Why do Christian’s Baptise their babies & thus not allow their children to exercise their God given FreeWill?

Question

If God truly gave man “Free-Will”, then shouldn’t the choice of religion be made by the child when it is at an age that it understands the beleif system followed by its elders.

Imposing a beleif system on a new born, to me, is wrong...

Answer 1

Baptizing is washing of sins from a man that baptize. A child should not be baptized at his age because he do not still know what is right or wrong and he have not yet committed a sin. Christ was baptized by St John the Baptist when he reached the age of maturity to wash his sins while still a man and did not yet receive the power of God. It is wrong to baptize a child but catholics do it in violation of the teachings of God in the bible.

Free will as said by God is not only on the choice of religion, but it is your choice of everything what you want to do.like on the right or wrong to do, on what you want to become, you are free from God.
jtm

Answer 2

The Baptism is a protection, specially if the baby dies, to receive the Bless of the Father, the Son and the Holly is the most power rite and help to protect the bay against "bad of eye" and bad spirits, The Comulgation is the second rite and is when they receive the body of Christ and the third rite is called, the confirmation, usually made around 18 years old where the person not only chooses the religion but "surrenders the evil, the power, the temptation of Satan" making, basically a statement of being good person for life, the Fourth rite is marriage and the Faith is when death arrives.
A Catholic or Christian can surrender his faith at anytime without being in any danger, not to be killed like in other "religions".
People Ignorant complains that is an imposition when is a wonderful rite where you approach to God with the gift of life that he sent you, because for us, the language of God is not Arabic, is life, so a new born is the most special event and we ask for his protection and set the God father in case something happens to the natural parents.
Some ugly people can make anything ugly, but is a magical, wonderful, pure and very white moment for the ones that live it by heart.

Answer 3

While I cannot speak for every denomination I know Nazarenes and Christian Churches do not do this. We have what is called "dedication" for infants, but this is not the same as Baptism. The parents, family, and Church stand as one saying they will do all in their power to help the child in their Christian walk.

You are right about Baptism it should be the Child's choice. Their should not be any pressure by the family, friends, or Church. The Nazarenes fail a little in this regard as they usually wait until several are ready to be Baptized thus creating peer pressure when these times come around.

The Christian Church, at least the one I attend, has water in the Baptismal pool all the time. They keep the tradition of the Ethiopian Eunuch. If some one comes in off the street, I have witnessed this personally, the Pastor will speak to the person about why they wish to be Baptized and what it means. Then the Pastor will gather some witnesses and Baptize the individual. Even in a Church service some one has come forward and he has done this at the last moment and the whole Church stayed late (gasp) to bear witness.

I personally did not get Baptized until I went on a Mission trip in 1991 at the ripe old age of 22 even though I was a Nazarene my entire life. I never felt pressured much and it made the experience wonderful and totally about me and my commitment to God.

Answer 4

Within the past few years I have had doubts about my faith, and after researching Christianity, I discovered its not the religion for me and I now go without one. But after being in a Catholic school for 9 years, I have been taught that if you've been married within a Christian church, you make a promise to raise your children to be Christian. And now that I'm of the age, I have chosen not to complete the sacrement of confrimation. Obviously, a young baby can't say what religion it wants to grow up to be, so Christians have confrimation instead.

Personally, I believe that there should be no baptism or first comunion because I completely agree that imposing your belief to someone of any age is wrong. People should be able to decide for themselves.

But just think of the Parable of Jonah and the whale; God gave Jonah all the information about saving Nineveh, and Jonah chose not to. Nevertheless, God went and summoned a whale to take Jonah there--against his will. Christianity has never been big on having people make their own descions.

Hope this helps

Answer 5

You are certainly correct in saying so, hence it meaning: “baptize” comes from the Greek ba·pti′zein, meaning “to dip, to plunge.” (A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott) Christian water baptism is an outward symbol that the one being baptized has made a complete, unreserved, and unconditional dedication through Jesus Christ to do the will of God [Jehovah].

So was infant baptism practiced by first-century Christians? Not really.

For at Matt. 28:19 Jesus said: “Go therefore and make DISCIPLES . . . BAPTIZING THEM.”

Acts 8:12: “When they believed Philip . . . they proceeded to be baptized, both MEN AND WOMEN.”

However, later on, Origen (185-254 C.E.) wrote: “It is the custom of the church that baptism be administered even to infants.” (Selections From the Commentaries and Homilies of Origen, Madras, India; 1929, p. 211) The practice was confirmed by the Third Council of Carthage (253 C.E.).

Religious historian Augustus Neander wrote: “Faith and baptism were always connected with one another; and thus it is in the highest degree probable . . . that the practice of infant baptism was unknown at this period [in the first century]. . . . That it first became recognised as an apostolic tradition in the course of the third century, is evidence rather against than for the admission of its apostolic origin.”—History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church by the Apostles (New York, 1864), p. 162.

Answer 6

Baptism is the sign and the pledge of being in covenant with God - a public acceptance of Christ as Lord and ourselves as his servants. That only believers ought to be baptised needs no argument. However, going back to the Abrahamic covenant, circumcision was given as the outward sign and pledge of it (Galatians 3:12,13). Christians receive the same blessing as Abraham, namely, that by faith they receive the promise of the Spirit.

