₦airaland Forum

As many around the world celebrate a festive season they believe to be the birth of Christ Jesus, who later at around 30yr of age got water baptized by his cousin, John the Baptist, we try to consider what appropriate age is right for water baptism if it is required at all.

On the subject of age, of all those recorded baptisims in the new testament only the age of Jesus was mentioned.

I have heard some argue that if a child wasn't baptized or holy water didn't touch the child, if the child died they would go to hell. While I have also heard some others say no to child water baptism, and among them some claim a certain age where it doesn't matter what they do they are innocent before God and as such if they die they go "back to their maker".

I believe the whole purpose of water baptism was to reveal who the anointed son of God is and that's why Jesus went to fulfill and do what was right and was revealed as God's son in whom God's well pleased. Shortly after Jesus's baptism, John gets arrested and beheaded. Now some may say John's disciples and those of Jesus baptized with water but Jesus didn't do so.

Jesus does baptize us but with the living water, the Holy Spirit. So I like Paul believe in this baptism and not water baptism, which nullifies the argument of if a new born or toddler or children of certain age bracket should be deeped into water or not. Though children are not innocent as many of them lie, steal and do a lot of wrong things mainly out of ignorance. I doubt John the Baptist deeped them into the Jordan River, well maybe he did, as it won't kill even an infant to be deeped into water but the whole purpose of that baptism was a symbol that those who went to John were repenting from their sins and forsaking their past lives. It's also possible that the household baptisms mentioned in acts were not water nor involved deeping little children into water.

What do you think should your child be deeped into water to receive salvation or not?

Baptism is Baptism whether it is child or adult
It doesn't matter

gohf:
What do you think should your child be deeped into water to receive salvation or not?

You don't receive salvation by being deeped into water, baptism is a segregation of Christian faith. It significance rests on the acceptance of Christian faith and not salvation. Every religious belief have a way of accepting such religious faith, accepting a religious faith like Christianity through baptism does not mean you already have achieved salvation.....

gohf:
I have heard some argue that if a child wasn't baptized or holy water didn't touch the child, if the child died they would go to hell. ..

It is the guilty that are cast in prison, so what offences would a child be guilty of to be delivered to hel?

Even, ye ivu men acknowledge that a child under 7yrs is not criminally responsible. Child Rights Act/ Criminal Code

This arguement goes on because people do not understand the meaning and purpose of infant baptism in the Catholic Church. I mention Catholic here because that is the denomination that is constantly criticised for infant baptism.

immortalcrown:
This arguement goes on because people do not understand the meaning of purpose of baptism in the Catholic Church. I mention Catholic here because that is the denomination that is constantly criticised for infant baptism.

So, what is the purpose of baptism?

Dtruthspeaker:
So, what is the purpose of baptism?

In Pentecostal churches, baptism qualifies one to start receiving the holy communion because all the members become adult or almost adult before going for baptism. But in Catholic, baptism does not qualify one to start receiving the holy communion if the person received infant baptism. This is why the arguement often takes place.

Baptism is a ritual performed to cleanse original sin and demonstrate Christian identity. Baptizing an infant is a way that parents give the baby Christian identity. The parents, by doing so, are saying, "We are laying a Christian foundation for our baby".

What makes the difference is confirmation which is done by only those who did infant baptism and have become cognisant enough to differentiate sin from good and have promised to abstain from sin. It is called confirmation because the person does it to show that he or she has examined, understood and chosen the Christian foundation laid for him or her. The person by doing so is saying "I have confirmed that the Christian foundation laid for me or I laid for myself is right for me and I am dedicated to it".

Let me use something non-spiritual to explain it further. A medical or nursing student starts wearing a white clothe. The white clothe does not make the student a qualified nurse or doctor. It only shows that the student has chosen the profession and is willing to develop himself or herself in that field. The student is using the clothe to say, "This is who I want to be". This illustrates baptism. Graduation is what will make the student a qualified nurse or doctor. The graduation can be used to illustrate the purpose of confirmation in the Catholic Church.

