 |
Everybody has different beliefs and belong to different denominations. My question is for parents. Have you had your baby baptised when he/she was a baby. Or have some of you decided to wait until the child is older to make up his/her own mind on what they want to do.
What are your beliefs on baptism, when should it be done, or approximately?
Thank you in advance!
Joe
It's not a matter of whimsical personal choice.
We do baptism of all ages, we do teach and practice baby baptism.
All 4 of my children were baptised into the Catholic religion at a very tender age. They were all infants.
As the two oldest grew older and wanted to experiment with other religions I did not hold them back. The oldest was recently "baptised" (his choice) into the Baptist religion.
So I guess it is all a matter of personal preference really.
My children were all baptized when they were infants. At that time, I had converted to Lutheranism and they taught infant baptism as well as my Catholic upbringing did. So I was in agreement. When we (as a family) started attending an Assembly of God church and were taught about water baptism, we took classes about that and wanted to be baptized again.
I do not see anything wrong with infant baptism and I do not see anything wrong with waiting until the child is old enough to understand what baptism means and can make his/her own decision.
Hope this helps you!
Acts 19:4:
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Repentance is the key word here. A sinless child can not repent.
Some denominations don't practice infant baptism at all, nor do the parents have any binding say on when or if... I think that was part of what Starman was indicating.
There is a correlation between infant baptism and the teaching of original sin - at least that is what I was always taught was the reason why infants were baptized. Now one can argue, successfully I think, that infants cannot sin and if they died, they would enter heaven. However, if your Church doctrine states that man is born with original sin, then you take the necessary steps and baptize your child when he/she is still a baby.
Had the first one baptised at about 8 months, mostly due to mother-in-law pressure. Our second child is now 2 years old, not baptised and not likely to be.
Son, 3 isn't baptised. Wife and I grew up catholic, so it feels a little odd to both of us not to have done it. Some things we miss, like the weekly eucharist and other rituals of our childhood.
We are now protestant, and we could have baptised our son, there was no pressure not to... but I think I wanted him to be able to make a choice. If I'm wrong and my God looks down on my son for my decision... well then I'm very mistaken about the love of my God.
By the way, I was actually baptised twice. Once in the hospital neonatal unit (preemie 2.5 mo early, nobody thought id live) and then again when I was old enough to understand what it meant, before my first communion.
Peter told his hearers on the day of pentecost that they had to repent and be baptised. Infants are bnot capable of repentance, and no one else can make promises on behalf of someone who is not conscious of the arrangement. Paedobaptism is unbiblical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesushelper76
Original sin is Augustinian, not biblical. The Bible knows nothing about original sin. It knows that it is our nature to sin, but not because we are born depraved, but because we are human and imperfect. Unbaptised infants are not barred from heaven and you will not find any hint that they are in the Bible. There is no record of babies and little children being baptised in the NT. Paedobaptism is a practice that crept into the church long fater the apostolic era.Quote:
Originally Posted by shygrneyzs
Baptism is a symbolic. It is an outward act to identify yourself with Jesus. It is not necessary for salvation. That would be "works", and we do not obtain salvation by works. Ephesians2:8-9 tells us that we are saved by 1) faith in Jesus Christ 2) God's grace. Nothing else.
If a baby should die, every church and Christian writer would tell you that the a baby will be judged on its light and will be with the Lord forever.
What is proper, is to dedicate your baby to the Lord. That is Biblical. A great example is in 1Samuel- of Hannah dedicating her baby Samuel to the Lord.
MORGANITE: I do not agree with you. The fall of man was the original sin. Both for man and for earth. Even in the O.T. we see Psalm 51:5- Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
I think babtising an infant can be respected by God, and I think it has far more meaning when the baptising is done out of repentance by the person being baptised. I think though, a lot of Catholics do have repentance and therefore, in knowing they were previously baptised, are totally covered. The baptism would mean nothing for the baptised child that never repents though. Acceptance of Jesus CHrist is still and always will be the only way to the Father. Blessings to everyone.
By the way, I enjoyed your posts. I was raised Baptist, am married into a wonderful Catholic family and practice the non-denominational way.
