[NeedKarma]

My wife and I both started Roman Catholic, got married in a church then we had our first child. Her mom, who is a bit of a bible thumper, made the christening experience so much a pain in the arse that we never bothered to christen our second. We finally got her to understand that we are the parents and we make the decisions for our kids. We don't even bother going to church anymore. My wife is a family lawyer and she sees enough 'good christians' in a day want to have so much revenge and so full of nastiness that we both agreed that our criteria for friends is "being a good person" and not being a christian although they are not mutually exclusive of course. My $0.02 worth. :)

[silentrascal]

Incidentally, there is no Biblical provision for baptizing infants. If you'll notice, everyone that was baptized, according to the Bible, was of a proper age in which they could decide for themselves that they wanted to be dedicated to God. An infant does not have that capacity to make that decision for themselves based on knowledge.

Not only is baptizing an infant not correct, but the method in which it's done is also incorrect. For someone to be baptized, they must be fully immersed in the water, not just have some water sprinkled on their heads. Jesus was fully immersed in the Jordan, and when Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, he was fully immersed under the water as well. Again, nowhere does the Bible say baptism is to be done by any other means.

[NeedKarma]

Cool Silent, we totally agree on that! :)

[icecream]

Incidentally, there is no Biblical provision for baptizing infants. If you'll notice, everyone that was baptized, according to the Bible, was of a proper age in which they could decide for themselves that they wanted to be dedicated to God. An infant does not have that capacity to make that decision for themselves based on knowledge.

Not only is baptizing an infant not correct, but the method in which it's done is also incorrect. For someone to be baptized, they must be fully immersed in the water, not just have some water sprinkled on their heads. Jesus was fully immersed in the Jordan, and when Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, he was fully immersed under the water as well. Again, nowhere does the Bible say baptism is to be done by any other means.

Hmmm didn't know that. Thanks for the info silent. I was wondering if it's possible to get baptised more than once? And what will be the reason for that?

[J_9]

Baptism in the Catholic church was originally done to remove original sin. When we get older we go through Confirmation, which is like a second Baptism, only this time we are choosing our religion.

[N0help4u]

I basically agree with Tempelane here
Often people say they are Catholic simply because their parents were but have no other real reason for being Catholic. I think it might be a good idea to get involved with your wife's church and question why the big difference and if you do not find anything that goes against your "own personal" belief maybe you could find it within yourself to switch to her faith and then you could all three have the same religion.

[silentrascal]

Baptism in the Catholic church was originally done to remove original sin. When we get older we go through Confirmation, which is like a second Baptism, only this time we are choosing our religion.

And upon examination of the Bible, there is no scriptural basis for any of that.

[J_9]

And upon examination of the Bible, there is no scriptural basis for any of that.

You are correct and incorrect at the same time.

Rather than C&P the entire explanation, I will provide a link...

To Explain Infant Baptism You Must Explain Original Sin (This Rock: February 2005)

[silentrascal]

Actually, this is why babies should not be baptized:

Baptism—Is It for Infants?

“WHEN I had my babies,” said one parent, “I hurried to have them baptized. .  . . I wonder sometimes if I did the right thing.” Why? Two of her three children have rejected her faith.

Perhaps you as a parent have entertained similar doubts about initiating an infant into your religion. If so, you likely know that church leaders—Catholic and Protestant alike—have done little to put your mind at ease. They nurture skepticism by arguing over infant baptism. Reformers call it a vestige of medieval superstition. However, traditionalists call denying baptism “repugnant to Christian feeling.”

By reasoning that way, church leaders have merely “indulged in rhapsodies of emotion as a substitute for substantial argument.” (Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace, by Paul K. Jewett) Where, then, can you look for authoritative answers to your questions about infant baptism? These answers must be looked for in God's Word.

Consigned to Hell?

Infant baptizers for the most part attempt to base their case on Jesus' words at John 3:5: “Unless anyone is born from water and spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” They argue that since water baptism is a requirement for entrance into heaven, infants should be baptized to avoid suffering in a fiery hell—or lingering in limbo.

However, the Bible says that “the dead . . . Are conscious of nothing at all.” (Ecclesiastes 9:5; compare Psalm 146:4.) Since the dead are unconscious, they are incapable of any sort of suffering. Parents, therefore, need not fear gruesome consequences if they do not baptize their infants.

Still, there is the concern that unbaptized ones cannot enter heaven. This, however, does not mean that they cannot be saved. Jesus said: “And I have other sheep, which are not of this [heavenly] fold.” (John 10:16) Here, and in a parable recorded at Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus indicated that there would be saved ones who would not go to heaven. Where would they go? Jesus told the wrongdoer impaled alongside him: “You will be with me in Paradise.”—Luke 23:43.

