What is the purpose of infant baptism?

[Aunty Jane]

I think it’s a wonderful thing to do for a christian family to show God that this family is going to attempt to raise a Christian child. When the child becomes of age of accountability, then he/she will have to get baptized again I believe the first one is more symbolic.

I see nothing wrong with it

Since Paul clearly indicated that a minor child is covered by their believing parent(s) faith until they are of age to become accountable, (1 Cor 7:12-14) there is no need to baptise an infant. It is a meaningless ritual in churches around the world...like a lucky charm applied to their child somehow.
Christian parents will raise their child in the faith as Jesus’ parents did, and he was 30 when he was baptised.
Baptism also requires full immersion, which could harm an infant or even result in their death.

Infant baptism is meaningless......unless the person consents to it, in full knowledge of what it means, the dunking itself is no more spiritual than taking a bath.

Some of the violent infant baptisms, recorded on YouTube, especially those performed by Orthodox priests, are nothing but criminal child abuse.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

op: purpose of infant baptism?

Precious friends, studied this particular tradition while attending a Reformed denomination, from their
booklet, and could not find it in Scripture. When the next 'ceremony' occurred God Made me feel so
horrible inside, I stopped attending.

Then attended/listened to the immersion 'tradition', but years later, after more prayerful and Careful study of
God's Word Of Truth, Rightly Divided, found out there is no water at all, Today, Under Grace - Simply just:

One [ Spiritual ] Baptism!

Amen.

Jesus didn't say water or spirit in John 3:5.
Jesus didn't say water was spiritual in John 3:5.
Jesus didn't say you don't need water in John 3:5.
Jesus said nothing about a "spirit only" baptism.
And nowhere in all of Scripture are there any age restrictions for baptism. "whole households" includes infants, even servants.
Not once did Jesus place age restrictions of baptism.
So what did Jesus say in John 3:5? Can you find the word "AND"??? Look closely, "and" falls between water AND spirit.
Nowhere in all of Scripture is water separated from spirit regarding baptism. If you choose to accept
One [ Spiritual ] Baptism!, I don't care. It's none of my business. Catholics don't care if you or anybody else rejects infant baptism.

However, you've invented a whole new doctrine, contrary to 2000 years of consistent practice of Anglicans, Orthodox, Catholics including Lutherans and some reformist Protestants. There is no evidence of "adult only" baptism, or "spirit only baptism" anywhere in the first 1700 years of Christendom. Until you or anybody else can find one shred of evidence to the contrary, you have no business being critical of infant baptism.
Separating outward signs (physical water, bread, wine and oil) from inward grace (spiritual) is the heresy of Manicheanism. Good luck with that.

Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen and Cyprian give witness to the authentic practice of infant baptism. Calvin and Luther agreed with these great men, and baptized infants. (Calvin denied baptismal regeneration, Luther did not) Can they all be wrong except you???

What I have demonstrated, using the facts of history, is denial of infant baptism is a post-reformist tradition of men. Again, Catholics don't care if you or anybody else rejects infant baptism. It's none of our business.

 

[Aunty Jane]

To our Catholic contributors here…….Isn’t it about time someone touched on the reason why infant baptism is so important to Catholic people?
What do Catholics believe will happen to an unbaptized infant if they die?

One factor that makes it difficult for people to accept the concept of original sin is what the churches have taught about it.…especially the Catholic church.

For example, at the Council of Trent (1545-1563), the church condemned anyone who denied that the newborn need to be baptized for the remission of their sins. If an infant died without being baptized, declared the theologians, its uncleansed sins would forever bar it from the presence of God in heaven. Has that changed?

Most people instinctively feel that newborn infants are such innocent creatures that it would be against human nature to think that these infants should suffer because of inherited sin. It is easy to see why such church teachings have driven people away from the doctrine of original sin. In fact, some church leaders could not bring themselves to condemn an unbaptized infant to hellfire. For them, its final destiny remained something of a theological dilemma. Although it never became church dogma, the traditional Catholic teaching for centuries was that the souls of unbaptized innocents would dwell in the no-man’s-land of “Limbo”….whatever happened to that?

What do Catholics believe will happen to unbaptized infants today if they die before they are confirmed?

What do Protestant churches believe regarding the unbaptized state of an infant if they die before confirmation?

Who wants to volunteer before I go and do some research?