Thank you for your answer. It must have been a coincidence but my wife just asked me again today when would we like to get Joshua baptized but I am not sure about it. I am happy that you enjoy my posts. I hope you stick around lots. You have some really excellent posts yourself. (;
Joe
Thanks Joe. God bless your family,
Cindy
READF THIS Before THE POST ABOVE SO AS TO READ IT IN ITS PROPER ORDER...Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrotia
David might well have thought he was conceived in sin, but if so he is simply making excuses for huis terrible sinfulness in the affair concerning the adultery with Basheba and the death of her first husband, who David consinged to the thick of the battle and made an order that no one was to go to his aid, resulting in his death, which because of the way David engineered it is counted as an act of murder. What David is not saying is that all men are sinful from birth or before. He is speaking on a personal level, out of his grief, and because he feels the blessings of God have been withdrawn from him.
Jesus speaks of baptism as essential to salvation. It is a modern understanding that either he didn't mean what he said or else he wasn't talking about baptism when he said "Except a man be born again of the water and of the spirit .... "
One thing is certain, and that is that those who joined the NT church were baptised into it as an essential admission rite, and that baptism was by immersion. Saint Paul is no less sure about this as witnessed in the sixth chapter of Romans. Paedobaptism is a late entrant in the rituals of the post NT church, and was not widespread until the fourth century, although it had been practiced here and there before that.
If we look at all the NT literature connected with baptism, cioming to Christ, and entering the church, we discover a pattern that always includes immersion, which is what 'baptism' means, from the Greek 'baptiso' meaning to immerse or cover with water. Only immersion baptism matches Paul's simile in Romans 6. Sprinkling and pouring do not fit his model.
Jesus Christ established but one true mode of baptism, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism," and if one mode is right, then all other modes are wrong.
Concerning the baptism of Jesus, who is the pattern, we have Matt. 3: 16, which says, "And Jesus when He was baptised went up straightway out of the water." It is not likely that John would be baptising in Jordan and that Jesus would have gone down into the water if anything less than immersion would have fulfilled the law. This also agrees with the account of the Ethiopian's baptism by Philip (Acts viii: 38): "And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptised him." As making still plainer this using a river of water and going "down into the water" to receive the sacred rite, we quote from St. John iii: 23: "And John also was baptising in Enon, near to Salim, because there was much water there." A statement so plain as this really needs no comment because it speaks for itself. He was baptising not only in Enon, but at a certain point in the stream "because there was much water there." Such a reason could not have been given if sprinkling or pouring had been a proper mode.
There are other New Testament statements where not only the mode of baptism is indicated by the language, but where it is made plain that baptism symbolises the birth into the world, the death, and the resurrection of the body. To Nicodemus, Jesus said: "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water, and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3: 5.) When man comes forth into the world, he is born or brought out from the watery element, being first buried in it, and this constitutes his birth. To be "born of water,” as a sacred ordinance would be impossible if the rite of sprinkling or pouring were the mode employed. Only complete immersion will answer the ordinance indicated in the language of Jesus to Nicodemus.
Paul also said to the Romans, "Know ye not that so many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ were baptised into His death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection." (Rom. 6: 3-5.) The foregoing shows that baptism is a likeness of burial. When the body is laid lifeless in the tomb it is covered completely; it is not left partly buried and partly uncovered; and as the body comes forth in the resurrection, immortal, and free from the conditions of mortality, thus walking in "newness of life," so by the remission of sins through faith, repentance and baptism, the obedient candidate comes forth free from sin, and walks in a new life, prepared for the birth of the spirit, thus symbolising in beautiful similarity the death and resurrection of the body.
This is still farther emphasised by the language, "For if we have been planted," etc., thus using a word which implies a complete burial as in planting seeds in the earth.
Again, we quote the words of Paul to the Colossians, 2: 12: "Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead." This corresponds with the statement before quoted from Romans, and also the teachings of Christ to Nicodemus.
In addition to what the Bible tells, and reason emphasises, we have the statements of archaeologists and historians, to the effect that baptism, in the first ages of Christianity, was a dipping or submersion in water. This, in fact, is the meaning of the Greek word from which the English word "baptism" was derived.
