Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Afghanistan War Vet Faces Jail Time for Taking Daughter to Church in Violation of Court Order
ABCNews.com ^ | 02/16/10 | CHRIS CUOMO

Posted on 02/16/2010 9:26:07 AM PST by OldDeckHand

Joseph Reyes Baptized Daughter Without Informing Estranged Wife

A veteran of the war in Afghanistan could find out today if he'll get jail time for taking his daughter to church in defiance of a Chicago family court order obtained by his estranged wife.

The two are in a bitter divorce battle, and the question of what faith their child should be raised in is pushing the boundaries of child custody arrangements.

Reyes' decision to baptize his daughter without his wife's permission resulted in what some are calling an extraordinary court order: The Hon. Edward R. Jordan in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill., imposed a 30-day restraining order forbidding Joseph Reyes from, according to the document, "exposing his daughter to any other religion than the Jewish religion. …"

(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...


TOPICS: Current Events; General Discusssion; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: catholic; court; courts; divorce; jewish; law; oefveterans; parenting
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last
Oy vey, the American family court system is a mess. I'm not sure how the state - even in the case of a divorce - can order a person not to practice their religion in the company of their children.
1 posted on 02/16/2010 9:26:08 AM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

In a crap-filled selfish world; children are pawns for the adults games, and the child be damned. THAT is what is wrogn with the world today.


2 posted on 02/16/2010 9:27:51 AM PST by vpintheak (How can love of God, Family and Country make me an extremist?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Why didn’t he just wait until the divorce was over?


3 posted on 02/16/2010 9:28:14 AM PST by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to...otherwise, things would be different)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

So why does the mother get to decide? So sad... not that being Jewish is wrong, or being Christian is wrong. But that one parent doesn’t get a say (that could go either way) in what life their child is raised in. By saying he can’t take his daughter to church, they are saying HE can’t go to church if he has visitation with her.

Wow. My parents were bitterly divorced, and definitely had issues, but I have to commend them for being adults throughout the process. My dad could have been an a-hole and skipped town but he paid his child support and got me every chance he could. Even picking me up from school when sick or needing a ride places. My mom never balked about his involvement and encouraged me to have a relationship.

Divorced parenting sucks, but it doesn’t have to be devastating to everyone involved.


4 posted on 02/16/2010 9:30:44 AM PST by autumnraine (You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

What a mess...No wonder people say that family court is the most dangerous. Emotions run high and people will do crazy things for their Children.


5 posted on 02/16/2010 9:33:20 AM PST by jakerobins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

This happened to my brother...took his kids to get them baptised....his psycho ex wife actually called the church and ordered the priest to un-baptise them!!!!!


6 posted on 02/16/2010 9:36:06 AM PST by joe fonebone (A third party does need the majority to control the house...they only need 10%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vpintheak

I agree with you. This guy wasn’t being true to Catholicism. He was simply using their child to irk his wife.


7 posted on 02/16/2010 9:36:59 AM PST by bogusname (Banish All Liberals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
So why does the mother get to decide

It's hard to know without the details, but, typically after a separation but before trial the judge is attempting to keep everything smooth until in fact there is a trial. So, cars loans keep getting paid, kid stays in same school, etc.

A major change in religion is reasonably one such area where the judge is going to say "no changes" for now.

It sounds to me like the father deserves to be punished for violating the judges order. That is, for those of us who prefer to live in a secular State.

8 posted on 02/16/2010 9:37:38 AM PST by Ron Jeremy (sonic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: vpintheak

Years ago, when I first started working as a legal secretary, I worked for attorneys who practiced that type of law (divorce, child custody, support, etc.). It was always so sad to see how parents could use their children as weapons against each other. Even in my own family, when a cousin and his wife split, things became so bad that at one point the wife had my cousin arrested for child abuse/molestation. My cousin was pulled out of a business meeting and in front of the entire office, handcuffed and led away. The charges of course turned out to be bogus, but that’s an example of how bitter people can become — they have no thought of what is best for their children.


9 posted on 02/16/2010 9:38:25 AM PST by fatnotlazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Shades of Edgardo Mortara.

