Posted on 01/11/2011 11:17:44 AM PST by Alex Murphy
Well, if we’re going to use the “infant does not give it’s consent” then why bring the baby to the doctor? Why give it immunizations, why change the diapers? The baby didn’t give its consent. The parent is obviously acting in the best interest of the child for its body AND its soul.
I can never understand why infant baptism is such a stumbling block for protestans. Its all good. Besides, what happens if that baby dies?
Nooo, it’s done in case the child dies before reaching the age of reason, so they won’t go to hell or get stuck in limbo for eternity. Let all who have ears hear.
Waaah. I don’t like the church. I wanna take back my baptism. I protest. Let him go join the baptists. They have the opposite problem - they think you can get baptized again, and again, and again. We say to them, you still only got baptized once, the rest of the times, you went swimming.
www.catholic.com is a great resource for Catholic teaching. Just use their search engine or the message board and ask an apologist.
From catholic.com
Early Teachings on Infant Baptism
Although many Protestant traditions baptize babies, Baptists—and “Bible churches” in the Baptist tradition—insist that baptism is only for those who have come to faith. Nowhere in the New Testament, they point out, do we read of infants being baptized.
On the other hand, nowhere do we read of children raised in believing households reaching the age of reason and then being baptized. The only explicit baptism accounts in the Bible involve converts from Judaism or paganism. For children of believers there is no explicit mention of baptism—either in infancy or later.
This poses a problem for Baptists and Bible Christians: On what basis do they require children of believers to be baptized at all? Given the silence of the New Testament, why not assume Christian baptism is only for adult converts?
This, of course, would be contrary to historical Christian practice. But so is rejecting infant baptism. As we will see, there is no doubt that the early Church practiced infant baptism; and no Christian objections to this practice were ever voiced until the Reformation.
The New Testament itself, while it does not explicitly say when (or whether) believers should have their children baptized, is not silent on the subject.
Luke 18:15–16 tells us that “they were bringing even infants” to Jesus; and he himself related this to the kingdom of God: “Let the children come to me
. . . for to such belongs the kingdom of God.”
When Baptists speak of “bringing someone to Jesus,” they mean leading him to faith. But Jesus says “even infants” can be “brought” to him. Even Baptists don’t claim their practice of “dedicating” babies does this. The fact is, the Bible gives us no way of bringing anyone to Jesus apart from baptism.
Thus Peter declared, “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children” (Acts 2:38–39).
The apostolic Church baptized whole “households” (Acts 16:33; 1 Cor. 1:16), a term encompassing children and infants as well as servants. While these texts do not specifically mention—nor exclude—infants, the very use of the term “households” indicates an understanding of the family as a unit. Even one believing parent in a household makes the children and even the unbelieving spouse “holy” (1 Cor. 7:14).
Does this mean unbelieving spouses should be baptized? Of course not. The kingdom of God is not theirs; they cannot be “brought to Christ” in their unbelief. But infants have no such impediment. The kingdom is theirs, Jesus says, and they should be brought to him; and this means baptism.
Baptism is the Christian equivalent of circumcision, or “the circumcision of Christ”: “In him you were also circumcised with . . . the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead” (Col. 2:11–12). Thus, like circumcision, baptism can be given to children as well as adults. The difference is that circumcision was powerless to save (Gal. 5:6, 6:15), but “[b]aptism . . . now saves you” (1 Pet. 3:21).
The first explicit evidence of children of believing households being baptized comes from the early Church—where infant baptism was uniformly
upheld and regarded as apostolic. In fact, the only reported controversy on the subject was a third-century debate whether or not to delay baptism until the eighth day after birth, like its Old Testament equivalent, circumcision! (See quotation from Cyprian, below; compare Leviticus 12:2–3.)
Consider, too, that Fathers raised in Christian homes (such as Irenaeus) would hardly have upheld infant baptism as apostolic if their own baptisms had been deferred until the age of reason.
For example, infant baptism is assumed in Irenaeus’ writings below (since he affirms both that regeneration happens in baptism, and also that Jesus came so even infants could be regenerated). Since he was born in a Christian home in Smyrna around the year 140, this means he was probably baptized around 140. He was also probably baptized by the bishop of Smyrna at that time—Polycarp, a personal disciple of the apostle John, who had died only a few decades before.
Ha! I wonder if he had to go through RI with all the little kids :-) Maybe he CLEPed it!
You can’t “save” someone else.
I assume RI is the same as RCIA? I think they found it. I’m sure they would have just doused him if they couldn’t find it, to make sure.
Of course you can’t - that’s why we don’t go around “witnessing” or harassing people over it. Only God saves.
If he wasn’t baptized, then he isn’t baptized. What are you asking?
As an unconfirmed member of the Body of Christ. There is an ongoing debate as to whether this person could be admitted to Communion. The ancient answer was that Confirmation was necessary to convey sufficient gifts of the Holy Spirit, so until confirmed people were not admitted unless confirmed.
It’s not an analogy, so the rest of your discussion is moot.
I like talking to my Catholic FRFriends.
Nooo, it’s done in case the child dies before reaching the age of reason, so they won’t go to hell or get stuck in limbo for eternity. Let all who have ears hear.
I cannot find “limbo” in the Bible.
Why did Jesus die on the cross for our sins, if all we had to do is go get sprinkled instead? Scripture tells (in Romans, for example) 9 That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
An infant can’t comprehend this.
I just heard a rumor that the nuns in the Catholic hospitals used to do that. Since I was born at St. Joe’s, I just assumed that happened to me.
I am not even sure it happened. My mother suspected as much, though. It doesn’t bother me, I just never knew you could ‘undo’ it.
No
One of my favorite movies is Life with Father, based on the autobiography of Clarence Day.
When it is discovered that he has never been baptized his family set out to correct the oversight. A young Elizabeth Taylor is in the movie.
“Why did God make so many dumb fools and Democrats?”
That line is uttered by Father in the movie.
I think I may go watch it. I haven’t see in in a long time and it always make me laugh.
“They can’t keep me out of heaven on a technicality!”
De-Baptism sounds stupid. Just go to a different church that better suits you.
No, they seem to be mad at the Catholic Church.
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.