• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Infant Baptism

Evandr2

Member
The following is an excerpt from my book, Faith and Evidence, which is a free download at my site. :) It deals with a subject that can really irk me :mad: when I hear someone spreading such pain and suffering to those having little religious understanding.

quote:

I once heard a story that so distressed me that I yearned to have been there to bring comfort to the mourning parties involved and, when the time were appropriate, challenge the bitter words of a certain misguided man with the bedside manner of a rock.

It seems that a very young couple had recently lost their infant child; the circumstances of the loss were untold to me. It did come to my attention that while this young couple was at the funeral of their precious child, their spiritual leader came to them and inquired of the child’s baptism. Much to the couple’s distress, they admitted that they had procrastinated and subsequently failed to have the child baptized. Having made such a confession to this trusted friend, they inquired as to the ramifications of their failure to do so, whereupon they were informed, much to their horror, that this small child, this innocent son or daughter of God whom the Lord had blessed them with for so short a time, had been consigned to eternity in Hell.

I honestly do not know whom my heart aches for the most, the parents of this child and the belief that their precious little one has been condemned to outer darkness, or this individual who considers himself a spiritual leader. Some day this individual will come to realize the error of his teachings, either in this life or the next. The remorse from the realization of the damage that has been done and of the needless pain and suffering that he promoted will rack his soul forever, save he repents of his ways and seeks forgiveness of the Lord and those to whom he has so completely misinformed.

I know of little else that a man can preach that can place him further into the gall of bitterness then the idea that our Heavenly Father would be so cruel and uncaring as to declare that a child must be baptized before he or she can be saved by the atoning power of Jesus Christ.

The practice of conceiving, loving, nurturing and then sacrificing small children, for any reason or philosophy, is one that is thought of with outright horror and associated with pagan civilizations and demonic societies. How is it then that any person who claims to know the Gospel of Jesus Christ can believe that our Heavenly Father would (or could) establish such guidelines and penalties for little children and then participate in the execution of the same?

Would our Heavenly Father, who has infinite wisdom, power and capacity to love, take one so innocent as a little child, deny them any ability to think and/or act for themselves, place them upon the earth totally bare of any means to direct their own destiny, subject them to worldly turmoil and the power of Satan to influence their surroundings and then condemn them to Hell if they do not find themselves baptized if and when they leave this mortal existence as a child? This would be an act so totally contrary to everything about our kind and loving Heavenly Father that I can barely think upon it without wondering how any one could believe such a thing, let alone teach it, without withering away in a cold and lonely state of disgrace. To believe such a horrid doctrine is to deny that God has any capacity for love and justice at all!

end quote:

Vandr
 

Feathers in Hair

World's Tallest Hobbit
I think that this sentence
The practice of conceiving, loving, nurturing and then sacrificing small children, for any reason or philosophy, is one that is thought of with outright horror and associated with pagan civilizations and demonic societies.

is... How to put it?

It saddens me deeply that you'd associate that practice with 'pagan civiliations'. I wonder if there's a way that you could phrase that without inferring that we pagans are champing at the bit to sacrifice our young.
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
What exactly does this story have to do with the practice of infant baptism? I can see it having to do with a horrible teaching of babies going to hell, but the latter is not exclusive to the former, nor are the former and the latter automatically connected.
 

FFH

Veteran Member
Children are not accountable until the age of eight, according to LDS beliefs, and it's not a coincidence this teaching is found in Moroni startiing with chapter eight, verse eight.


Moroni 8: 8-23 (Book of Mormon)

8- Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.

9- And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children.

10- Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children.

11- And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.

12- But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!

13- Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell.

14- Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.

15- For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism.

16- Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for perfect love casteth out all fear.

17- And I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me; wherefore, I love little children with a perfect love; and they are all alike and partakers of salvation.

18- For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.

19- Little children cannot repent; wherefore, it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of God unto them, for they are all alive in him because of his mercy.

20- And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption.