Ancient baptistries and other monumental remains in Asia, Africa, and Europe, show that immersion was the act of baptism. The Christian churches of the Orient—Greek, Russian, Armenian, Nestorian, Coptic and others, have always practised immersion and allow nothing else for baptism. The Western churches preserved this form for thirteen centuries, and then gradually introduced pouring or sprinkling—ceremonies in no way symbolical of birth and resurrection, and therefore not in harmony with the divine purpose for which baptism was instituted.
Baptisms by pouring or sprinkling were exceptional in the early ages of the post-apostolic Church. They were called clinic baptisms, because administered as a rule to the sick, who could not be taken from their beds to be immersed; but they were rare, and were regarded only as quasi-baptisms.
Baptism by immersion was practised regularly in the Roman Catholic Church until the year 1311, when the Council of Ravenna authorised a change, leaving it optional with the officiating minister to baptise either by immersion or by sprinkling. Even infants were baptised by immersion until about the end of the thirteenth century, when sprinkling came into common use.
Martin Luther favoured immersion and sought, against the tendency of the times, to restore it; but Calvin, while admitting that the word "baptism" means immersion, and that this was certainly the practice of the ancient Church, held that the mode was of no consequence. A Greater than Calvin, however, had decreed otherwise, and had set the example that all were to follow.
Pouring is the present practice in the Roman Catholic Church; sprinkling in the Church of England and in the Methodist Church. A choice of modes is permitted by the Presbyterians, though sprinkling is the regular form. The Baptists, as their name implies, are strong advocates of immersion while insisting that it is not an essential rite. The Quakers repudiate baptism altogether.
Membership in the New Testament Church was obtained by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance from sin, baptism in water, and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:37-38). Baptism was by immersion administered by one having authority, just as Jesus was baptised in the Jordan River by John the Baptist (Matt. 3:11-16), and, as has been noted, Jesus said, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).
The following is taken from "News Week" of January 22, 1940:
Professor Gindo Calza archaeologist, exhuming the extinct harbour town of Ostia, Italy, from the silt that has covered it for 15 centuries uncovered, he believes, a Christian church. Inside the basilica was a marble tank with the water pipes intact, indicating parishioners were immersed.
There are several old churches in Europe which still retain their baptismal fonts indicating the practice of immersion. The fact is, many advocates of paedobaptism and affusion baptism confess that originally immersion was the practice in the Church. Such testimony comes to us from the early fathers. This evidence is recorded by Neander, Mosheim, and other historical writers.
Luther, the great "reformer," who practised affusion has said: "That the minister dippeth a child into the water, signifieth death; that he again bringeth him out of it, signifieth life. So Paul explains it... On this account, I would wish that such as are to be baptised should be completely immersed into water, according to the meaning of the word, and the significance of the ordinance, as also without doubt it was instituted by Christ."
Continued in next post... SEE NEXT POST ABOVE FOR CONCLUSION...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrotia
Continued...
From the pages of the Bible it is clear that baptism is for the remission of sins. Matthew declares that the people from all Judea and the regions round about came to John confessing their sins, and he said to them, "I indeed baptise you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear." Mark says: "John did baptise in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." Luke says: "And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." The baptism commanded by Peter on the day of Pentecost, was the same, and Paul declared that when he was converted, Ananias, a devout man, said to him: "Now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."
No baby is capable of repenting, and if one was, because it has not sinned it has no need of repentance, for sin is in most cases a deliberate act of rebellion against God. There is no doctrine of original sin as expounded by Augustine in the Bible, and if any find it there it is because, like Augustine, they have read it back into it. That being so, and baptism serving the function – among others – of remitting sins, no baby or young child needs it.
It is a subject that has occupied many over the centuries, but when we stick to the scriptures we do not find any confusion or instruction to baptise those who do not know what the rite means.
Eusebius records the first known instance of pouring water and calling it baptism. This case occurred in A.D. 252, or 253, and is recorded by this early historian as follows: "Novatus, being relieved by the exorcists, fell into a grievous distemper; and it being supposed that he would die immediately, he received baptism, being besprinkled with water, on the bed whereon he lay (if that can be called baptism), neither when he had escaped that sickness, did he afterwards receive the other things which the canon of the church enjoineth should be received; nor was he sealed by the bishop's imposition of hands."