In the Catholic Church, members who become adults before getting baptised may not go through a separate formation for confirmation before receiving the holy communion. They can receive the holy communion the same day they get baptised. This is similar to Pentecostal members who start receiving communion immediately after being baptised because they had become old enough to differentiate sin from good before they went for the baptism. Members of the Catholic Church who did infant baptism are the ones that must go through confirmation when they become adults before they start receiving the holy communion. Biblically, there is no contradiction between the way the Catholic does it and the way the Pentecostal Churches do it. It is human sentiment that created the arguement.

immortalcrown:
In Pentecostal churches, baptism qualifies one to start receiving the holy communion. But in Catholic, baptism alone does not qualify one to start receiving the holy communion. This is why the arguement often takes place.

Baptism is a ritual performed to cleanse original sin and demonstrate Christian identity. Baptizing an infant is a way that parents give the baby Christian identity. The parents, by doing so, are saying, "We are laying a Christian foundation for our baby".

This is why a member of the Catholic Church who gets baptised at the age of 30 or 40 is the same as a baby that gets infant baptism in the same church. What makes the difference is confirmation which is done by only those who have become cognisant enough to differentiate sin from good and have promised to abstain from sin. Only the confirmed members of the Catholic Church receive the holy communion. It is called confirmation because the person does it to show that he or she has examined, understood and chosen the Christian foundation laid for him or her. The person by doing so is saying "I have confirmed that the Christian foundation laid for me or I laid for myself is right for me and I am dedicated to it".

And this why they will always argue against the Catholic view. For you have pointed out the purposes of baptism but you guys err on its application.

You have said that baptism does not mean that the baptized has promised to abstain from sin. Meanwhile, baptism naturally means that for all intents and purposes, the baptized intends to abstain from sin.

So, something is wrong when baptism does not cleaned.

Then, secondly, on original sin, the Catholic is wrong again for generally, no person can be liable for the offences committed by another. ("no liability without fault”,).

Thus, no one is liable for Adam's offences and no man inherited that.

So, I argue that a baby does not need baptism since he has not yet committed any offence.

Baptism is for people who have committed offences.

Dtruthspeaker:
And this why they will always argue against the Catholic view. For you have pointed out the purposes of baptism but you guys err on its application.

You have said that baptism does not mean that the baptized has promised to abstain from sin. Meanwhile, baptism naturally means that for all intents and purposes, the baptized intends to abstain from sin.

So, something is wrong when baptism does not cleaned.

Then, secondly, on original sin, the Catholic is wrong again for generally, no person can be liable for the offences committed by another. ("no liability without fault”,).

Thus, no one is liable for Adam's offences and no man inherited that.

So, I argue that a baby does not need baptism since he has not yet committed any offence.

Baptism is for people who have committed offences.

First of all, I saw this response after correcting the mistake I made in my response that you quoted here.

Read my comment again.

And you have not pointed out exactly what is wrong with infant baptism. Infant baptism would have been wrong if it qualifies the baby to start receiving the holy communion. The Bible does not in any way say that baptism should be for only adults. Jesus Christ invites everyone including babies. The Bible does not say that baptism must be accompanied by holy communion. So the Catholic does not go against the Bible in any way by practising or believing in infant baptism. What exactly is your point?

immortalcrown:
In Pentecostal churches, baptism qualifies one to start receiving the holy communion. But in Catholic, baptism does not qualify one to start receiving the holy communion. This is why the arguement often takes place.

Baptism is a ritual performed to cleanse original sin and demonstrate Christian identity. Baptizing an infant is a way that parents give the baby Christian identity. The parents, by doing so, are saying, "We are laying a Christian foundation for our baby".

What makes the difference is confirmation which is done by only those who have become cognisant enough to differentiate sin from good and have promised to abstain from sin. Only the confirmed members of the Catholic Church receive the holy communion. It is called confirmation because the person does it to show that he or she has examined, understood and chosen the Christian foundation laid for him or her. The person by doing so is saying "I have confirmed that the Christian foundation laid for me or I laid for myself is right for me and I am dedicated to it".

