Why not baptize children?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chris-WA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here’s a question: What’s with the water sprinkling? Christ was baptized by immersion. Also, I’ve never read anything about the Apostles going around baptizing children, or anyone for that matter. John the baptist was one of the few people who did that, and he did it by immersion. Where did Catholicism get the sprinkling of water from? Don’t mean to offend. Just questions.
  • Isaac Madsen
 
Where does the bible say that Christ was baptized by immersion? Chapter and verse please.

Also, there are many places in the gospels and in Acts where the apostles baptize. And it says they baptized entire families (that implies children as well as adults). Where in the bible does it say not to baptize children? Chapter and verse, please. Do you ever read the bible?

Paul
 
What if a soldier was dying on the battlefield and asked to be baptized with a very sincere and open heart towards Christ, and all there was, was a canteen full of water?
Why is it so necessary that one be immersed all the way under the water, what law is this?

Why did the high priest of Jesus time claim that he was breaking the law while picking grain on Sunday?

Why did the high priest of Jesus time claim that he was breaking the law while not washing His hands prior to eating a meal?

What did Jesus tell them in these situations?
 
40.png
isaac.madsen:
Here’s a question: What’s with the water sprinkling? Christ was baptized by immersion. Also, I’ve never read anything about the Apostles going around baptizing children, or anyone for that matter. John the baptist was one of the few people who did that, and he did it by immersion. Where did Catholicism get the sprinkling of water from? Don’t mean to offend. Just questions.
  • Isaac Madsen
Click to expand...
This comes from the didache primarily. It is worth your while to study regardless of your religious beliefs. It is considered important sacred tradition by Catholics. It is the teachings of the apostles to the church. Kind of a church handbook of instructions for the “primitive” Christians. It is very detailed on baptism and tells that water must be used. It speaks to a preference then of immersion in specific types of water but is very clear that it is not a necessity. It tells us that if you can’t immerse then you pour (common in Catholic churches) and if you can’t pour then sprinkle. In LDS terms it’s kind of like what the D&C says about the sacrament. (okay not to use wine, etc.) You have to use water and you have to do it in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Baptizing children is believed to be of biblical origin and has been consistently done from the start of the Christian Church according to ECFs. (you can read the salient points form them on the CA page for sacraments)
 
Thanks. That’s something I’ve wondered for years, but nobody seemed to know the answer until I came to this forum. Glad you know your religion. If I had the time to dig into it right now, I would, but I’m having a hard enough time keeping up with my own college reading right now. I’ll put somewhere high up on my list of recommended reading though. I imagine, as you say, it would probably be worth my time, just as most other influential religious texts are.

Thanks again,

Ike
 
40.png
isaac.madsen:
Thanks. That’s something I’ve wondered for years, but nobody seemed to know the answer until I came to this forum. Glad you know your religion. If I had the time to dig into it right now, I would, but I’m having a hard enough time keeping up with my own college reading right now. I’ll put somewhere high up on my list of recommended reading though. I imagine, as you say, it would probably be worth my time, just as most other influential religious texts are.
Click to expand...
Ike,

The Didache is pretty short, about six pages and reads like a priesthood manual. A good summary is found here while the full text is found here. And finally there were some interesting discussions of it on the FAIR boards.

The best discussion of infant baptism I have ever seen is found here with the Catholic position well defended by the venerable David Waltz.

Later,
fool
 
The remission of sins for an adult is a treasure included in Baptism, but sinning is not a requirement for Baptism, it is a fact of our fallen nature. From the writings of the first Christians and from Scripture we find that the first Christians were baptized as adults to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, because the church was just being formed. These adults who were first baptized began to baptize their own children at a very early age to bring them the same (free gift) of Salvation, the Holy Spirit that they had received as adults. "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household . . . and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. (Acts 16:15a) "

It was the obligation of these parents to raise their children in the Christian faith, teaching them the many treasures that Christ had gifted them. You will be hard pressed to find in the early church writings an early Christian who had not been baptized as a child. There are no writings of early Christians who were born into Christian families who at an age of reason (This would be a real man made tradition) made the decision to be baptized into Christ, to be born again, because they already were being raised in the faith. It was and is only those who did not know of Christ, who found Christ at a later age, who were called to the water and made the choice to renounce their accumulated sin, to enter into the community of Christians through the Great Sacrament of Baptism, to join in the Sacrament of Confession, forgiveness and reconciliation, for the lifelong battle over sin while being embraced by Christ our healer.

Baptism is not just a testimony in the soul of an adult who has come to believe in the saving power of Christ, but is the means by which we clothe ourselves in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. For an infant, it is the receiving of the Holiest of Spirits, a blanket of security covered with the communion of saints in the One Body of Christ (Romans 6:4) (Galatians 3:27)

Peter said, (Acts 2:38) “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him”

After these first Christians were baptized, they naturally passed this saving Grace on to their first-born, second-born and so on. This baptism of infants was not for conscious sin, the remission of sins committed since their birth, because they had not yet consciously sinned. But it was for the receiving of the Holy Spirit for the remission of original sin, that which we are all born with and by which we are afflicted, the why and reason for needing our Savior. The parents of these Children gave to them Christ, what more could they give? He is the ALL in All to us Christians.