 

[JBO]

I think it’s a wonderful thing to do for a christian family to show God that this family is going to attempt to raise a Christian child. When the child becomes of age of accountability, then he/she will have to get baptized again I believe the first one is more symbolic.

I see nothing wrong with it

I see nothing wrong with a Christian family showing God that they are going to try to raise their child to love Him. But that is not the stated purpose of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. You trivialize the significance and importance of baptism if you claim that as a purpose.

 

[JBO]

Jesus didn't say water or spirit in John 3:5.
Jesus didn't say water was spiritual in John 3:5.
Jesus didn't say you don't need water in John 3:5.
Jesus said nothing about a "spirit only" baptism.

AMEN!

And nowhere in all of Scripture are there any age restrictions for baptism. "whole households" includes infants, even servants.
Not once did Jesus place age restrictions of baptism.

But there are faith restrictions. One needs to believe in God. One needs to confess. One needs to submit. One needs to choose.

 

[Stash]

I see nothing wrong with a Christian family showing God that they are going to try to raise their child to love Him. But that is not the stated purpose of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. You trivialize the significance and importance of baptism if you claim that as a purpose.

Some Christians wear across around their neck all day. Telling the whole world christian while they’re dancing and drinking at a bar

I never said baptism was not important. Actually, it’s more important in my scenario.

You were announcing to the world in front of God you’re going to baptize your infant And raise your child in a Christian family

Why people get bent out of shape on that I cannot understand

 

[Stash]

Since Paul clearly indicated that a minor child is covered by their believing parent(s) faith until they are of age to become accountable, (1 Cor 7:12-14) there is no need to baptise an infant. It is a meaningless ritual in churches around the world...like a lucky charm applied to their child somehow.
Christian parents will raise their child in the faith as Jesus’ parents did, and he was 30 when he was baptised.
Baptism also requires full immersion, which could harm an infant or even result in their death.

Infant baptism is meaningless......unless the person consents to it, in full knowledge of what it means, the dunking itself is no more spiritual than taking a bath.

Some of the violent infant baptisms, recorded on YouTube, especially those performed by Orthodox priests, are nothing but criminal child abuse.

Boy, you sound like a lot of fun at a party

I’ll make sure that my grandson’s baptism does not turn violent I will hire security lol

Some people need to get a life
It’s just a family get together and announced that my grandkid is going to be raised christian

After that the little fella can do what he wants

And you could cry all you want

 

[JBO]

You were announcing to the world in front of God you’re going to baptize your infant And raise your child in a Christian family

That was not me. I do not believe in infant baptism, I never did and I certainly didn't have my sons baptzed as infants.

 

[JBO]

Boy, you sound like a lot of fun at a party

I’ll make sure that my grandson’s baptism does not turn violent I will hire security lol

Some people need to get a life
It’s just a family get together and announced that my grandkid is going to be raised christian

After that the little fella can do what he wants

And you could cry all you want

Announce away to your hearts content, but that has absolutely nothing to do with Christian baptism.

 

[Fred J]

I already posted my scriptures, give me some that condemn it. Infants are sucklings.. but here in Luke the word infant is used. Look at it as a way parents are asking the Lord to touch their infant.
Luke 18:15
And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them.....

Not just the catholic church but I was raised Lutheran and they also kept this custom of baptizing.

This has nothing to do with 'infant baptism', but rather they brought to Him their infants, that He would touch them. If believers bring their infants to an elder in church, he is to touch bless them in Jesus name, as Christ did.

But denominational congregations and believers have a tendency to take it to a whole new level of traditions from one another.

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

Who would stand in the way of one wanting to water baptise their own child ? sounds Satanic to me in fact !

I came across such people who would reject Water Baptism of their child ! and now looking back all of them years at them children who are grown up now, it's sad that they have never bothered to get baptised and are clearly Lost. their mums and dads are so proud that they did not get their children baptised ! and are in fact against Jesus Christ ! or have another Jesus.

I know of one who was water baptised and his life got into drugs and was out living and sleaping in the parks when one drugo mate of his offerd him to finnish themselves off for good, but this dude said No ! for he was water baptised ! that was the Spark that gave him strenth not to end it their and then. he turned his life around and became a Priest and a very good one i may add. for he clearly had Fire for the Lord Jesus.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

This has nothing to do with 'infant baptism', but rather they brought to Him their infants, that He would touch them. If believers bring their infants to an elder in church, he is to touch bless them in Jesus name, as Christ did.