Let me use something non-spiritual to explain it further. A medical or nursing student starts wearing a white clothe. The white clothe does not make the student a qualified nurse or doctor. It only shows that the student has chosen the profession and is willing to develop himself or herself in that field. The student is using the clothe to say, "This is who I want to be". This illustrates baptism. Graduation is what will make the student a qualified nurse or doctor. The graduation can be used to illustrate the purpose of confirmation in the Catholic Church.

In the Catholic Church, members who become adults before getting baptised may not go through a separate formation for confirmation before receiving the holy communion. They can receive the holy communion the same day they get baptised. This is similar to Pentecostal members who start receiving communion immediately after being baptised because they had become old enough to differentiate sin from good before they went for the baptism. Members of the Catholic Church who did infant baptism are the ones that must go through confirmation when they become adults before they start receiving the holy communion. Biblically, there is no contradiction between the way the Catholic does it and the way the Pentecostal Churches do it. It is human sentiment that created the arguement.

You mean, if the child is not baptized, he or she does not have Christian identity?

paxonel:
You mean, if the child is not baptized, he or she does not have Christian identity?

A pupil of a school going to the school without the school uniform does not mean the pupil is not a member of the school. But wearing the school uniform helps to project the pupil's identity as a member of the school. The Catholic Church has never sent anybody out of the Church for not being baptised. So, do not twist things unnecessarily. When Christian parents fail to do child dedication in church, it does not change the Christian identity of the family. But the child dedication helps to project the family's Christian identity. This is the same thing that infant baptism can do in the Catholic Church.

I believe it's better when you're able to understand the faith first before you get baptised.

gohf:
As many around the world celebrate a festive season they believe to be the birth of Christ Jesus, who later at around 30yr of age got water baptized by his cousin, John the Baptist, we try to consider what appropriate age is right for water baptism if it is required at all.

On the subject of age, of all those recorded baptisims in the new testament only the age of Jesus was mentioned.

I have heard some argue that if a child wasn't baptized or holy water didn't touch the child, if the child died they would go to hell. While I have also heard some others say no to child water baptism, and among them some claim a certain age where it doesn't matter what they do they are innocent before God and as such if they die they go "back to their maker".

I believe the whole purpose of water baptism was to reveal who the anointed son of God is and that's why Jesus went to fulfill and do what was right and was revealed as God's son in whom God's well pleased. Shortly after Jesus's baptism, John gets arrested and beheaded. Now some may say John's disciples and those of Jesus baptized with water but Jesus didn't do so.

Jesus does baptize us but with the living water, the Holy Spirit. So I like Paul believe in this baptism and not water baptism, which nullifies the argument of if a new born or toddler or children of certain age bracket should be deeped into water or not. Though children are not innocent as many of them lie, steal and do a lot of wrong things mainly out of ignorance. I doubt John the Baptist deeped them into the Jordan River, well maybe he did, as it won't kill even an infant to be deeped into water but the whole purpose of that baptism was a symbol that those who went to John were repenting from their sins and forsaking their past lives. It's also possible that the household baptisms mentioned in acts were not water nor involved deeping little children into water.

What do you think should your child be deeped into water to receive salvation or not?

Do what Jesus did. Follow his examples. If you do, you are on right path and not those of men.

So, search scriptures and see what Jesus did and commanded his disciples to do.

Chikena.

/
Funny though!

Jesus was baptized in River Jordan. But if Celestial church members take people for baptism to River Niger or Bar Beach, our people will call them occultists.

Black people!
/

A hired killer(a man) suddenly gave his life to Christ and then baptism clears him of the murders he committed, and then he goes to heaven when he dies.

Then those he killed, the ones who were "sinners", would rot in hell because they didn't have the chance the murderer had because the murderer cut short their lives.

Make this make sense to me, abeg.

I believe a child's fate should not be decided by parenting.
Most parents end up destabilising their ward's potentials by personal choices. Let a child grow and choose

immortalcrown:
A pupil can go to school without the school uniform. But wearing the school uniform helps to project the pupil's identity as a member of the school. The Catholic Church has never sent anybody out of the Church for not being baptised. So, do not twist things unnecessarily. When Christian parents fail to do child dedication in church, it does not change the Christian identity of the family. But the child dedication helps to project the family's Christian identity. This is the same thing that infant baptism can do in the Catholic Church.

