Baptism without parental consent plus more

[Phil 1:21]

God is on the parents' side.

Honor they father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the earth.

The fifth commandment (yes, fifth) does not tell us to elevate our parents above God. Context...it’s important.

 

[Meowzltov]

The fifth commandment (yes, fifth) does not tell us to elevate our parents above God. Context...it’s important.

The Hebrew text doesn't number the commandments. Only various traditions say where one starts and another ends. And different traditions do it differently.

Who is saying to elevate parents above God? No one. I'm just saying that a teenager ought not to disobey his parents. It is not a sin to be unbaptized if one can't help it. The teen is covered spiritually by the baptism of desire; just like the thief on the cross, God sees his desire to be baptized and that's good enough for God at this time.

This idea goes all the way back to the very beginnings of the Church. The period of study for catechumens (those preparing for baptism) was extensive. What if they had a heart attack or were martyred before they were baptized? The church's answer was that they had obtained the Baptism of Desire (heart attack) or Baptism of Blood (martyrdom).

 

[Radagast]

I'm just saying that a teenager ought not to disobey his parents.

If it's a question of disobeying God, then a teenager should disobey his parents.

 

[Phil 1:21]

If it's a question of disobeying God, then a teenager should disobey his parents.

Aaaaaaabsolutely. I wonder if the response would be the same if we were discussing a Muslim deciding to follow Jesus....or a Protestant kid wanting to convert to Catholicism. Probably not.

 

[Meowzltov]

If it's a question of disobeying God, then a teenager should disobey his parents.

You keep saying that as if it is the case. It is not.

It is not a sin for a child to remain unbaptized if it is against his parents wishes. Such a child is covered by the baptism of desire. Was the theif on the cross sinning by dying in an unbaptized state? How about someone preparing for baptism who got nabbed by the Romans and thrown to the lions? You are being entirely unreasonable as well as being completely out of touch with the history of baptism in the Christian church.

I want answers to my questions. I want you to actually respond to my points instead of repeating platitudes that make no sense.

May I ask a personal question? Do you have a dog in this race? Did you as a teen disobey your parents and get baptized behind their backs? I'm just wondering the amount of *emotional* investment you have in this.

I have to tell you that for me it was the opposite. I wanted to get baptized, and my Christian parents fudged on it (they were of the opinion that it didn't matter) and then they moved to a Quaker church which taught that you shouldn't get water baptized. So I was denied baptism. I didn't sneak out. It messed with my head. But I didn't disobey my parents. So I guess you could say I have a dog in the race

Interesting that I'm still the one giving the rational arguments.

 

[Phil 1:21]

You keep saying that as if it is the case. It is not.

It is not a sin for a child to remain unbaptized if it is against his parents wishes. Such a child is covered by the baptism of desire. Was the theif on the cross sinning by dying in an unbaptized state? How about someone preparing for baptism who got nabbed by the Romans and thrown to the lions? You are being entirely unreasonable as well as being completely out of touch with the history of baptism in the Christian church.

I want answers to my questions. I want you to actually respond to my points instead of repeating platitudes that make no sense.

May I ask a personal question? Do you have a dog in this race? Did you as a teen disobey your parents and get baptized behind their backs? I'm just wondering the amount of *emotional* investment you have in this.

I have to tell you that for me it was the opposite. I wanted to get baptized, and my Christian parents fudged on it (they were of the opinion that it didn't matter) and then they moved to a Quaker church which taught that you shouldn't get water baptized. So I was denied baptism. I didn't sneak out. It messed with my head. But I didn't disobey my parents. So I guess you could say I have a dog in the race

Interesting that I'm still the one giving the rational arguments.

Let’s throw everything out of the Bible that’s not the fifth (yes, fifth) commandment and the criminal on the cross for a moment so we can assume you’re right. Now please show us where the fifth commandment has an expiration date. It doesn’t say “Honor your father and mother...until you reach the age of __.”

This is why context is important.

 

[Radagast]

Such a child is covered by the baptism of desire.

I cannot find the doctrine of "baptism of desire" in my Bible.