Had that wrongdoer ever been “born from water” by baptism? Obviously not, and heaven was thus closed to him. Where, then, would “Paradise” be? Recall that God placed the original human pair in an earthly paradise, with the prospect of living there forever. (Genesis 1:28; 2:8) Adam and Eve, though, chose to rebel and were put out of their beautiful garden home. Was earthly Paradise lost forever? No, for the Scriptures make plain that God will eventually restore Paradise on earth. (Matthew 5:5; 6:9, 10; Ephesians 1:9-11; Revelation 21:1-5) And it is to this earthly Paradise that most of those who have died—including infants—will eventually be resurrected.—John 5:28, 29.

Must an individual be baptized to share in this earthly resurrection? Not necessarily. Many have died in spiritual ignorance. (Compare Jonah 4:11.) Since they never had an opportunity to learn about God, they never dedicated themselves to him. Are such ones forever lost? No, for the apostle Paul said: “There is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Acts 24:15) Doubtless included among those resurrected throngs will be infants. Therefore, claims that baptism is necessary to save infants are entirely unfounded.

Circumcision and Baptism

Those favoring infant baptism, however, point out that infants in Israel were circumcised shortly after birth. (Genesis 17:12) They reason that baptism has taken the place of circumcision as a means of saving infants.

However, did circumcision serve as a means of salvation? No, it was a visible “sign of the covenant” that God made with Abraham. (Genesis 17:11) Further, only males were circumcised. If baptism parallels circumcision, would it not be logical to refuse baptism to baby girls? Clearly, the parallel is invalid. It must also be remembered that the Scriptures specifically ordered Jewish parents to perform circumcision on their sons. If salvation were involved, why no similar command to Christian parents regarding baptism?

True, Jesus did say: “Let the young children come to me . . . For the kingdom of God belongs to suchlike ones.” (Mark 10:14) But Jesus was hardly saying that heaven would be populated by children. Interestingly, Protestant theologian A. Campbell said regarding the heavenly Kingdom: “It is not composed of children, but of those who are like them in docility, humility and meekness.”

Children of a Believer Are “Holy”

Jesus instructed his followers to “go . . . And make disciples [or, taught ones] of people of all the nations, baptizing them.” (Matthew 28:19) It is therefore those old enough to be disciples, or taught ones, who should be baptized. Thus, true Christians today endeavor to train—not baptize—their children from infancy. (2 Timothy 3:15) As children are brought up “in the discipline and mental-regulating of Jehovah,” they develop their own faith.—Ephesians 6:4.

In the meantime, parents need not fear that the eternal welfare of their young children is endangered if they are unbaptized. At 1 Corinthians 7:14 the apostle Paul provides assurance that the children of a Christian parent are “holy.” This is not because of their undergoing some formalistic rite but because God mercifully extends a clean standing to them—as long as at least one of their parents remains faithful as a Christian.

The faithful example of parents, along with the Biblical training their children receive, can in time move young ones to make a dedication of themselves to God and symbolize this by baptism. Their appreciative hearts move them to follow through by rendering 'a sacred service with their power of reason.' (Romans 12:1) These are things a tiny infant simply cannot do.

[J_9]

I'm not here to banter one religion against another. I have my beliefs, you have yours. They are both valid to our individual faiths.

I am not a holy roller who tries to push my religion down someone else's throat (I am not saying you are either), I was just making a point as to why we do believe in infant baptism.

We, as members of different faiths, have every right to believe our individual doctrines.

Heck, Jews and Muslums don't believe in Baptism at all (at least as far as I can remember), are we going to try to convince them that we are right and they are wrong? Nah. So be at peace with your faith, I'll be at peace with mine.

[silentrascal]

I'm not here to banter one religion against another. I have my beliefs, you have yours. They are both valid to our individual faiths.

I am not a holy roller who tries to push my religion down someone else's throat (I am not saying you are either), I was just making a point as to why we do believe in infant baptism.

We, as members of different faiths, have every right to believe our individual doctrines.

Heck, Jews and Muslums don't believe in Baptism at all (at least as far as I can remember), are we going to try to convince them that we are right and they are wrong? Nah. So be at peace with your faith, I'll be at peace with mine.

I knew you couldn't defend the practice of infant baptism. There isn't one.

[J_9]

Look, I am not here to argue with you. This post was not meant for that. If you want to take it elsewhere, please do. But do not steal this thread or it risks being closed.

[s_cianci]

Incidentally, there is no Biblical provision for baptizing infants. If you'll notice, everyone that was baptized, according to the Bible, was of a proper age in which they could decide for themselves that they wanted to be dedicated to God. An infant does not have that capacity to make that decision for themselves based on knowledge.

Not only is baptizing an infant not correct, but the method in which it's done is also incorrect. For someone to be baptized, they must be fully immersed in the water, not just have some water sprinkled on their heads. Jesus was fully immersed in the Jordan, and when Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, he was fully immersed under the water as well. Again, nowhere does the Bible say baptism is to be done by any other means.

Some of your "facts" here are incorrect. You'd better go back and re-read the scriptural passages that address this a little more closely.