You are very right!
A student can go to school without school uniform and still perform better academically than those with the school uniform and identity.
Afterall, the essence of going to school is to acquire the knowledge and not necessarily to project the school identity since there are other schools that can still offer the service of imparting the same knowledge.

This is why the question reasonable Christians ask:
Of what use is the identity of the church denomination in a society that is dominated by Christians which is the body of Christ?

very insightful and easy to digest

manuelkel:
You don't receive salvation by being deeped into water, baptism is a segregation of Christian faith. It significance rests on the acceptance of Christian faith and not salvation. Every religious belief have a way of accepting such religious faith, accepting a religious faith like Christianity through baptism does not mean you already have achieved salvation.....

E be like say u dey inside my mind, religion has really eating us up from the inside, messed up our thinking faculty, they should tell me how many of the disciple Jesus baptise with water Wen he was with them

very insightful and easy to digest in all indicat

immortalcrown:
In Pentecostal churches, baptism qualifies one to start receiving the holy communion. But in Catholic, baptism does not qualify one to start receiving the holy communion. This is why the arguement often takes place.

Baptism is a ritual performed to cleanse original sin and demonstrate Christian identity. Baptizing an infant is a way that parents give the baby Christian identity. The parents, by doing so, are saying, "We are laying a Christian foundation for our baby".

What makes the difference is confirmation which is done by only those who have become cognisant enough to differentiate sin from good and have promised to abstain from sin. Only the confirmed members of the Catholic Church receive the holy communion. It is called confirmation because the person does it to show that he or she has examined, understood and chosen the Christian foundation laid for him or her. The person by doing so is saying "I have confirmed that the Christian foundation laid for me or I laid for myself is right for me and I am dedicated to it".

Let me use something non-spiritual to explain it further. A medical or nursing student starts wearing a white clothe. The white clothe does not make the student a qualified nurse or doctor. It only shows that the student has chosen the profession and is willing to develop himself or herself in that field. The student is using the clothe to say, "This is who I want to be". This illustrates baptism. Graduation is what will make the student a qualified nurse or doctor. The graduation can be used to illustrate the purpose of confirmation in the Catholic Church.

In the Catholic Church, members who become adults before getting baptised may not go through a separate formation for confirmation before receiving the holy communion. They can receive the holy communion the same day they get baptised. This is similar to Pentecostal members who start receiving communion immediately after being baptised because they had become old enough to differentiate sin from good before they went for the baptism. Members of the Catholic Church who did infant baptism are the ones that must go through confirmation when they become adults before they start receiving the holy communion. Biblically, there is no contradiction between the way the Catholic does it and the way the Pentecostal Churches do it. It is human sentiment that created the arguement.

What is you described is not baptism, baptism signifies death to sin, burial and resurrection in Christ. That's why you immerse the person in water (death) and raise him up (resurrection)

Now that process can only be valid with Roman's 10:9
And a baby cannot believe in Jesus nor confess his Lordship and therefore not qualified for salvation

Wetin religion go cause

prinsam30:
E be like say u dey inside my mind, religion has really eating us up from the inside, messed up our thinking faculty, they should tell me how many of the disciple Jesus baptise with water Wen he was with them

We all have different understanding towards this religion of a thing most especially Christianity.

This argument are needless, that's because many of the folks arguing about baptism do not know it's historical context or religious significance. Baptism is not exclusive to Christianity, infact ancient Jews also practiced it as part of a purification ritual for 2 main reasons:

1. The Jewish Mikvah ( Ritual bath) - this was the ritual purity practiced by those who were ceremonially unclean, or priests before thier service to the ternacle or temple.

2. Proselyte baptism - practiced during conversion to Judaism. Now, this should make you understand, contextually, why the Jews questioned John the Baptist, and Jesus (and his disciples) , what or who gave them the right to baptise!