21- Wo unto such, for they are in danger of death, hell, and an endless torment. I speak it boldly; God hath commanded me. Listen unto them and give heed, or they stand against you at the judgement seat of Christ.

22- For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing—

23- But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works.
 

may

Well-Known Member
yes , i agree ,how on earth could a religious leader teach something like that , when the bible does not teach infant baptism anyway. how heartless can a person get.
 

Linus

Well-Known Member
Mister Emu said:
What exactly does this story have to do with the practice of infant baptism? I can see it having to do with a horrible teaching of babies going to hell, but the latter is not exclusive to the former, nor are the former and the latter automatically connected.

It seems to me that the two are connected because the spiritual leader in question connected them. He said that because the infant was not baptized, he/she would not go to heaven as a direct result.

FFH said:
Children are not accountable until the age of eight. It's no coincidence that this teaching is found in Morini eight, verse eight.
Forgive my ignorance, FFH, but I don't believe I've ever heard of the book of Morini. What Bible is that in?
 

FFH

Veteran Member
Linus said:
Forgive my ignorance, FFH, but I don't believe I've ever heard of the book of Morini. What Bible is that in?
Sorry, typo, didn't catch it in time, it's supposed to read Moroni, which is the last book of the Book of Mormon.
 

Linus

Well-Known Member
FFH said:
Sorry, typo, didn't catch it in time, it's supposed to read Moroni, which is the last book of the Book of Mormon.
No problem. Even if you had spelled it right I still probably wouldn't know what it was. Thanks for clarifying though.
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
It seems to me that the two are connected because the spiritual leader in question connected them. He said that because the infant was not baptized, he/she would not go to heaven as a direct result.
I said not automatically connected... in other words one need not believe in infants in hell to practice infant baptism...
 

Linus

Well-Known Member
Mister Emu said:
I said not automatically connected... in other words one need not believe in infants in hell to practice infant baptism...

I see. So even if you practice infant baptism, you don't automatically have to believe that the infant will go to hell. Is that what you are saying? I have heard that it is (in catholicism at least) an act of dedication by the parents. They baptize the child in order to show that they will didicate themselves to raising the child in the church. At least that is what I rememebr, so I would appreciate some clarification there.

But it seems that the spiritual leader mentioned in the OP thinks otherwise. The spiritual leader made the connection that since that child was not baptized, he/she would automatically be in hell.
 

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin
Mister Emu said:
I said not automatically connected... in other words one need not believe in infants in hell to practice infant baptism...

Certainly not. Who does believe this? We don't, the Oriental Orthodox don't and even the Roman Catholics don't (though they did once have the popular belief - not dogma - of Limbo, which is almost as bad). I'm absolutely certain that neither the Lutherans nor the Anglicans hold to the idea that unbaptised children are damned to hell either as I have a background with both churches. We all baptise infants and added together we are by far the majority of the Christians in the world today, so it seems that the idea that was put forward by the OP is that of a vanishingly small minority of those who practice infant baptism. It is a hideously vile belief but it most certainly is not representative of the beliefs of very many Christians at all.

James
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
But it seems that the spiritual leader mentioned in the OP thinks otherwise. The spiritual leader made the connection that since that child was not baptized, he/she would automatically be in hell.
I can see that, but the question was, what does one (mis-guided) spiritual leader have to do with the practice of infant baptism... what is the motive behind this story appearing in a book with a section on infant baptism?

It would be like me writing a book on politics and prefacing a section on liberal politics with a story about a liberal saying that all conservatives should die.

It will inherently put the subject in a bad light from the get go, and does not lend credence to the idea of an intellectual dialouge on the subject at hand.

Who does believe this?
Some fringe protestant groups do I believe...
 

Pah

Uber all member
What I see is not the discussion of infant or adult baptisim but one of where theology is once again shown to go wrong. That there is a passionate difference about when a person should be baptized portrays the basic fault of "organized religion". If Christianity is a voice of God, then indeed God does not speak with one voice. Since when should the Church, the body of Christ, be having turf wars?
 

Evandr2

Member
FeathersinHair said:
I think that this sentence

is... How to put it?