As you ponder Scripture about Baptism, try to find where baptism is restricted only to adults. Where do we find the so-called “Age of Reason as a degree for receiving Baptism in the Scriptures "? Either the gift of salvation is freely given to those who hear the Shepherd’s voice and follow, or it is not. Is this gift earned through our sin? Or is this gift given, because of original sin, to all who accept this gift or freely pass it on to others? And what about those who are mentally ill who cannot make decisions on their own, is not the receiving of the Spirit put forth to transform them, as well? Do we have to be smart enough to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit at Baptism? What father or mother does not give the gift of life to his or her child before an age of reason? What conditions can we as mere creatures place on the special gift of life, the special gift of baptism? A life in Christ.

(Acts 16:15). “the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family” (Acts 16:33) “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas” (1 Cor. 1:16).

If a child is born into a Christian home, he or she is baptized to receive the Holy Spirit and to be taught the faith by his or her parents along with the community of Christ, the Church. An adult who is not born into a Christian home would be baptized naturally as an adult to accept the same faith that a child raised in a Christian home had already received. Baptism was not administered to bring them into a certain Christian sect; it was administered to bring them into a life of Christ, as there was only one Christian faith

…catholic-rcia
 
Thank you Mormon Fool. As you can see, I have plenty still to learn. It’s a lifelong process, studying religion. God works with men line upon line precept upon precept, revealing things as the hearts of men become ready to receive them. Perhaps this is the case with infant baptism. It could very well have been - and in fact, scripture indicates that it probably was - the practice of early Christianity.

In the New Testament, it mentions the “Churches of Christ.” This tells me that even in the beginning of Christianity, there was more than one Church trying to follow his teachings. Could they all be true? Is only one of them true? Are any of them true? You ask that question for yourself. As God that question. Don’t ask your own mind. Don’t ask another man. Ask God. He’ll give you the answer if you ask with true intent. If we pray for others to see things our way, we’re praying for the wrong thing. We ought to be praying that all men will come to see God’s truth, that we will all find our way to the fulness of God’s gospel.

That’s something that I realized quickly when I got on this board. It was a new idea I hadn’t thought of before. If we’re all praying for different results (that you’ll join my religion, or that I’ll join yours), everything just gets scrambled up because God truly gives us what we pray for if we pray with enough faith. That happens even if we pray for the wrong thing. God eventually say, “Fine, but I hope you learn your lesson and come back to me.” However, if we are all praying for the same thing (that we’ll all come unto Christ, and understand the truth) then, and only then. Change the way you pray. Pray for all of US, not just for “them.” I hope this is making sense to you.
  • Isaac Madsen
 
40.png
isaac.madsen:
In the New Testament, it mentions the “Churches of Christ.” This tells me that even in the beginning of Christianity, there was more than one Church trying to follow his teachings. Could they all be true? Is only one of them true? Are any of them true?
Click to expand...
I think the scriptures here may be referring to the churches of Christ in different geographic locations, not implying that they are separate institutions.
 
40.png
Chris-WA:
I think the scriptures here may be referring to the churches of Christ in different geographic locations, not implying that they are separate institutions.
Click to expand...
Yes this is fact, Like different Wards in different States. All celebrating the Mass the same way.
 
We still use that terminology when describing a diocese. For instance, the Diocese of Orange is referred to as “The Church at Orange”. The “Churches” in the NT were not separate denominations, but rather the equivalent of dioceses.
Paul
 
“Indeed, the Church, though scattered throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, having received the faith from the apostles and their disciples. . . guards [this preaching and faith] with care, as dwelling in but a single house, and similarly believes as if having but one soul and a single heart, and preaches, teaches and hands on this faith with a unanimous voice, as if possessing only one mouth.”…found here:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c3a2.htm#166
 
And from very early on the Church was called Catholic (universal) Not the Christian Church, or a Christian Church, rather the Catholic Church with Christians in it. If you like I could look this up.

God Bless
 
I’d be interested for history’s sake. I don’t doubt that the title “Catholic” was given to your particular church early on. My doubt resides in whether or not it was the only christian church at the time it was named. I also have doubts about the doctrine taught because throughout the history of Catholicism, corruction has run deep in the church. I’m not saying that the leaders today are bad. In fact, I think that Pope John Paul II was one of the best men that ever lived. I’m just saying that I don’t have a testimony of your doctrine, whereas I do have a testimony of mine. It is a matter of faith.