Eusebius adds: "This baptism was thought imperfect and not solemn, for several reasons. Also they who were thus baptised were called ever afterward clinici; and by the 12th canon of the Council of Neocaesaera, these clinici were prohibited the priesthood."
This clearly indicates that in the middle of the third century sprinkling or pouring was considered an innovation. Neander in his "Church History," Vol. I, says:
In respect of the form of baptism it was, in conformity with the original institution, and the original import of the symbol, performed by immersion, as a sign of entire baptism into the Holy Spirit, of being entirely penetrated by the same.
In speaking of "infant baptism," the same author says:
Tertullian appears as a zealous opponent of infant baptism, a proof that the practice had not yet come to be regarded as an apostolic institution, for otherwise he would hardly have ventured to express himself so strongly against it. * * When the notion of a magical influence, a charm connected with the Sacraments, continually gained ground, the theory was finally evolved of the unconditional necessity of infant baptism. About the middle of the third century this theory was generally admitted in the North African Church. * * But if the necessity of infant baptism was acknowledged in theory, it was still far from being uniformly recognised in practice. Nor was it always from the purest motives that men were induced to put off their baptism. * * It is certain that Christ did not ordain infant baptism. We cannot prove that the apostles ordained infant baptism from those places where the baptism of a whole family is mentioned, as in Acts 16:33; I Corinthians 1:16. We draw no such conclusion, because the inquiry is still to be made, whether there were any children in these families of such an age that they were not capable of an intelligent perception of Christianity, for this is the only point on which the case turns.
Many advocates of sprinkling and "paedobaptism" have admitted that there is no evidence in the scriptures upon which to base their practice of sprinkling. The most frank admission with the weakest apology for the practice that has yet come to light is the one made by Revelation Henry Ward Beecher. He says:
I concede and I assert, first, that infant baptism is nowhere commanded in the New Testament. No man can find a passage that commands it; and if it can stand only on that ground, we may as well give it up first as last. Secondly, I affirm that the cases where it is employed, as in baptism of whole households, are by no means conclusive and without doubt; and that, if there is no other basis for it than that, it is not safe to found it on the practice of the apostles in the baptism of Christian families. Therefore, I give up that which has been in-judiciously used as an argument for infant baptism.
Nonetheless, the Reverend gentleman practised it himself!
A fascinating subject, eh?
M:)RGANITE
Sorry morganite. Was your post a cut and paste? I don't believe many people will read that long of a post. Can you give the jist?
Those who are sufficiently interested in the question of paedobaptism will not mind the length.Quote:
Originally Posted by sexybeasty
It is often impossible to do justice to a subject by putting forward the gist without supporting evidence, etc. This subject merits fair treatment.
:)
Personally no offense intended, but I skipped over your posts. Way too long for me.
Joe
I skipped it first, then skimmed through and slowed at the interesting parts.
I'm an active perpetrator of run-ons and posts-without-end, so I can't really criticize anyone for longevity.
Thanks for the post.
Morganite,
Perhaps I gave an insufficient example of Scripture to support my belief in the original sin.
What do you say about this one?
Romans 5:12-14 DEATH THROUGH ADAM, LIFE THROUGH CHRIST- Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
I did like your posts on Baptism though!
When Adam was cast out of the Garden of Eden where he walked and talked with god, he entered a fallen world in which God was no longer visible, and he became mortal, subject to death. As children of God we obtain our eternal and everlasting spirit from God (Hebrews 12.9) and our mortality through the loins of father Adam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrotia
Adam was the first nmortal (with Eve) and as his earthly descendants we inherit mortality from him. That is, we must all die. But the immortal spirit continues to live, as the Bible tells us, and will eventually be reunited with our bodies in the resurrection.
It can be said that one result of Adam's transgression in the Garden is mortality and that we inherit mortality from him because of the Fall of Adam. However, there is not one jot of scripture that says that we also inherit one scintillae of guilt because of what he did wrong.
