ok ok, i am veary against infant baptisum, i belive strongly that baptizum is a sign of detication to our god, and that it should be made freely and willingly , a smalll child can not make a desission that big, i look towards jesus' exapmle, was he not baptized in his 30's? yes he was! so why do the chatholicts baptize kids at breath, shouldent being baptized be taken veary seriously? and be made by a mature person? willingly? what does everyone else think? please share with me! (sorry for my speeling, not the greatest! lol)
2006-12-24 17:10:48 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
infant baptism was not practiced by the Christians of the Bible.
The fact that infant Baptism (as the first answerer said) was practiced from the 1st century down to today, only proves the prophetic statement of Jesus; namely, that after he was gone, the apostasy would come.
The fact that many churches today practice infant bapstism, then later have classes (like catechism and confirmation) proves the falsehood of infant baptism in a backhanded way.
If the baptism were valid there would be no need for the person to be "confirmed" at the age of resonsibility.
2006-12-24 17:20:16 · answer #1 · answered by Tim 47 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How do you deal with the historical fact that the Christian Church universally baptized infants from the first century to the 16th century, and that not baptizing infants is a modern tradition of men?? Jesus said that no-one would enter the kingdom without being reborn through the waters of baptism and the spirit received through baptism. "No-one" sounds pretty clear to me. He didn't say "no-one except small children". The fact that you are against baptism of infants simply demonstrates that you have no understanding of what baptism really is, and has been for 2,000 years. Instead you accept another modern human tradition, reducing a sacrament of God to a mere symbolic gesture of men. Study a little Christian history, so you will know where these ideas you hold are coming from. They are not part of original Christianity. But be forewarned - to know history is to reject Protestantism.
.
2006-12-24 17:17:53 · answer #2 · answered by PaulCyp 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Babies also stand in need of a savior. Circumcision was performed in the Old Testament, and was replaced by baptism in the New Testament. If you will recall, Jesus was also circumcised as a baby, and his baptism later in life replaced that rite. This is supported scripturally if you'll just look around a little bit. Infants were never specifically excluded, and when we see that entire households were baptized, this becomes evidence of an authority issue (like circumcision) and conducting the home in a Christian manner, rather than the "age of responsibility" issue raised today.
The Catholic Church sees baptism as a removal of original sin, but I don't know whether they agree with the premise that this is a covenant that replaces another covenant.
2006-12-25 23:31:37 · answer #3 · answered by ccrider 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree with you. You need free will to give your life to God and an infant doesn't have it. However, from what I understand some will allow the infant to be baptized but still have to dedicate their lives later. I guess it's almost like and inoculation... lol
2006-12-24 17:20:45 · answer #4 · answered by dnisey64 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is a old practice that predates Christianity and Judaism. AND is meant as a temporary protection for the newborn Child . Until it can grow up enough to chose what religion it whats to Join.And be baptized in of its own free will.
2006-12-24 17:26:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Doesn't matter at all to God if you never get baptized.
2006-12-24 17:20:39 · answer #6 · answered by Gorgeoustxwoman2013 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Easier to brainwash someone if the rituals are something they grow up with.
2006-12-24 17:24:55 · answer #7 · answered by chuck 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