John (The Baptist) then came and then introduces the Baptism for Repentance, which was radical, contentious and controversial in the eyes of the Jewish religious leaders. For context, John the Baptist baptism was a one time thing, while the Jewish Mikvah was done as many times as needed for cleaning, especially.

Baptism is not compulsory! But if new converts are required to be baptised by any true bible believing church, then they should, as it won't kill them, as long as the understand that baptism foreshashows repentance, death of your old sinful ways, and renewed to a new life in Christ. It isn't complex. True repentance goes deep down and translates to spiritual and soulish transformation.

As for the Catholics, if the child baptism translates to the dedication of the child to Christ, then I do not see anything wrong with that. The child can always do a proper baptism if and when they come of age, adults who understand the implication of the finished work of Christ, grace and the detriment of sin. Similar to how charismatics and pentecostals dedicated and snoint their babies.

Make una dey chill, small. Christ will purge His bride thoroughly before He comes.

Is BAPTISM as a whole, right or wrong?

The first person to enter heaven after The death of Christ, wasn't baptised.

immortalcrown:
First of all, I saw this response after correcting the mistake I made in my response that you quoted here.

Read my comment again.

And you have not pointed out exactly what is wrong with infant baptism. Infant baptism would have been wrong if it qualifies the baby to start receiving the holy communion. The Bible does not in any way say that baptism should be for only adults. Jesus Christ invites everyone including babies. The Bible does not say that baptism must be accompanied by holy communion. So the Catholic does not go against the Bible in any way by practising or believing in infant baptism. What exactly is your point?

If you watch my tone you would see that I am not exactly attacking the practice of child baptism. And neither did I say it violates any Law in the bible.

But it does not directly violate a Law, it however, does not follow The Law but departs from it.

As you said Baptism and your holy communion are 2 separate matters in your church. So according to your church baptism is not about your holy communion.

However, I dispute in support of others that baptism means a person qualified to break bread with Christ and to eat the body and blood of Christ which your church technically calls your holy communion.

Which is what I stated above

It's wrong if the child have no knowlege of the act.

The knowlege is as important as the act..that's why it is done after confession / repentance

immortalcrown:
. Only the confirmed members of the Catholic Church receive the holy communion. It is called confirmation because the person does it to show that he or she has examined, understood and chosen the Christian foundation laid for him or her. .

Wrong, unless your own Roman Catholic church is different.

What qualifies one to revceve holy communion is the ceremony of First Holy Commuinion which is preceded by Catechism classes. Of course one has to be baptized, perform penance and recieve First Holy Communion before receiving recievwing Holy Communion.

Confirmation is a totally different ritual and isn't a prerequisite for Holy Communion and serves as a Confirmation of Faith by adults. Confirmation too isn't a mandatory requirement for Catholics and most Catholics didn't end up being Confirmed

Baptism is not for children but a grown up to understand the importance of what is being done. Catholic or Roman Catholic an evil church brought this confusion. It’s not for identifying a Christian it is an acceptance of the death and burial, resurrection of Christ. A child cannot accept or understand. It doesn’t make u holy. Christ was baptized as adult

Whether it is right or wrong is not the issue here, the issue is what's does a child knows or what's his or her conventions, intentions - no perspectives or ideologies to warrant baptism?

This is just one of the flaws of religion....truth every new born are born atheist.....his or her religion or ideologies are derived from his or her surroundings or family of birth

immortalcrown:
First of all, I saw this response after correcting the mistake I made in my response that you quoted here.

Read my comment again.

And you have not pointed out exactly what is wrong with infant baptism. Infant baptism would have been wrong if it qualifies the baby to start receiving the holy communion. The Bible does not in any way say that baptism should be for only adults. Jesus Christ invites everyone including babies. The Bible does not say that baptism must be accompanied by holy communion. So the Catholic does not go against the Bible in any way by practising or believing in infant baptism. What exactly is your point?

Baptism is a conscious decision by the person to be baptized. A child can not make conscious decision.

Another error by the Catholic is baptism is by emersion in water and not by sprinkling of water.