It saddens me deeply that you'd associate that practice with 'pagan civiliations'. I wonder if there's a way that you could phrase that without inferring that we pagans are champing at the bit to sacrifice our young.

My apologies FeathersinHair, that was a bit insensitive. Thank you for pointing that out to me. What I should have said was "some ancient pagan civilizations" I do understand that this is not a known practice in current times. At least not that I am aware of. I will check myself better in the future.

I will also make that correction in my book right now. That topic is part of Volume II and is not yet available to the public.

To all who read this post. FeathersinHair comment was valuable to me and I appreciate this type of observation that my writing can better reflect truth and not conjecture.

Vandr
 

Evandr2

Member
Mister Emu said:
What exactly does this story have to do with the practice of infant baptism? I can see it having to do with a horrible teaching of babies going to hell, but the latter is not exclusive to the former, nor are the former and the latter automatically connected.

You are correct to a degree. If what you say has merit than why baptize infants at all?
My concern is the validity of baptism. One who does not have the ability to understand baptism, as does a baby, cannot receive it because baptism includes a covenant with the Lord to keep His commandments. A baby cannot make such a covenant.

The point of this thread and the reason my ire can be kindled is the idea that failure to baptize a child somehow condemns them.

Vandr
 

Evandr2

Member
Linus said:
It seems to me that the two are connected because the spiritual leader in question connected them. He said that because the infant was not baptized, he/she would not go to heaven as a direct result.


Forgive my ignorance, FFH, but I don't believe I've ever heard of the book of Morini. What Bible is that in?

If I may answer that question, The Book of Moroni is one of the chapters in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ authored by prophets of an ancient people, descendents of the Israelites in ancient times that were led by the Lord and fled religious corruption to come to this American cotenant.

While Christ's body lay in the tomb His spirit came to these people (And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd. John 10:16). He dispensed His Gospel to these people and authorized His servants among them.

The Incas remembered this happening to the extent that they let thousands of themselves be slaughtered by the Spaniards thinking they were sent by this great God (Christ) who had previously visited them when all the while the Spaniards just wanted to eliminate the Incas so as to get at their wealth.

The Book of Mormon is the “stick of Ephraim” spoken of in Ezekiel 37:16-17.

16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:
17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.

The Lord realized that their was going to be a need for scripture that supported the Bible, correcting many errors in the Bible caused by the hand of man, aimed specifically at our day and age. We are the companions of the house of Israel.

These Scriptures, The Book of Mormon, are a compilation of the writingss and prophesies of many ancient prophets, spanning many hundreds of years, who lived on this American cotenant, much the way the Bible is authored by prophets in ancient Israel.

This great mass of writings was condensed onto gold plates by the ancient prophet Mormon and given to his son Moroni to be hid up until the Lord would reveal them to the Gentiles. Joseph Smith, the first prophet of this, the last dispensation of the Gospel on Earth before the second coming of Christ, was the chosen vessel of the Lord to restore these records to the world. You would do well to examine them for yourself.

Vandr
 

Evandr2

Member
Mister Emu said:
I can see that, but the question was, what does one (mis-guided) spiritual leader have to do with the practice of infant baptism... what is the motive behind this story appearing in a book with a section on infant baptism?

It would be like me writing a book on politics and prefacing a section on liberal politics with a story about a liberal saying that all conservatives should die.

It will inherently put the subject in a bad light from the get go, and does not lend credence to the idea of an intellectual dialouge on the subject at hand.


Some fringe protestant groups do I believe...

The reason for this story has to do with the chapter heading. "Members of Jesus Christ’s church did not practice infant baptism".

This story was meant to illustrate why.

It is a passionate story about the harm that such a concept can do. Trying to effect baptism outside the guidelines the Lord has set is unnecessary, unwise, ineffective, and useless to the point to being an affront to God. It's only real effect is to make someone else feel good about avoiding the supposed consequences of failure.

My story was meant to illustrate those supposed consequences.

Vandr
 
Top