamantly declined. In fact–although I attended Vacation Bible Schools and Church camps regularly, and Sunday School regularly for extended periods of time–I did not make a public profession of faith nor receive baptism until I was fifteen or sixteen years old. I do believe that youngsters can understand the gravity of the pledge they are being asked to accept and that they can and do resist pressure to do something they don’t feel prepared for. And I think the Catholics are losing sight of the fact that prior to baptism, children are not only catechised in the basics of the LDS faith but interviewed privately by an LDS bishop or by one of his counselors to guage their readiness to make this step. There are far more safeguards within the LDS system than there were for me, attending a Lutheran VBS.

So far everyone is glossing over the point I raised on behalf of the LDS regarding the ‘age of accountability’–the preferred term used by LDS for the age at which baptism is acceptable. I pointed out that one reading of this phrase would be that no child is held accountable for his or her miscreance sooner than the age of eight; children or adults of limited mental capacity might not be held accountable by God for their misdeeds long after the age of eight if ever. In other words, if we are to give credence to what the LDS Scriptures are teaching–it seems to me that 8 is not necessarily the magic age at which children suddenly discern right from wrong. Rather, it is the age at which God begins to hold people accountable for their behavior, based upon their individual capacity to truly discern wrong and right. If I am reading this passage correctly, it seems to me to sidestep all of the discussion about Original Sin, culpability, and so on. Just a thought or two.

 

[Chris-WA]

amgid:

The exclusion of infants is implied.

An age limit is not specified in the Bible, but it is implied. The Bible clearly states that baptism in unto repentance for the remission of sins; and every intelligent person knows that an infant can neither sin nor repent.

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 repentancefor the remission of sins;

The exclusion of any age is not implied. You are reading something into scripture that isn’t there. Yes, baptism gives a remission of sins, but that does not exclude an infant or a small child from baptism. Due to the Fall, we are not born into a state of grace like Adam and Eve were. We must be baptised to become adopted sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father. Baptism has the immediate effect of returning us to that state of grace, imparting divine sonship upon us. It does not require a conscious decision on our part, for our parents can bring us into the church, just like the Isrealites circumcised their sons to bring them into the old covenant.

The early Christians recognized the parallel between circumcision and baptism. Just as the newborn male Israelite was circumcised into the old covenant, the newborn Christian is baptized into the new covenant. You have no evidence that the early church restricted baptism to a certain age. The best you can do is to make a leap of interpretation based on what you think is “implied” by scripture. Unfortunatley, that is not how the early church interpreted scripture. All the evidence points in that direction. No evidence points in the other direction.

Only later on did some think it was preferrable to wait for baptism for the same reasons you are giving. But this was not the practice of the church, and was rightly rejected.

 

[Zakuska]

We arnt?

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

Christ returned manking to the grace of God.

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.

Baptism is for those who god Calls.

Why did the Savior never baptise Infants?

Matt 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.

He only blessed them… becuase they where already part of the Kingdom of Heaven. Only later when their sinful natures got the best of them did they need to be baptized.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Dear Zakuska;

You said:

Zakuska:

Again Robert SD. Im fully with you that baptism is required “to enter the Kingdom”. But its not required to receive Imortality.

Since when has the soul not been immortal? We’re talking about salvation, not immortality. An eternity in Hell was not Christ’s gift on the cross, was it? Christ’s gift on the cross, rather, was our salvation from an eternity in Hell. I’m at a loss as to how to interpret your statement. Do you suggest that some souls may have winked out of existence between the fall of Adam and the redemptive work of Christ? Or do you mean that souls were in danger of oblivion and that’s what Christ came to save us from, but we have to get to heaven on our own merit? Your statement is perplexing. Can you elaboroate, please?

 

[Zakuska]

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.

Take it up with the Apostle Paul he calls the “free gift” justification of life, or Imortality.

Christ has made all men right with God. Our merits bring us better standing with God. And sit us closer to his throne.

Thus Peter tells us to make our calling and election sure by adding to our faith.

2 Pet 1
5 And beside this, giving all adiligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;

Our actions garentees our seats…

11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the aeverlasting bkingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hello again Zakuska;
You said

Zakuska:

Take it up with the Apostle Paul he calls the “free gift” justification of life, or Imortality.

I’m taking the issue up with you because I don’t believe that Paul is speaking of a christian’s “immortality,” but of their initial justification. Nowhere in the scriptures is “Justification” synonymous with “immortality.” Indeed, the prospect of eternal judgment presupposes immortality and calls for a savior who justifies - or makes right - our relationship with God. Catholic teaching - as shown on this thread - is that baptism is the normative way of obtaining this initial justification. It does not require personal assent to be efficacious - else those without the capacity for personal assent would not be capable of attaining salvation.

Zakuska:

Christ has made all men right with God. Our merits bring us better standing with God. And sit us closer to his throne.

I agree that Christ’s sacrifice is the one perfect atonement for sin (both personal sins and original sin) and that there is nothing more needed. However, where we seem to disagree is upon how one *appropriates * the benefit of Christ’s sacrifice for himself or herself. None of the passages you site states that baptism is not necessary. Nor do any of these passages make a distinction between infants and adults. However, on several occasions (see my earlier posts) the NT clearly and expressly states that baptism is necessary for salvation - without indicating that an exception lies for infants and those without the capacity for adult reason. In addition, the citations I provided to the Early Church Fathers confirms that the need for baptism and the routine baptism of infants and those who cannot answer for themselves were both accepted by Church Tradition from the beginning.