Each person is born into the world with a tabula rasa, having neither guilt nor sin inside them. It is not until a person is able to differentiate between rioght and wriong and exercise moral choices that he is capable of sinning. When he is, and only when he is, then baptism becomes necessary to commence the cleansing process and make the person clean by removing from him the consequences of sin.
If I dash a teaopot to the floor, I am doing wrong. If a two year old causes one to crash to the floor with his fumblings on the table, it is not a wrong thing he has done, only a misfortune. Through Adam, mortality came into the world, and through Jesus Christ, mortality is overcome and changed into immortality.
Thus, "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive!" This is the great undoing of our mortality, our need to die.
Through the atonement of Jesus Christ the consequences of our sins are remitted, and we stand clean, justified, sanctified, able to withstand the presence of God. This is the great undoing of our sinning.
That is why Jesus is the Saviour, because he saves men from sin even as they are sinners.
However, I repeat: There is no doctrine of Original Sin - that is the sin and guilt of Adam fashioned into every man born into the world, as Augustine had it - in the pages of the Bible. To believe that dogma one has to close the Bible and open the writings of Augustine who invented Original Sin in what you will call an uncanonised book to press his doctrine of Grace upon the church.
In doing so, Augustine created a monster that has blighted Christianity ever since, because it holds that mankind is totally depraved and evil, when all humanity is not so. Such a low concept of man has plagued generations of Christians and robbed millions of any hope of salvation, especially when seen through they eyes of such as Calvin who concocted the dogma that some are chosen to be saved and some are chosen to perish, regardless of what they do in life.
Such a teaching is antithetical to Christianity, unbiblical, and divisive, besides being untrue. Whosoever will may come!
BTW - your prooftext would be appropriate if after the birth of Jesus men were no longer capable of sinning. Since we know that is not the case, your text does not really serve the purpose for which you have presented it. What this passage does do is to confim the wrongness of baptising children for they cannot either sin nor can they repent, and, as Paul said, where there is no law there is no punishment.
Let me quickly add that although Adam's disobedience in the Garden was the first sin (unless you count Eve's sin as a prior offence), but if Adam's was the first, hence the original, that does not make it the origin of Original Sin, which is another matter entirely.
M:)RGANITE
I know that you didn't want exactly other people like teens to answer this question but I think it would be better coming from the point of view from some one who was baptized as a baby.
I personally think that you should wait till they get old enough to understand the true meaning of God and what He is. I wish that I had the opportunity to decide but I didn't and I think maybe that's why I don't believe in God right now. I also think that if you get them baptized when they are older then they actually might think differently about who and what God really is. I didn't get this chance.
Hope you choose the right decision for your child
Thank you for your answer. That is what I want to do is make a decision that is best for him.
Joe
I'm not a parent yet, but I do know what I'm going to do when I have my own children. I wont have them baptised as a baby, because I was baptised when I was about 9 years old, and being older and knowing what I was doing was a whole lot more meaningful. I dont believe that babies are born sinful..it's how they are raised nd if as they get older they make the right decisions. So therefore, I do not think that being baptised to "cleanse the body and soul" is necessary at such a young age.
Thank you for your answer. Much appreciated. Our son is 6 months old right now. Baptism is the last things on our minds right now. There are more important things to think about. Like you said as well, it is important to let the child make their own choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by intendedsighs
Joe
I don't like anyone making up my mind for me at any age. Parents should wait for their babies to grow up and decide on their own. :)
Thank you, I have been questioning my choice lately. My baby is almost a year old, but traditionally babies in my denomination get baptised as soon as possible.
Joe
I am not addressing infant baptism. I know some denominations go through sacraments.
I am addressing the" older" person's baptism.
While it shows identification with Christ, & I do recommend it, my non-denomination does not believe that baptism is necessary for salvation.
Getting Saved is not Just an Emotional Moment but a Life-Changing Experience
There are other denominations that believe this also.
BTW- did u ever hear Joel Osteen say at the end of his program, My friends if you said that prayer , we believe you are born-again, get yourself into a good Bible based church........AND HURRY UP & GET BAPTIZED BC YOUR SALVATION ISN'T COMPLETE WITHOUT IT!