What I do find is a clear statement that following Jesus trumps any relationship with parents (Luke 14:26: If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple).

I also note that, in the US, the concept of "mature minors" allows older teenagers to receive medical care without parental consent. I see no reason why care of the soul should be given less importance than care of the body.

May I ask a personal question?

Well, no, actually. And I'd be obliged if you'd refrain from ad hominem arguments.

 

[Meowzltov]

I cannot find the doctrine of "baptism of desire" in my Bible.

It's there. I referenced it for you, but you have yet to respond to the example I have given you a number of times. You just blow past it, again and again as if it doesn't matter.

I also note that, in the US, the concept of "mature minors" allows older teenagers to receive medical care without parental consent.

This is not true, except in the case of reproductive rights (because of the liberal bias). I know from personal experience that a 17 year old can't even get so much as a splinter removed at an ER without parental consent.

 

[Phil 1:21]

I cannot find the doctrine of "baptism of desire" in my Bible.

Nor will you.

 

[Radagast]

I know from personal experience that a 17 year old can't even get so much as a splinter removed at an ER without parental consent.

It varies from state to state. For example:

Alabama Code § 22-8-4: Any minor who is 14 years of age or older, or has graduated from high school, or is married, or having been married is divorced or is pregnant may give effective consent to any legally authorized medical, dental, health or mental health services for himself or herself, and the consent of no other person shall be necessary.

 

[Tomb523]

My friend Jake's parents do not want him to be baptized and it's literally killing him. He always complaing about it to me. I don't know why, but they are absolutely opposed to it and my friend is starting to grow impatient. Jake met a Pentecostal pastor who said he would baptize him. I don't think he told the pastor his parents don't want him to be baptized though. He told me it wouldn't be disobeying his parents because it is for his spiritual well being and he is just doing what his parents have failed to do, something about their spiritual responsibility? I guess I see where Jakeis coming from with that one, as his parents would never let him get baptized, probably until he's 18. But what i am concerned about is would the baptism be valid if his parents don't know?

As a bonus, he plans on joining the Catholics after he is baptized. Would they accept it as a true or valid baptism? If they would accept it as valid he would have to take classes where he learns about the Catholic faith though and Jake's parents would shut that down too lol.

I'm not sure what is meant by "valid". The only thing that would make a baptism invalid is if the admission of Jesus as Christ and savior were made dishonestly. A baptism is also not something only a priest or pastor can perform. You could baptise your friend yourself with a couple of witnesses. Baptism is a public act of confession the Jesus in Lord and Savior and can be heard by any believer. Baptism is not an event created just for Christians. The concept of cleansing by water was happening in Sinai desert before the Jews would enter into the makeshift temple made in tents. In Jerusalem around the temple there are still ruins of the "cleansing baths" used before one entered into the temple. The primary difference in baptism now is you only have to do it once as your profession of faith.

 

[ubicaritas]

He should become a catechumen in the Catholic Church and wait until he is old enough that his parents either accept his decision or he's able to make those decisions on his own.

He should not be baptized by a Pentecostal if he doesn't plan on being pentecostal. Not all Pentecostal baptisms are considered valid by Catholics or mainline Protestants.

 

[ubicaritas]

Some churches are not taking the requirement of baptism so literally. He should talk to a priest and see whether he can take communion. The point of requiring baptism is that it does not make sense for a non Christian to take communion, and traditionally baptism defined being Christian. But he’s clearly Christian.

I've gone to a church that did this. It was a liberal Catholic church not in communion with Rome. Both she and her baby were baptized on the same day, after she had attended the church for months and received communion. But most Catholics would consider it irregular and illicit to give communion to the unbaptized, regardless of their faith.

Personally, I believe in pastoral flexibility on this issue and I would hope priests bend the rules to accomodate extraordinary circumstances, whether or not it is "licit" to do so.

 

[Tomb523]

baptisms are considered valid by Catholics or mainline Protestants.

Honestly, I'm not concerned with what a church may consider valid or not, but what God considers valid or not. The churches have a history of trying to usurp the power of God unto their own vices and deny the truth to the masses. The validity of baptism is only determined by God and by extension Church of Jesus Christ, not the church down on the corner.