This is a reminder why mixed marriages are a bad idea, for many reasons.


10 posted on 02/16/2010 9:39:04 AM PST by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
"So why does the mother get to decide?"

Or the judge, for that matter. There are no winners here. The mother's being petty. It's not entirely clear that the father is taking his child to church for purely altruistic reasons. There's a reasonable chance he's doing it just to spite the mother, although it's possible he's sincere in his renewed Catholic faith.

And, the judge has NO BUSINESS poking his head into the religious business of either parent. There's a 1st Amendment issue at play here. What if the mother was a devout Democrat? Would the judge have ordered the father to remove all Republican signage or literature from his home?

Divorce means a family divided. IMHO, the court can't take sides with respect to how the respective parents spend time with their children on their days of visitation, so long as those activities aren't physically dangerous to the child. He's not taking the kid skydiving, he's taking her to church.

11 posted on 02/16/2010 9:40:22 AM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

“I’m not sure how the state - even in the case of a divorce - can order a person not to practice their religion in the company of their children.”

Of course, the flip side of this is the father violated the mother’s religion by his actions.

As stated before, shades of Edgardo Mortara, and a reminder against mixed marriages.


12 posted on 02/16/2010 9:41:56 AM PST by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

This is a divorce case. Take nothing at face value.

Religious upbringing is a revenge tool used by BOTH parents.

We should not be suckered into this one because there are far older cases with this issue and this is not as cutting edge as the author implies.


13 posted on 02/16/2010 9:43:52 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ron Jeremy
" A major change in religion is reasonably one such area where the judge is going to say "no changes" for now.

As I said to another poster, why stop at religion? Perhaps the mother has entirely different political views than the father. Is it within the judges Constitutional authority to order the father not to take the child to a Sarah Palin speech? I think not.

It sounds to me like the father deserves to be punished for violating the judges order. That is, for those of us who prefer to live in a secular State. "

Respectfully, I think this is precisely the opposite of "a secular state". This is a judge endorsing - perhaps only for the purposes of continuity, perhaps not - one religion over another. That's anything but secular.

14 posted on 02/16/2010 9:44:20 AM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jewbacca

I know a couple of different religions. The wife was originally a Catholic, but she converted to Judaism at the request of her husband and his family. Their children are being raised Jewish, but they also are being educated in certain Catholic traditions (such as Christmas). When the children grow up, they can then decide which faith they wish to follow....or maybe no faith at all.


15 posted on 02/16/2010 9:45:24 AM PST by fatnotlazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Do many people even have political signage in their homes?

What if he were a Hindu or Muslim? Would it still be OK for him to take the kid with him?


16 posted on 02/16/2010 9:52:08 AM PST by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to...otherwise, things would be different)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

You are wrong on both counts. It is not an issue of the child choosing to be baptized. It is one parent making a decision on religious instruction that goes counter to what the other parent wants. Just like the school the kid goes to, it is a matter of contention that needs to be resolved. During a separation the goal is to keep things “as is” until resolved.

On your second point, the judge was not endorsing any religion, except saying that the kids should stay the same religion as he was when the parents separated until it is all sorted out, just like judges rule that kids should stay in the same school, etc.


17 posted on 02/16/2010 9:54:47 AM PST by Ron Jeremy (sonic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
"Do many people even have political signage in their homes?"

During campaign/election season they sure do, at least we do in our home.

"What if he were a Hindu or Muslim? Would it still be OK for him to take the kid with him?"

I don't see why not. It's not the business of the state to select the primacy of one parent's religion over another's. This is precisely what the judge is doing, albeit perhaps only temporarily. Again, what that father (or mother) choose to do with the child during the periods of visitation, assuming of course the child's safety isn't at risk, is none of the business of the state.

18 posted on 02/16/2010 9:55:48 AM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ron Jeremy
"On your second point, the judge was not endorsing any religion, except saying that the kids should stay the same religion as he was when the parents separated until it is all sorted out, just like judges rule that kids should stay in the same school, etc."