I happen to love the idea that teens use their minds for things other than video games or drugs. I totally welcome your comments and opinions any time you feel lead to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by emosometimes
Secondly, let me commend you for having enough common sense to recognize the obvious. I asked someone who believes in infant baptism awhile back if it would be appropriate to baptize a drunk man who we might find in a gutter. Would it be appropriate to dunk him in water, say a few holy words over him, and celebrate that we just baptized someone who had no idea that he had just been baptized. The person I asked was offended by my question but failed to answer. Baptizing a baby is exactly the same thing. Baptism is a personal choice that is made by someone who has willingly and knowingly accepted Christ on his or her own. Nobody and I mean NOBODY can make that choice for you.
It's not too late for you to believe in God. I ask that you pray for truth, knowledge, and wisdom concerning this issue. God most certainly does exist and the fact that you are even in this thread discussing these things means that you have a little spark inside you that's burning just enough to make you wonder. Keep wondering and keep seeking.
I loved your post and you are welcome to return any time you like. If someone tries to push you around... let me know and I'll twist their ears.
Hello Joe.
How are you doing?
This is a great question and very controversial in today society. Remember please this is my opinion according to what I understand the scriptures to say.
The apostle Paul foretold that a general “apostasy” from Bible Christianity would occur after the death of the twelve apostles. 2 Thess. 2:3, 6-12.
At 1 Timothy 4:1 Paul wrote: “The spirit says expressly that in after times some will desert from the faith and give their minds to subversive doctrines.”
How did “subversive doctrines” appear with regard to baptism? It was due to the adoption of beliefs from pagan Greek religion (Hellenism). The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says of the period following the death of the apostles:
“Alien elements came in from the outside world. Hitherto these had been carefully held in check by the filter of prophetic and New Testament religion. But now, using external agreement as a channel, they came in full flood. Baptism became a syncretistic mystery.”
As a result, early in the second century C.E. the pagan idea that baptism washes away sins and brings about “regeneration” crept into the Christian congregation. Illustrating this are the comments of Justin Martyr, of the second century C.E. concerning candidates for baptism: “They are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated.” “We may . . . obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed.”
To what did this blending of pagan beliefs with the Bible’s teaching about baptism lead? Greek scholar A. T. Robertson explains:
“Out of this perversion of the symbolism of baptism grew both pouring as an ordinance and infant baptism. If baptism is necessary to salvation or the means of regeneration, then the sick, the dying, infants, must be baptized.”
By the third century C.E. infant baptism had become a general church practice. Origen, in the third century, wrote: “Because by baptism native pollution is taken away, therefore infants are baptized.” Origen even claimed, incorrectly, that baptizing babies was “a tradition from the apostles.”
Highlights of the History of Infant Baptism
Date (C.E.) Event
c. 193 . Tertullian argues for adult baptism
253 . Council of Carthage declares that ‘babies
Should be baptized immediately’
412-417 . Debate between Pelagius and Augustine
Regarding ‘original sin’
417 . Council of Carthage condemns Pelagian view
As heresy. Infant baptism becomes a fixture
In Catholicism
1201, 1208 . Pope Innocent III writes in favor of
Infant baptism
1545-1563 . Council of Trent pronounces “anathema”
Upon anyone denying infant baptism
1794 . Papal bull Auctorem Fidei condemns
Jansenist Synod, which called limbo a
Heresy
1951 . Pope Pius XII stresses necessity of infant
Baptism by encouraging midwives to
Perform the rite in emergencies
1958 . Vatican decrees ‘infants are to be
Baptized as soon as possible’
1963-1965 . Second Vatican Council decrees salvation
Possible without baptism. Orders infant
Baptism rite revised
1980 . Vatican reinforces custom of infant
Baptism, saying it ‘knows no other way for
Children to enter eternal happiness’
So again the question comes to the surface, “should a Christian Baptize their infant son or daughter?
While the Bible does not allow for baptizing babies, it does show what parents must do to help their children to meet God’s approval. The Bible, at Proverbs 22:6, exhorts parents: “Train up a boy according to the way for him; even when he grows old he will not turn aside from it.”