If you want to know where the doctrine of becoming Godlike truly comes from, look at Rom. 8: 17 and Gal. 4: 7. Sure, come up with whatever rebuttal you want to that, but it’s all about the way you interpret it. And what of Romans 8: 28-29?
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to whom are the called according to his purpose.
Click to expand...
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Click to expand...
This scripture tells us the following:

(1) Those who love God are called to do his work, and for them, good things will happen (spiritually speaking).
(2) We were with God before our earthly life.
(3) God chose specific men to be leaders, Christlike men upon the earth, men that “conformed to the image of his Son.”
(4) The Son is the “firstborn,” or in other words, the first heir to the kingdom “among many brethren.”

This is the interpretation from an LDS perspective. What is the Catholic view?
  • Ike
 
40.png
isaac.madsen:
I also have doubts about the doctrine taught because throughout the history of Catholicism, corruction has run deep in the church.
Click to expand...
Likewise for your church:

Throughout the history of Mormonism, corruption has run deep in the church.

Secular historians have shown us the deficient character of Joseph Smith with his womanizing and money digging. They have also shown us how Brigham Young ordered dozens(including women and children over 5) killed in the Mountain Meadow massacre. Of course, you would dispute this and claim that you can’t trust these historians.

It’s interesting that LDS use secular historians to condemn Catholicism, yet refuse to believe anything secular historians have to say about their own history.
 
40.png
isaac.madsen:
I also have doubts about the doctrine taught because throughout the history of Catholicism, corruction has run deep in the church. I’m not saying that the leaders today are bad. In fact, I think that Pope John Paul II was one of the best men that ever lived. I’m just saying that I don’t have a testimony of your doctrine, whereas I do have a testimony of mine. It is a matter of faith.
Click to expand...
No one denies that there have been some bad popes, but you have to be able to separate doctrine from the personal faults of men. If the continuity of any church depended on the personal holiness of an individual member, we would all be doomed to failure because people are in imperfect. This applies equally to LDS prophets as well. Mormons are very willing to see the faults of historical Catholic leaders, but for some reason cannot see the faults of people like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. I think this is because the history of such men is often romanticized to the point that they seemed to walk on water. Go to the movie about the beginnings of the LDS church in Temple Square and you won’t see or hear anything about polygamy or any of the other more controversial aspects of these men.

Regardless, show us where the doctrine has been corrupted. What you will find among the bad popes is that none of them ever changed the doctrine of the church. It was the same before and after they held the office. That to me indicates that the Holy Spirit has continued to protect Christ’s church despite the shortcomings of certian individuals, even if that individual was a pope.

If a U.S. president fails to live up to the office which he holds, we don’t throw away his office. The office doesn’t lose its authority. The same is true for the office of the bishop of Rome, regardless of who occupies it.
 
The facts show that in spite of the LDS scriptures claiming that their church must accept their presidents words and commandments as if they came from the mouth of God (D&C 21) they have on multiple occasions reversed doctrines of previous presidents.

This shows doctrinal errors on the part of their “prophets” in ADDITION to the harmful practices that some of these men have engaged in. (and lied about)

The current LDS president has certainly muddied the waters as well by his “i don’t know that we teach that” type comments that neither confirm nor deny LDS teachings in an effort to “appear” more “mainstream”.

As far as the OP, the RCC has been consistent in it’s of baptizing children. The LDS church only gives us JS word that it’s an “awful wickedness”. (Moroni 8)
 
40.png
isaac.madsen:
I also have doubts about the doctrine taught because throughout the history of Catholicism, corruction has run deep in the church.
Click to expand...
Hello Isaac;

This is a tangent - but I feel I must respond in charity to the assumption underlying your comment.

While I readily concede that the Catholic Church has seen its share of sinners, I disagree with your assumption that corruption has “run deep” in the Church. I think that a fair view of the Church would reveal that the opposite is true. I’m not suggesting that the Church is perfect - far from it. It is filled with human beings - all of whom are prone to sin due to the nature of humanity. But the institution itself has remained benevolent in its mission from its founding. Despite the misdeeds of many individuals during its 2000 year history, the institution has always been filled with men and women who put on Christ every day. And so, to suggest that corruption “runs deep” is to overlook the millions of acts of faith, hope, and charity performed by the Church through its members on a daily basis. No other institution on earth can match the good works performed by the Catholic Church. So, whether you believe in the ecclesial authority of the Catholic Church or not, it would be inaccurate to suggest that it is a corrupt institution.
 
Amen to the last post.

There is not one or two Catholics that have sinned. We have all sinned in one way or another. This is why we are Christians. Christ is the Doctor of our Church, we are the patients. We also pray for those who commit mortal sin and for those hurt by it. This is the reality of our faith.
 
In The Bible It Says Get Baptized When U Now Understand And Accept The,jesus As Ur Savior…how Can A Kid Under 8 Know Understand And Accept Christ When U Still Gotta Dress Them Under 8 Years Old Come On, Read Ur Bibles Poeple Please.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top