I see you've glossed over my question about political influence. Does the mother, or the judge, get to dictate to the father what political rhetoric or literature is discussed in front of the child? The 1st Amendment protects both political and religious speech. If you're comfortable with the judge violating the father's 1st Amendment rights with respect to religion, you must not have any problem with limitation on the father's right to political speech as well.

19 posted on 02/16/2010 9:59:22 AM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Good for you, I agree...except for the signage stuff. No one in my neighborhood puts up political signs.


20 posted on 02/16/2010 9:59:45 AM PST by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to...otherwise, things would be different)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: fatnotlazy

It’s why we don’t do family law anymore at my firm: just too much bitterness, hate and anger between people who at one time professed to love each other. Some of them will use anything and anybody, children foremost, to hurt the other.

Pitiful.

Colonel, USAFR


21 posted on 02/16/2010 10:01:51 AM PST by jagusafr (Kill the red lizard, Lord! - nod to C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

I went to the article to see if they stated the age of the child.

The child in question is 3 years old.

In the Roman Catholic Faith, babies are baptized, but are not “Confirmed” in the Faith until they are about 12 or 13. It is beleived that, by that time, they are old enough to make a decision to be a true “Soldier of Christ”, even receiving a little slap on the cheek as part of the ceremony to indicate that they might even have to suffer for this decision.

In The Jewish Faith, there is a similar approach, when a child becomes Bar (or Bat) Mitzvah, a Son (or Daughter) of the Law. This also occurs around age 13.

So both parents are just being snippy.


22 posted on 02/16/2010 10:03:25 AM PST by left that other site (Your Mi'KMaq Paddy Whacky Bass Playing Biker Buddy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: left that other site

In the Roman Catholic Faith, babies are baptized, but are not “Confirmed” in the Faith until they are about 12 or 13. It is beleived that, by that time, they are old enough to make a decision to be a true “Soldier of Christ”

Ditto the United Methodist Church: at ours, they go through confirmation class, usually in 8th grade, and are then full members of the church. My gripe has always been that the church leadership gives lip service to “full membership”, but won’t include confirmed youth in leadership or voting unless somebody (read “me”) makes an issue of it.

Colonel, USAFR


23 posted on 02/16/2010 10:07:19 AM PST by jagusafr (Kill the red lizard, Lord! - nod to C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
What if the mother was a devout Democrat? Would the judge have ordered the father to remove all Republican signage or literature from his home?

ODH - If you notice; this event took place in Chicago, where being a Republican is illegal. Your scenario probably has happened more than once!
24 posted on 02/16/2010 10:08:26 AM PST by BigEdLB (Now there ARE 1,000,000 regrets - but it may be too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jagusafr

Once a Youth is Bar Mitzvah, they have full rights and responsibilities in the temple, including doing readings from the Torah and being part of a Minyan (ten adults need for a service!


25 posted on 02/16/2010 10:15:05 AM PST by left that other site (Your Mi'KMaq Paddy Whacky Bass Playing Biker Buddy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Does the mother, or the judge, get to dictate to the father what political rhetoric or literature is discussed in front of the child? The 1st Amendment protects both political and religious speech. If you're comfortable with the judge violating the father's 1st Amendment rights with respect to religion, you must not have any problem with limitation on the father's right to political speech as well.

A children's political affiliation is not important as a child can't vote, and exposing the child to different political views different from one parent does not cause any major problems. However, most religions are mutually exclusive.

All the judge is trying to do is to keep as much peace and normalcy in the life of the child while the issues get worked out. If it was your way, every week would be going back and forth converting to Christianity, then back to judaism, then back to Christianity, then back to Judaism, etc. That is obviously not in the child's interest. The comparable issue for politics doesn't matter as the kid can't register to vote until he is 18. Your way is pure chaos and damaging to the child.

26 posted on 02/16/2010 10:15:24 AM PST by Ron Jeremy (sonic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: fatnotlazy
Even in my own family, when a cousin and his wife split, things became so bad that at one point the wife had my cousin arrested for child abuse/molestation. My cousin was pulled out of a business meeting and in front of the entire office, handcuffed and led away. The charges of course turned out to be bogus

Without knowing anything else about your story, I'd wager any sum of money that the wife was never prosecuted for filing a false police report.