The most important aspect of this training process is found in the apostle Paul’s words to parents at Ephesians 6:4: “Do not be irritating your children, but go on bringing them up in the discipline and mental-regulating of Jehovah.” That means that parents must acquaint their children with the Holy Scriptures, which set forth Jehovah’s mind on matters.—1 Cor. 2:16.
Infant baptism is not taught in the Bible. It stems from the pagan superstition that baptism “regenerates” a person and cleanses him from past sin. However, the Bible teaches that it is, not baptism, but ‘the blood of Jesus, God’s Son, that cleanses us from all sin.’ 1 John 1:7; Acts 22:16
Also, it is not baptism, but “the discipline and mental-regulating of God” that qualifies a child to meet God’s approval.
Eph. 6:4
If you are a parent, will you make sure that your child receives that training?
If a Christian’s child should die before baptism, parents need not fear that he burns in hell or lingers in limbo. The Bible teaches that the dead are unconscious.
Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10: New King James Version (NKJV)
5 For the living know that they will die;
But the dead know nothing,
And they have no more reward,
For the memory of them is forgotten.
10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going.
Parents can thus take comfort in Jesus’ promise that “the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out” with the prospect of life in a restored Paradise.
John 5:28-29 (New King James Version)
28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.
Infants fall under the protection of their parents. God has granted parents the fruitage of the belly, Children. Parents are responsible for their children spirituality until the child is old enough to be responsible enough to decide what they believe or disbelieve. Not one of us can save our child who is old enough to know right from wrong. Once a child can understand right from wrong, God hold them responsible for themselves. Notice these scriptures:
(Ezekiel 18:20) The soul that is sinning—it itself will die. A son himself will bear nothing because of the error of the father, and a father himself will bear nothing because of the error of the son. Upon his own self the very righteousness of the righteous one will come to be, and upon his own self the very wickedness of a wicked one will come to be.
*** w53 11/1 p. 670 Questions From Readers ***
Shows that each individual, after reaching an age of responsibility, is judged on the basis of his own attitude and conduct. Early training and family environment can be a big help or hindrance to the offspring, and as a general rule children continue in the behavior patterns established during their formative years. (Prov. 22:6) Yet it is not always or invariably so, and upon reaching an age of responsibility the offspring acts on his own choices, regardless of how little or how much such decisions may be influenced by early training and environment. He adopts a certain course in life, and he is judged according to his own deeds. “God is not one to be mocked. For whatever a man is sowing, this he will also reap.” “He will render to each one according to his works.” Jesus showed that families would be divided over him, some choosing to follow him in Jehovah’s service and others of the family opposing: “I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother.” The Christian son of an opposing father would not bear the iniquity of his father, but would be favorably judged on the basis of his own Christian works
(Galatians 6:7) Do not be misled: God is not one to be mocked. For whatever a man is sowing, this he will also reap;
(Romans 2:6) And he will render to each one according to his works:
Very young children who have not reached the age of responsibility are almost altogether the product of their parents through inheritance, with, additionally, the training and environment provided by the parents. Accordingly, God holds the parents responsible until the child reaches the age of responsibility for his own decisions and acts.
What the parents do as to their relationship with God therefore affects the entire family. Just as the law of men calls the parents to account for the acts of their minor children, so does God. If a child commits a crime, damaging property, the father can expect the police to be knocking on his door to bring charges against him and require that he pay for the damage.
Parents need to take their responsibility given to them by God very seriously. If a child is baptized as an infant, have they taken their stand on God’s side? Of course not, they are infants. Yet, the parent protects that child from harm and is responsible for their material and physical and emotional needs. How much more so would God not hold those parents responsible to protect their infants spiritual needs. Parents do this by acting spiritually wise in making their choices in life so as to be pleasing to God.
Thank you for reading this.
Take care,
Hope12
:)
Anyone who has children knows that they have no spiritual needs whatsoever. They need love and nurturing and time spent with parents. But they are blissfully unaware of things spiritual and, in my opinion, they seem to be better off for it if they have proper loving parenting. If they believe that they require a religious aspect to their lives they may make that decision later in life when then can understand such matters.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:37 AM. |