In the Reformed tradition the idea that infant baptism is a sign that the children will inevitably be saved is not encouraged. Esau was circumcised, as was his brother Jacob, but Esau violated his birth-right and the covenant. The baptised need to be born again. Our Baptist friends' unbaptised children are also covenant children. They just don't have the sign of the covenant on them at an early age. The believing parent wants the sign of the covenant upon his whole family but not because the sign puts them in a different relationship with God, but because, being his children, they are already in a special relationship to God.

When Christ came he did not institute a new church, but simply grafted the Gentiles on to the old Abrahamic stock, making the new Israel. So it is the same covenant and the same church, and God's ordinance is to put the sign of the spiritual covenant on the physical seed. Infant baptism is given on the basis of the qualifications of the parent, not the child; it is the parents' relationship with God that is the decisive factor. The sacrament of baptism should not be given to a person's child unless the one baptising would be prepared to give it to the parent him/herself, so the parent must receive and rest on Christ alone for salvation. The sacraments are the privilege of covenant-keepers. There was no circumcision and no passover for the covenant-repudiator. He was cut off from the people. So in the New Covenant church there can be no infant baptism for the covenant-repudiator. This has got nothing to do with the free will of children, and no imposition is put on children. They are, instead, given a privilege with immense benefits.

Answer 7

People have stretched the meaning of "baptism" that no one even understands it. When Jesus was Baptized, He was not Baptized into a church or religion. He was Baptized for cleanliness in God's name. Churches use Baptism as a way of inducting one into their church or religion for congregation attendance. Once Baptized, you now belong to that particular faith. When John Baptized Jesus, it was to be closer to God. Our Baptisms are for the same purpose. Back in the Bible, whenever men were sent to war, ALL men ages 16 and up had to go. 16 was the age God chose for adolescents to become responsible. By that age one should know the difference between right and wrong, and can be held accountable. Babies have no sin. How can they? They do not know the difference between right and wrong. What can they be held accountable for? Remember this: Just because one is baptized "into" a certain church, it does not mean they have to follow that Faith. Being baptized is the goal, you can learn what you need to know in many places, not just one.

Answer 8

Infant baptism started fairly early on, though it's hard to say when.

There are several reasons it is practiced. Though evangelicals and others think of baptism as a rite that you practice willfully as a symbolic gesture, the Catholic church, I believe, has always seen it as a sacrament with its own power. To people who practice it, you see, it is not a "belief system" but the truth, and the ritual itself guarantees acceptance into Christianity and heaven for their child. Also, this happened a lot at times when the fate of a newborn was much less certain, if you get my drift.

Furthermore, supporters of IB cite Jesus' statement "let the little children come to me, for such are of the kingdom of heaven" and Paul, in Colossians 2, says that baptism is the new circumcision: a practice performed on infants!

Back in Bible times, much like in many areas today as well, you were what your family was. The New Testament contains references to entire families (including young children, presumably) being baptized after the father or mother converted and was baptized (Acts 16, 1 Cor. 1) thus the age or reason is not prerequisite.

In other words, look at the evidence:

-Baptism is circumcision, which was practiced on babies
-Paul baptized whole families after the conversion of one member
-Jesus says little children possess the kingdom, thus must be able to accept the truth, thus must be able to be baptized
-Luke 18:15, though it says "little children" (already presumably younger than the age of reason) the Greek (brephe) and Aramaic (yeloda) words actually mean babies or toddlers. (yes I read both languages)

It's actually pretty hard to argue, if you look at it. (I'm not Catholic, or even Christian)

Answer 9

Because after the child has been christened it is accepted in 2the church and then at the age of 13+ they have what is called an acceptance service where (if they decide) they get accepted at their own free will. If the child doesn't want to do this then it doesn't matter and they can forget they gt christened its just tradition.

Answer 10

While I understand where you are coming from, I'd like for you to understand WHY a person might choose this route.

For those Christian denominations that do baptize their children as infants, they do this for two reasons: 1) It's a statement that they are going to raise their child as a Christian and teach their child to learn about and love God. 2) For some of the denominations, they believe that this is the entrance into heaven, when you are baptized.

However, for other denominations, we believe that it is a person's choice on becoming a Christian, and we may dedicate our children to God, because we are showing that we care about our children enough to teach them values and what a relationship with God is all about.

I understand that you think it's imposing a belief system, but think of this analogy. Good parents want their children to not only have critical thinking skills, but they also immunize their children, keep them safe, teach them right from wrong, good manners, how to function in society, ensure they get an education, and lots of love and attention. If were to teach my children none of these things, I would not be a good parent. More importantly, since we in the Christian faith, believe that belief in Christ Jesus as our savior is our means of salvation, we would be bad parents to NOT teach our children. What would happen if our children were to get sick or die?

When children become teens, they want that independence, and it may seem that we are imposing our values on our kids, but as parents, we ARE to guide our children in knowing the difference between right and wrong, good and bad. It's our job to help our kids make smart choices in life.

It sounds like you have met a lot of hypocrites - the actors - that pretend to follow Christianity, because they either slip and make mistakes, or they just don't get it as to what it really means to be a Christian. I'm sorry that this happened to you. Because the values of Christianity are good values: love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, faithfulness, humility and self-control. In my opinion, those values are good values for anyone to learn!