27 posted on 02/16/2010 10:16:52 AM PST by Diplomat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jagusafr
In the Roman Catholic Faith, babies are baptized, but are not “Confirmed” in the Faith until they are about 12 or 13. It is beleived that, by that time, they are old enough to make a decision to be a true “Soldier of Christ”

Ditto the United Methodist Church: at ours, they go through confirmation class, usually in 8th grade, and are then full members of the church.

Interestingly, ALL examples of baptism in the Bible occur with adults who make a conscious decision to make a life-changing decision.

28 posted on 02/16/2010 10:23:45 AM PST by JOAT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Ron Jeremy
"A children's political affiliation is not important as a child can't vote, and exposing the child to different political views different from one parent does not cause any major problems. However, most religions are mutually exclusive."

Yep, you keep glossing over it. This isn't a question about whether a child can fully participate in the political process, or a religious belief. As several have pointed out, both Catholics and Jews have specific ceremonies where a child - of his/her own free will - joins or is recognized in their respective religions. AFAIK, there is nothing that will keep this young girl from performing a Bat Mitzvah ritual in her teenage years, if she was baptized in her adolescence. Also, there's nothing to keep the girl form making her first communion, or confirmation if she attends Temple every Saturday during her adolescence.

Moreover, the judge didn't order the father to not baptize the child, the judge ordered the father to not take the child to church. As Catholics, we have "Mass for shut-ins". Could the judge order the father to NOT invite his local parish priest to his own home and perform Mass there?

"A children's political affiliation is not important as a child can't vote, and exposing the child to different political views different from one parent does not cause any major problems."

Says you. I would argue that exposing a child to multiple religions - as hundred of thousands of children in the country are, every day - won't cause "any major problems" either. But, we get back to the 1st Amendment. What if the mother didn't want any competing political philosophy (like she doesn't want any competing religious philosophy) exposed to her child? Is it within the judges constitutional purview to order it so?

29 posted on 02/16/2010 10:29:09 AM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Is it within the judges constitutional purview to order it so?

It is the judge's purview to look after the best interests of the child during the divorce. Those are complicated issues, so basically the judge's keep everything the same until the issues can be heard. So, for example, who is going to get what car? Who is going to pay the loan on it? That issue gets worked out, but until then the judge says "whatever was going on before the separation stays the same".

The judge is simply doing the same thing here.

Now, I am not religious, so I don't particularly care and I think its fine if the kid is exposed to many religions, but unfortunetly the long history of divorce in this country shows that the religion of the child is something that is bitterly fought over so I have no problem with the judge saying "hey, just keep it the way it was until we work it out".

That is assuming of course that the kids was being raised as jewish at the time of separation, which I am not sure about but I would be willing to bet is the case.

30 posted on 02/16/2010 10:34:53 AM PST by Ron Jeremy (sonic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Diplomat

No, but there was a period when Cousin had to be supervised on every visit with his son.

The real loser here is the son. Thanks to the parents’ bickering, he now has some “issues.” To this day, the relationship between father and son is strained...thanks to the greedy, vindictive mother. It’s really heartbreaking.


31 posted on 02/16/2010 10:52:22 AM PST by fatnotlazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Ron Jeremy
"It is the judge's purview to look after the best interests of the child during the divorce. "

Therein lies the problem with the state of America's family court system. This concept of "best interest of the child" has become so over-broad, that parents are in court litigating every aspect of the custody arrangement.

The court has absolutely NO BUSINESS interjecting itself into matter of religious worship or religious & political education. As I said, divorce is a family divided. When the child is with the father on his days of visitation/custody, then the child will be exposed to the things that are important to the father. And, the opposite is true on days where the mother has visitation/custody. If the mother wants to keep a kosher home, that's fine. But the mother, nor the court, has any place or right to tell the estranged father what kind of food he keeps in his home, or that the child has access to while there.

"So, for example, who is going to get what car? Who is going to pay the loan on it? That issue gets worked out, but until then the judge says "

That's absolutely right because those are questions that need to be answered in the dissolution of the marriage contract. The court certainly has a role or a mandate to intervene when a marriage, or any contract is severed. But, the court has (or shouldn't have) no role with respect to how the individual parents actually parent.

