Since the earliest days of Christianity, infant baptism has been considered an absolute necessity according to the teachings of Jesus Himself.
He said that all must be born again of water and of the spirit, and taught emphatically that we should allow the little children to come to Him for they exemplify the kingdom of heaven.
The term "little children" includes infants according to the Aramaic dialect spoken by Christ.
It is by this first of the seven sacraments that one becomes a citizen of the Kingdom of God and at the same time receives his first infusion of grace.
The taint of original sin is removed thereby, and the child is thus enabled to accept the revealed truth to which he will be exposed throughout his life.
In other words, the infant is made capable of recognizing, understanding, and choosing the teachings of Christ as he comes to discover them.
His free will to choose right from wrong is unleashed from the blinding shackles of being born in sin, as we all are.
He becomes able to see and to accept.
If we are to interpret the words of our Lord correctly, it is the Father's will that all men be saved, regardless of age.
And Jesus clearly showed us that the first door to salvation is baptism.
For nearly 1600 years, the above teachings were universally believed by the Christian church.
Conversely, the teaching that one must be of a reasonable age to make such a commitment on his own, voluntarily, after already being saved, is a diversion from ancient truth and is also illogical.
If an infant, for example, were to be relocated when his family moves from Kansas to Pennsylvania, would he be less a citizen of the new state because he has no understanding of what has taken place? Or when a Jewish child is circumcized on the eighth day of life, is he not circumcized because he did not comprehend? Old Testament obedience to the law of Moses is a precursor to the New Testament observance of the Messiah's requirements.
It is therefore not at all unreasonable to compare Jewish circumcision to Christian baptism.
Christ said that He did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it.
Moses required that newborns be presented in the temple, and Jesus warns that infants must be made citizens of heaven by baptism at the earliest feasible time.
Such is the fulfillment of God's law.
In light of history, the teaching that this sacrament is merely an act of obedience is relatively new and is not justified by scripture nor tradition.
Neither can this error be adopted by any other valid source and most certainly not by reason.
He said that all must be born again of water and of the spirit, and taught emphatically that we should allow the little children to come to Him for they exemplify the kingdom of heaven.
The term "little children" includes infants according to the Aramaic dialect spoken by Christ.
It is by this first of the seven sacraments that one becomes a citizen of the Kingdom of God and at the same time receives his first infusion of grace.
The taint of original sin is removed thereby, and the child is thus enabled to accept the revealed truth to which he will be exposed throughout his life.
In other words, the infant is made capable of recognizing, understanding, and choosing the teachings of Christ as he comes to discover them.
His free will to choose right from wrong is unleashed from the blinding shackles of being born in sin, as we all are.
He becomes able to see and to accept.
If we are to interpret the words of our Lord correctly, it is the Father's will that all men be saved, regardless of age.
And Jesus clearly showed us that the first door to salvation is baptism.
For nearly 1600 years, the above teachings were universally believed by the Christian church.
Conversely, the teaching that one must be of a reasonable age to make such a commitment on his own, voluntarily, after already being saved, is a diversion from ancient truth and is also illogical.
If an infant, for example, were to be relocated when his family moves from Kansas to Pennsylvania, would he be less a citizen of the new state because he has no understanding of what has taken place? Or when a Jewish child is circumcized on the eighth day of life, is he not circumcized because he did not comprehend? Old Testament obedience to the law of Moses is a precursor to the New Testament observance of the Messiah's requirements.
It is therefore not at all unreasonable to compare Jewish circumcision to Christian baptism.
Christ said that He did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it.
Moses required that newborns be presented in the temple, and Jesus warns that infants must be made citizens of heaven by baptism at the earliest feasible time.
Such is the fulfillment of God's law.
In light of history, the teaching that this sacrament is merely an act of obedience is relatively new and is not justified by scripture nor tradition.
Neither can this error be adopted by any other valid source and most certainly not by reason.
SHARE