But denominational congregations and believers have a tendency to take it to a whole new level of traditions from one another.

Yet no one objected to infant baptism until the 17th century. Are Luther and Calvin guilty of "new level of traditions"??? It seems nobody attacks them. Denial of the validity of infant baptism is, evidently, a tradition of men.

 

[Fred J]

Yet no one objected to infant baptism until the 17th century. Are Luther and Calvin guilty of "new level of traditions"??? It seems nobody attacks them. Denial of the validity of infant baptism is, evidently, a tradition of men.

First of all, "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of GOD."

Luke 18:
15. And they brought unto Him also infants, that He would touch them: but when His disciples saw it, they rebuked them.
16. But Jesus called them unto Him, and said, "Suffer little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not: for of such is the Kingdom of GOD.
17. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of GOD as a little child shall in no wise enter therein."

There was no other substances likewise used by the Lord on these children, but rather only 'His hands' to touch them, and further declare, 'for of such is the Kingdom of GOD'.

If these denominational traditions does not come in-line with the New Testament scripture every word authority breathed out by GOD, practice therefore 'lawlessness'.

Matthew 15:
6. ....................................................., Thus have ye made the commandment of GOD of none effect by your tradition.
7. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8. 'This people draweth nigh unto ME with their mouth, and honoreth ME with their lips; but their heart is far from ME.
9. But in vain they do worship ME, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men'."

There's only written about baptism of water and baptism of the Holy Ghost, not baptism of infants.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

First of all, "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of GOD."

Luke 18:
15. And they brought unto Him also infants, that He would touch them: but when His disciples saw it, they rebuked them.
16. But Jesus called them unto Him, and said, "Suffer little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not: for of such is the Kingdom of GOD.
17. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of GOD as a little child shall in no wise enter therein."

There was no other substances likewise used by the Lord on these children, but rather only 'His hands' to touch them, and further declare, 'for of such is the Kingdom of GOD'.

If these denominational traditions does not come in-line with the New Testament scripture every word authority breathed out by GOD, practice therefore 'lawlessness'.

Matthew 15:
6. ....................................................., Thus have ye made the commandment of GOD of none effect by your tradition.
7. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8. 'This people draweth nigh unto ME with their mouth, and honoreth ME with their lips; but their heart is far from ME.
9. But in vain they do worship ME, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men'."

There's only written about baptism of water and baptism of the Holy Ghost, not baptism of infants.

Traditions can be good (from God) or bad (from men). Lumping all traditions as bad is not biblical. It is in itself, a man made tradition.

 

[Fred J]

Traditions can be good (from God) or bad (from men). Lumping all traditions as bad is not biblical. It is in itself, a man made tradition.

Like i witnessed, traditions to honor the Lord must come in-line with the covenantal scripture foundation.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Like i witnessed, traditions to honor the Lord must come in-line with the covenantal scripture foundation.

By highlighting bad traditions in red? How does that honor the Lord??? No Sacred Traditions contradict covenantal scripture foundation. The problem is re-defining "tradition into something it never meant. It seems to me, that no matter how strong a biblical case for authentic traditions is presented, the sola scripturist cannot comprehend it. Customs and rubrics are NOT Sacred Traditions.

"Tradition" Isn't A Dirty Word

Explanation of the Catholic notion of apostolic, sacred tradition, which is always harmonious with Holy Scripture.

www.patheos.com

 

[BreadOfLife]

To our Catholic contributors here…….Isn’t it about time someone touched on the reason why infant baptism is so important to Catholic people?
What do Catholics believe will happen to an unbaptized infant if they die?

One factor that makes it difficult for people to accept the concept of original sin is what the churches have taught about it.…especially the Catholic church.

For example, at the Council of Trent (1545-1563), the church condemned anyone who denied that the newborn need to be baptized for the remission of their sins. If an infant died without being baptized, declared the theologians, its uncleansed sins would forever bar it from the presence of God in heaven. Has that changed?

Most people instinctively feel that newborn infants are such innocent creatures that it would be against human nature to think that these infants should suffer because of inherited sin. It is easy to see why such church teachings have driven people away from the doctrine of original sin. In fact, some church leaders could not bring themselves to condemn an unbaptized infant to hellfire. For them, its final destiny remained something of a theological dilemma. Although it never became church dogma, the traditional Catholic teaching for centuries was that the souls of unbaptized innocents would dwell in the no-man’s-land of “Limbo”….whatever happened to that?