Like many things in life, the state (vis-a-vis the court) needs to restrain itself from interjecting its authority in the daily lives of people, to include how estranged parents raise their children.

32 posted on 02/16/2010 10:56:53 AM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

OK fair enough, I can accept that the judge shouldn’t get involved. I will stand by my view however that he is not doing it out of some evil view to micromanage the kids religion, but rather the long history of family courts that has led them to try to preserve normalcy during a separation.


33 posted on 02/16/2010 10:59:37 AM PST by Ron Jeremy (sonic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: JOAT

Interestingly, ALL examples of baptism in the Bible occur with adults who make a conscious decision to make a life-changing decision

wrong again....there are numerous examples where entire households were baptized.....confirmation establishes your willingness to accept the religion, Baptism frees you from the penalties of original sin


34 posted on 02/16/2010 7:45:52 PM PST by terycarl (4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Courts have no jurisdiction in matters of religion. Regardless of which way they might rule, it would violate a first ammendment right.


35 posted on 02/16/2010 7:50:38 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Democracy, the vilest form of government, pits the greed of an angry mob vs. the rights of a man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ron Jeremy

The judge needs to be punished for ruling in an area where he had no authority or venue. Religion cannot be ruled by any branch of government.

The judge should have simply explained to the parents that he could not interfere.


36 posted on 02/16/2010 7:55:36 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Democracy, the vilest form of government, pits the greed of an angry mob vs. the rights of a man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: terycarl
"Baptism frees you from the penalties of original sin"

Nonsense! - Christ paid the price of sin on the cross, and being free form the penalty thereof requires belief in Jesus Christ. Baptism is a symbol of that awakening of belief, and by itself does nothing.

37 posted on 02/16/2010 7:59:32 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Democracy, the vilest form of government, pits the greed of an angry mob vs. the rights of a man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Just ask Edgardo Mortara: the Catholics (and I was raised one) are famous for this.


38 posted on 02/16/2010 8:05:48 PM PST by EAHovind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Nonsense! - Christ paid the price of sin on the cross, and being free form the penalty thereof requires belief in Jesus Christ. Baptism is a symbol of that awakening of belief, and by itself does nothing

sorry, but you don’t get to make up the rules as you go along.....Baptism is for the release of the penalty of original sin.....for 2000 years, the church that Jesus founded has proclaimed that as dogma.....now you want to change it....well O.K. I guess, but I don’t think you are smarter than Thomas Aquinas, Boneventure, Teresa, and dozens of other doctors of the church who believed and taught exactly what I have posted . Why is it that Protestants refuse to accept 2,000 years of Catholocity and decide to make their own rules....simply amazing and pathetic


39 posted on 02/16/2010 8:44:32 PM PST by terycarl (4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: terycarl

That is totally contrary to God’s word!

God’s word is the authority, not fallible men.


40 posted on 02/17/2010 9:54:16 AM PST by editor-surveyor (Democracy, the vilest form of government, pits the greed of an angry mob vs. the rights of a man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: terycarl
wrong again....there are numerous examples where entire households were baptized.....confirmation establishes your willingness to accept the religion, Baptism frees you from the penalties of original sin

Considering this was my first post, how am I 'wrong' AGAIN?

Certainly there are examples of households accepting Christ, and in these examples the people involved are clearly making a choice. ALL recorded examples of actual baptisms cited in the Bible feature people who are making a decision.

See Acts 2:41, following the first gospel sermon: Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

How does one 'accept the message' to be 'added to their number' as an infant?

Consider Acts 8:26-39, the story about the conversion of the Ethiopian. The man enthusiastically demands to be baptized after he gains an understanding of the message.

You mention household conversions. One of the more famous ones was the household of Cornelius. When greeting Peter his reply as to what the purpose of summoning Peter to his home clearly demonstrates people who could understand the message: Acts chapter 10, verse 41"Now we are all here in the presence of God to listen to everything the Lord has commanded you to tell us."

Do you suppose the infants were listening to everything the Lord had commanded Peter to say?