 

[ubicaritas]

Honestly, I'm not concerned with what a church may consider valid or not, but what God considers valid or not. The churches have a history of trying to usurp the power of God unto their own vices and deny the truth to the masses. The validity of baptism is only determined by God and by extension Church of Jesus Christ, not the church down on the corner.

That's not the point. If you want to be Catholic, don't get a Pentecostal to baptize you because a church that denies the doctrine of the Trinity has a baptism of dubious validity. And several Pentecostal groups are explicitly anti-trinitarian.

 

[Tomb523]

don't get a Pentecostal to baptize you because a church that denies the doctrine of the Trinity

Pentecostal or Protestant? Don't believe I said anything about Pentecostal and it's only one division of Pentecostal that seem to reject the Trinity. I guess you consider me Protestant and I embrace the Trinity and believe it to have existed in the OT and has always been a character of God (Deut 6:4 "Sh'ma, Yisra'el! Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai echad..."). I would also not hesitate to baptize someone who wished to profess Jesus as Lord and Savior. I invite anyone to show me scripture that prevents someone other than clergy and specific denominations to baptize. In fact, when the majority of Apostles were baptizing the nations, they were baptizing Jews, not Catholics or even gentiles. History indicates that it may have been up to 10 years before the gentiles were even invited into the synagogues to accept Jesus. Again, baptism is a symbolic cleansing event that existed in Jewish culture back to the Exodus and was done, not by a priest, but by and individual. Jews cleansed themselves in the baths outside the temple before entering. Now, to enter the Church, we must received a ritual cleaning but once to accept Jesus into our hearts, but this can be done by any believer.

If you want to be Catholic,

This concept implies the joining of a church and not a joining of the Church. It is legalism imposed by the church, but not by scripture.

 

[ubicaritas]

Pentecostal or Protestant? Don't believe I said anything about Pentecostal and it's only one division of Pentecostal that seem to reject the Trinity. I guess you consider me Protestant and I embrace the Trinity and believe it to have existed in the OT and has always been a character of God (Deut 6:4 "Sh'ma, Yisra'el! Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai echad..."). I would also not hesitate to baptize someone who wished to profess Jesus as Lord and Savior. I invite anyone to show me scripture that prevents someone other than clergy and specific denominations to baptize. In fact, when the majority of Apostles were baptizing the nations, they were baptizing Jews, not Catholics or even gentiles. History indicates that it may have been up to 10 years before the gentiles were even invited into the synagogues to accept Jesus. Again, baptism is a symbolic cleansing event that existed in Jewish culture back to the Exodus and was done, not by a priest, but by and individual. Jews cleansed themselves in the baths outside the temple before entering. Now, to enter the Church, we must received a ritual cleaning but once to accept Jesus into our hearts, but this can be done by any believer.




This concept implies the joining of a church and not a joining of the Church. It is legalism imposed by the church, but not by scripture.

You are completely missing the point of helping this young man in the name of making some obscure religious point.

 

[Tomb523]

You are completely missing the point of helping this young man in the name of making some obscure religious point.

Am I? Replacing fallacy with truth is never obscure.

 

[Paidiske]

To be clear, for a baptism to be considered valid (actually a real and proper baptism) by Catholics, it must be done in/with water, and in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It does not matter who administers it, although if you wanted to later use that baptism as grounds for reception into the Catholic church, it would be useful if that were documented and recorded (eg. in a baptismal register and with a certificate) so that you could prove that it took place.

All of that said, I agree with ubicaritas that being a catechumen and undertaking a time of intentional preparation is probably a good option, for now.

 

[Tomb523]

All of that said, I agree with ubicaritas that being a catechumen and undertaking a time of intentional preparation is probably a good option, for now.

The Ethiopian only heard the Gospel and asked to be baptized and was. Many more examples in the NT where upon hearing the Gospel, they were baptized. Paul himself requested and received baptism right after having his sight restored. Intentional preparation is an invention of the church and opposite the practices of the NT record. I do agree;however, that baptism in the name of The Father, The Son and Holy Ghost is mandated in scripture.