What do Catholics believe will happen to unbaptized infants today if they die before they are confirmed?

What do Protestant churches believe regarding the unbaptized state of an infant if they die before confirmation?

Who wants to volunteer before I go and do some research?

The Scriptures are silent on this matter – just as they are silent on the Canon of Scripture.
The Church leaves the matter of unbaptized children to the mercy of God.

It took the Church to declare the Canon of Scripture to the world (382 AD), which Jesus left as His earthly voice (Luke 10:16). He told His disciples:

Matt 16:19, Matt. 18:15-18
Amen, I say to you, WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven, and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

The Canon of Scripture is a CATHOLIC Tradition rooted in Scripture, that is used by ALL Christians.

Infant Baptism is also a sacred Tradition that is rooted in Scripture (Matt. 28:19, John 3:5, Mark 16:16, Rom. 6: 3-4, Gal. 3:27, Col. 2:11-12, 1 Pet. 3:21).

 

[Spyder]

Not that simple

 

[Aunty Jane]

The Scriptures are silent on this matter – just as they are silent on the Canon of Scripture.
The Church leaves the matter of unbaptized children to the mercy of God.

You know that “the Church” taught what no scripture did…..baptism of infants was carried out on the assumption that a fiendish god would punish them in hell forever if someone did not sprinkle holy water on them…..what utter nonsense! And what a totally distorted and superstitious belief most Christians know that to be. And what about “limbo”……poor little souls floating about lost in the ether forever…? And you want us to take your beliefs seriously.

It took the Church to declare the Canon of Scripture to the world (382 AD), which Jesus left as His earthly voice (Luke 10:16). He told His disciples:

Matt 16:19, Matt. 18:15-18
Amen, I say to you, WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven, and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

And that was said to Peter but not to anyone else. It was Jesus’ way of letting Peter know that he was forgiven for his denial on the night of Jesus’ trial. To give him such responsibility was humbling to this man whose last memory of his Lord was a look of disappointment and bitter regret at the crowing of the rooster.
How that must have strengthened him to know that his very human failings were not held against him.

The Canon of Scripture is a CATHOLIC Tradition rooted in Scripture, that is used by ALL Christians.

Catholic traditions have not one iota of connection to the Christianity that Jesus preached…..if you think so, then their brain washing has accomplished a great victory for the devil.…the author of the apostasy that Jesus foretold…..you can pretend it never happened if you like, but history doesn’t lie about the blood on the hands of those who served a different god to the one taught by Christ. (Isa 1:15)

Infant Baptism is also a sacred Tradition that is rooted in Scripture (Matt. 28:19, John 3:5, Mark 16:16, Rom. 6: 3-4, Gal. 3:27, Col. 2:11-12, 1 Pet. 3:21).

Every one of those scriptures is an interpretation of what you want them to say….Paul allows us to set that straight by saying that minor children are covered under the faith of their believing parent(s). There is no need to baptize an infant who cannot make a choice for themselves until the age of accountability. Teaching was part of that journey….an infant has to progress to an age of understanding before baptism can even be considered……it is a commitment like marriage, which involves vows of obedience to all the teachings of the Christ. The RCC made up all its own rules and passed them off as “scriptural“ to people kept in ignorance for centuries.
Your justifications are nothing but excuses to keep on doing what your church has done since it’s beginnings……not with the apostles, but with those who came after them and corrupted everything that Christ taught……

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Not that simple

.[25] Nonetheless, a full dogmatic articulation of the canon was not made until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism,[26] the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox.

The footnote [26]:

The Cambridge History of the Bible (volume 1) eds. P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans (Cambridge University Press, 1970), 305; cf. the Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the New Testament newadvent.org. Retrieved December 3, 2008.

"full dogmatic articulation of the canon was not made until the Council of Trent"
Why? Because it was a reaction to the so called reformers adulterating the original canon. How about a screen shot of the original Council of Trent??? That would be more honest than cherry picking a few lines from an encyclopedia (that you did not disclose)

Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures | EWTN

EWTN is a global, Catholic Television, Catholic Radio, and Catholic News Network that provides catholic programming and news coverage from around the world.

www.ewtn.com

​