Later in verse 47 Peter proclaims: "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have."

Do you suppose babies receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

Another 'household' example is found in Acts 16:14-15: One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message. 15When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. "If you consider me a believer in the Lord," she said, "come and stay at my house." And she persuaded us.

Note that it was the Lord who 'opened her heart to respond' and that after being baptized she links this to becoming a "believer."

Are babies 'believers?'

Consider Acts 19:1-7

1While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." 3So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?" "John's baptism," they replied. 4Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues[c] and prophesied. 7There were about twelve men in all.

Paul's natural reaction to discovering these men did not have the indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit was to incredulously ask 'Then what baptism did you receive?'

Clearly decisions are being made in all these cases.

Baptism is NOT a ritual dunking in the water. Peter states this unambiguously in 1 Peter 3:21-22:

21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

How does a baby engage in a "pledge of a good conscience" when being baptized?

Also note what baptism is not - not a simple physical act - the 'removal of dirt from the body.' It is a spiritual act, a 'pledge of a good conscience' that 'now saves you'

How does baptism 'save' you? Verse 21: 'It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ'

I'm looking forward to your reply citing some scripture (NOT traditions of men) regarding confirmation as being a valid concept by the way.

There are no biblical examples of this happening as far as I can see. The only CONCRETE examples we are given regarding baptism involve people who are able to make a decision at that moment, not other people making the decision for them.

This concept is borne out when you consider judgement. When you stand before God to answer for your life, you alone are responsible for all the words, thoughts and deeds you have done.

Not your parents, not your church, you.

Why should the end have a different standard than the beginning of our relationship with God?

41 posted on 02/17/2010 11:02:30 AM PST by JOAT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: terycarl
Since in Yah'shua's day, baptism is a Mikvah
or ritual immersion prior to going up to the temple.

The origin of infant baptism is very suspect indeed.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

42 posted on 02/17/2010 2:58:40 PM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: UriĀ’el-2012

The origin of infant baptism is very suspect indeed

O.K. how old was Jesus whem\n He was Circumcised.....the Jewish version of Christian Baptism......did 8 day old Jewish children understand their obligations to the Jewish religion.....maybe, but probably not......you keep your kids from being baptized until they are who knows how old....I will baptize mine shortly after birth.....I have nothing to lose, you do....pathetic


43 posted on 02/17/2010 8:56:57 PM PST by terycarl (4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: terycarl
U-2012>The origin of infant baptism is very suspect indeed

O.K. how old was Jesus whem\n He was Circumcised.....the Jewish version of Christian Baptism......did 8 day old Jewish children understand their obligations to the Jewish religion.....maybe, but probably not......you keep your kids from being baptized until they are who knows how old....I will baptize mine shortly after birth.....I have nothing to lose, you do....pathetic

Yah'shua was circumcised on eighth day after his birth.

The Holy Word of G-d in Luke tells us that Yah'shua
was born on the YHvH commanded Feast of Tabernacles.
See John 1:14 where he became flesh and tabernacled among us.

He would have been circumcised on the Feast of Simcha Torah
( the Joy of the Holy Word of G-d)

Since in the days of Yah'shua, baptism or Mikvah was only performed
by adults in preparation to going up to the temple, infant baptism is
extremely suspect.

Yah'shua was, is and will always be a Jew Ruling and Reigning on the
throne of King David from Jerusalem for a thousand years.

How do I know this, His Holy Word tells me.
Not the traditions of man.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
44 posted on 02/17/2010 9:17:18 PM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: terycarl
O.K. how old was Jesus whem\n He was Circumcised.....the Jewish version of Christian Baptism......did 8 day old Jewish children understand their obligations to the Jewish religion.....maybe, but probably not......you keep your kids from being baptized until they are who knows how old....I will baptize mine shortly after birth.....I have nothing to lose, you do....pathetic

Jesus was eight days old when circumcised, and you are right to compare baptism to circumcision, they are both signs of covenant-making.

But let's go apples to apples...How old was our LORD when he was BAPTIZED?

(30 years old) To be sure, the Creator, the living WORD, did not need to be baptized, he was without sin!