[ordinaryguy]

Protestant theologian A. Campbell said regarding the heavenly Kingdom: “It is not composed of children, but of those who are like them in docility, humility and meekness.”

Anybody who has actually raised a bunch of kids would have to wonder if the good Reverend had ever spent much time around children. "Docility, humility and meekness" aren't the first words that spring to mind when I think about how kids act, especially when there's more than one of them.

In fact, the disciples were trying to shoo the kids away precisely because they weren't being meek and docile. I think Jesus was commending their boisterous enthusiasm and radical openness rather than their supposed docility and meekness. I wouldn't be surprised if the kingdom of heaven turns out to be a lot livelier place than a lot of religious people are expecting.

As far as infant baptism goes, it's not really for the baby. It's a ritual that reminds the parents of their awesome responsibility, and gives them the opportunity to state publicly that they recognize and willingly assume it. Pretty good, as rituals go, I'd say.

[silentrascal]

In fact, the disciples were trying to shoo the kids away precisely because they weren't being meek and docile. I think Jesus was commending their boisterous enthusiasm and radical openness rather than their supposed docility and meekness. I wouldn't be surprised if the kingdom of heaven turns out to be a lot livelier place than a lot of religious people are expecting.

As far as infant baptism goes, it's not really for the baby. It's a ritual that reminds the parents of their awesome responsibility, and gives them the opportunity to state publicly that they recognize and willingly assume it. Pretty good, as rituals go, I'd say.

Ok, that's just absurd. The disciples were trying to wave off the children, not because they weren't "being meek and docile", but because they didn't feel the Lord would want to waste his time with them, that he had more important things to attend to. No, children were welcomed by Jesus because, unlike the older Jews, the children weren't all-consumed by their position and self-importance. They harbored no such traits among them.

If it's not really for the baby, then why is the baby the one thrust in the spotlight to have the "holy water" ladled onto their heads? The whole ritual is ridiculous. The parents have the responsibility to train and to teach their children in God's ways... yet ultimately the decision to live that kind of life will be made by the child at some stage. Every person will be accountable for their own decisions. The parent can't make that choice for the child.

Some of your "facts" here are incorrect. You'd better go back and re-read the scriptural passages that address this a little more closely.

None of them are incorrect. I suggest YOU be the one to go back and re-read those passages.

[J_9]

Silentrascal, we are very tolerant of your religion, whatever it may be, you haven't clarified. I am wondering why you can't be tolerant of ours. As I stated before, we all have our own beliefs, we are of different faiths obviously.

Catholic Update - The Sacrament of Baptism by Sandra DeGidio, O.S.M.

In defense of OG I will c&p this, and I will post my source, as you have not done.

Baptism and babies


Obviously, infants cannot respond immediately to the call/response aspect of the sacrament. Nor can an infant understand the change of allegiance, the putting off the old and putting on of the new, the dying and rising, the new life, or the sharing in the life of Christ. However, the parents of those infants can understand and live those values and pass them on to their children. They can also experience the support of the community in living those ideals, and that is extremely important.

Infant Baptism only makes sense if parents are true Christian disciples. If they are not, then it makes little sense to initiate their children into a Church which calls for a commitment to living the mission of Christ.

The Rite of Baptism for Children emphasizes the importance of faithfulness on the part of parents when it says to parents: In asking to have your children baptized, "you are accepting the responsibility of training them in the practice of the faith." That word practice is crucial; it calls for Christian modeling on the part of parents.

Considering the future orientation of Baptism and the fact that we are marked for a lifelong journey of discipleship, it is important that parents be strong role models and lead the way. It is equally important that the children's sponsors (godparents) do the same. They are significant supporters of parents and the ones who can first begin to reveal to their godchildren the value of the Christian community.

Children learn to be Christian by osmosis, by experiencing Christianity at home. The "domestic church" prepares children for the local and world Church. It is in the home, in the domestic church, that children first learn basic trust which is the foundation of faith. Without the experience of faith, hope and commitment in the home, children will not be able to know and understand the larger Church.

Vatican II's Declaration on Christian Education points this out quite emphatically: "Since parents have given children life, they are bound by the most serious obligation to educate their offspring and therefore must be recognized as the primary and principal educators. This role in education is so important that only with difficulty can it be supplied when it is lacking....It is particularly in the Christian family...that children should be taught from their early years to have a knowledge of God according to the faith received in Baptism, to worship him and to love their neighbor."

[ordinaryguy]

Ok, that's just absurd.

The whole ritual is ridiculous.

Nobody's trying to make you baptize your baby. If you don't believe in it, don't do it. No need to hijack the thread and start an argument about it.

[J_9]

I got to spread the love OG. You are SOOOOOOOO on the mark here.

[silentrascal]

Nobody's trying to make you baptize your baby. If you don't believe in it, don't do it. No need to hijack the thread and start an argument about it.

Then don't do it.

[beatlejuice]

If you are a christian you should have a biblical basis for any religious actions. There is no biblical basis to baptise infants.