Your comments regarding our merits bringing us better “standing with God” seem to drift from the thread topic (infant baptism) to another topic (“faith alone” versus “faith plus works”). Perhaps I’m not understanding your point, but if you want to discuss and compare Catholic v. LDS teaching on what - other than baptism - is needed for one’s ultimate salvation you should start another thread and I would be happy to participate in that discussion as well.

 

[Zakuska]

I completely agree with you on the necessity of baptism.

This is one of my favorite sites to quote:
catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp

Excellent research!

However… I disagree at the same time.

Eg Theif on the Cross.

Yes I know we don’t have the full story with him so not much really can be said. Also… 99.999% of the people in the world are not in the situation of the theif and so this is not the Norm.

However… There is a class of people who have not the law and God justifies them. Because where there is no law there is no sin. God does not “imput” sin when there is no law. And an Infant has no law. Until a Child is taught right from wrong their sins are not counted against them. Thus no need of Baptism until they come to the understanding of what Baptism really is.

Rom. 4: 8
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Rom. 5: 13
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hello again Zakuska;

Zakuska:

However… I disagree at the same time.

Eg Theif on the Cross.

Yes I know we don’t have the full story with him so not much really can be said. Also… 99.999% of the people in the world are not in the situation of the theif and so this is not the Norm.

However… There is a class of people who have not the law and God justifies them. Because where there is no law there is no sin. God does not “imput” sin when there is no law. And an Infant has no law. Until a Child is taught right from wrong their sins are not counted against them. Thus no need of Baptism until they come to the understanding of what Baptism really is.

Rom. 4: 8
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Rom. 5: 13
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Let me answer your concern this way…

The Catholic Church recognizes baptism as the “normative” method for obtaining justification and as such the Church is obligated to baptise for the remission of sins. It is the only sure way that the Church knows. However, the Church does teach that there are those who are saved outside of baptism (in addition to the baptism of blood and baptism of desire that are presumed to occur even without water, etc.) The Catechism states it well:

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 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.

63 GS 22 § 5; cf. LG 16; AG 7.

The example of the thief would seem to fall within this category if he does not fall into the other exceptions already discussed above (i.e. baptism by desire or by blood) and if he even falls within the requirement at all, having presumably died before the institution of the Church and prior to the “great commission” by Christ.

 

[Zakuska]

Then we are on the same page.

 

[amgid]

Chris-WA:

The exclusion of any age is not implied.

It is!

You are reading something into scripture that isn’t there.

There is!

Yes, baptism gives a remission of sins, but that does not exclude an infant or a small child from baptism.

It very much does. The scriptures I had sited make clear the necessary preconditions for baptism. They are:

1 A recognition of sin.

2 A repentance of sin.

3 A confession of sin.

4 A remission of sin (which takes place after baptism).Infants cannot do nor obtain any of these things; therefore they are exempt from baptism.

Due to the Fall, we are not born into a state of grace like Adam and Eve were. We must be baptised to become adopted sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father. Baptism has the immediate effect of returning us to that state of grace, imparting divine sonship upon us.

That is incorrect. The scriptures make it clear that baptism is for the remission of sins. That means our own sins, not Adam’s sins. Before baptism, we repent of our own sins, not Adam’s sins; and we confess our own sins, not Adam’s sins.

If what you are saying is correct, then infants who die before baptism must go to hell. That is a wicked and perverse doctrine that God would send an infant to hell because of no baptism.

It does not require a conscious decision on our part, for our parents can bring us into the church, just like the Isrealites circumcised their sons to bring them into the old covenant.

Israelites lived under a different kind of a law, which was given to the because of the “hardness of their hearts”. Jesus did away with that law, and instituted a new kind of law. Baptism is definitely not a replacement for circumcision. Baptism for the remission of sins existed among the Jews before the time of Christ. John the Baptist came baptizing, long before the ministry of Jesus had even begun.

I have a question for you. If what you say is true, why was it necessary for Jesus to be baptized? According to your theology, Jesus was already born into a “state of grace”; He was not subject to the curse of Adam. You even go so far as to teach that Mary was immaculately conceived, so that Jesus could be immaculately conceived. If so, why then did He need to be baptized, if what you are saying is true?

(Continued in the next post…)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

The early Christians recognized the parallel between circumcision and baptism. Just as the newborn male Israelite was circumcised into the old covenant, the newborn Christian is baptized into the new covenant. You have no evidence that the early church restricted baptism to a certain age. The best you can do is to make a leap of interpretation based on what you think is “implied” by scripture. Unfortunatley, that is not how the early church interpreted scripture. All the evidence points in that direction. No evidence points in the other direction.

Only later on did some think it was preferrable to wait for baptism for the same reasons you are giving. But this was not the practice of the church, and was rightly rejected.

I am afraid you are wrong, and persist in wanting to be wrong. There is not a single instance of infant baptism in the NT. Every instance of baptism recorded in the NT is of adult baptism. John the Baptist only baptized adults—after they had “repented” and “confessed”. He never baptized infants. Said he to them: “… therefore bring forth fruit meet for repentance” (Matthew 3:8). How can an infant “bring froth fruit meet for repentance”?

Jesus and His disciples baptized; but they always baptized adults, not infants. Jesus loved children, and took them in his arms and blessed them. When His disciples tried to turn them away, He was displeased, and said, “suffer little children to come unto to me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God”. But He never baptized them. Here are the quotes:

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.

15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

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.

17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.Here is another good question for you: How did those little children become heirs of the kingdom of God? By baptism, or without baptism? If by baptism, why then did not Jesus have them baptized? Why did He just bless them, and imply that they are (already) heirs of the kingdom of God?

amgid