Matthew 3:13-17 reads:

13Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John.
14But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?"
15Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." Then John consented.
16As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him.
17And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

He made a conscious decision to obey, which is what baptism is, not something done without your consent.

Each of us stand before God at judgement and nothing is hidden before him.

12For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
13Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

How is an unborn child, murdered in the womb, going to 'give an account?'

A just and holy God judges each of us based on our own sins, not Adam's.

(See 2 Kings 14:6, quoting Deuteronomy 24:16):

Yet he did not put the sons of the assassins to death, in accordance with what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses where the LORD commanded: "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sins."

Baptising infants/children springs from a fear that they will die with unforgiven sin in them, but dunking a person in water is a meaningless act unless the mind is engaged in submission to the Redeemer.

Since God tells us very clearly that a child is not held responsible for the sins of his father, why are you concerned with the sins of the physical father of us all? (Adam)

Granted, there is a penalty we suffer because of Adam, namely mortality, but this is distinct from our soul.

Romans chapter 5 is a great instruction for us that the sin of Adam resulted in death entering the creation. Conversely the righteousness of Jesus conferred eternal life. Verse 12 says: death came to all men, because all sinned

How does a baby sin, FRiend?

45 posted on 02/18/2010 12:18:28 PM PST by JOAT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: JOAT

But let’s go apples to apples...How old was our LORD when he was BAPTIZED?

Who cares, baptism wasn’t introduced until He was 30 or so years old...He was circunsized at eight days old...a clear sign that infants should “follow the law”....infants, of course cannot sin, but they can and do bear the burder of original sin, that of Adam and Eve....go ahead and let your kids potentially suffer from your ignorance, I’ll have mine baptized and take no chances whatsoever......are you awake??? do you think , even for a moment, that almighty God would reject a baptism because the person was too young???????what then would be the EXACT, to the day, age of baptism.....pathetic


46 posted on 02/18/2010 6:28:50 PM PST by terycarl (4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: UriĀ’el-2012

Yah’shua was circumcised on eighth day after his birth.

yeah, we all know that....you seem to have ultimate respect for Jesus (His name), why don’t you actually study who He was, what He did, what the prophets said about His, how He fulfilled all the old testament prophocies and why He said that He was your savior (He is you know). It amazes me that people can be so learned in religion, and not see the apparent....Mormars, Moslems and Jews, those who recognize Christ, and still deny Him.....it’s like denying daylight


47 posted on 02/18/2010 6:50:19 PM PST by terycarl (4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: terycarl
yeah, we all know that....you seem to have ultimate respect for Jesus (His name), why don’t you actually study who He was, what He did, what the prophets said about His, how He fulfilled all the old testament prophocies and why He said that He was your savior (He is you know). It amazes me that people can be so learned in religion, and not see the apparent....Mormars, Moslems and Jews, those who recognize Christ, and still deny Him.....it’s like denying daylight

I do not seems to follow you.

What you said seems to be an attack on someone, I'm not sure who.

May you come to know the creator of the universe.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
48 posted on 02/18/2010 7:21:36 PM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: UriĀ’el-2012

I do not seems to follow you.

I’m really not that hard to follow...In your posts you seem to have a knowledge of Jewish/Christian religion and their similarities and differences. I simply cannot understand how one could be cognizant of the bible, christianity, judaism; know their histories, and still deny that Christ was exactly who He said He was.....I and the Father are one....when you have seen me, you have seen the Father, I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me......Do you think Christ was a nice guy but a complete liar?????He was God, not a prophet, not a seer, not a soothsayer, not a wizard.....HE was and is fully man and fully God.....if He wasn’t all is for naught


49 posted on 02/18/2010 10:04:32 PM PST by terycarl (4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: terycarl
I have yet to see you quote from scripture. You make assertions without anything other than tradition to back them up.

You also have the unfortunate tendency to throw out 'pathetic' when you can not even back up your assertions with any scripture.

How about dropping the huffy attitude and look at the scriptures I quoted and show me why I'm wrong?

50 posted on 02/19/2010 7:35:48 AM PST by JOAT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson