Christians--Every human was born a sinner. (Jesus, ritual, moral, reject)

[Katzpur]

Hi, James.

Originally Posted by IacobPersul

We don't believe in inherited guilt in the way that Bl. Augustine described, which is what people usually mean by Original Sin. We do, however, suffer the consequences of that sin in that we are mortal and have a propensity to sin. We don't believe that infants are born sinners (but we do practice infant baptism - baptism is much more than just a washing away of sins, it's a death and rebirth in Christ which is why it can only be performed once).

That's interesting. I didn't realize you don't believe in inherited guilt. The way you expressed it, the fact that "we suffer the consequences of that sin in that we are mortal and have a propensity to sin" is identical to my point of view. But I don't understand that if you have this perspective on Original Sin, why you would practice infant baptism. I even agree that it's a rebirth in Christ, but it seems to me that it would be infinitely more meaningful to the recipient if he were to be old enough to appreciate its significance. The scriptures speak so often of "baptism unto repentance." Since a baby has not committed any actual sin, it has no need of repentance. It can't make any spiritual commitment to Christ, either. So what's the real reason behind the practice of infant baptism in the Orthodox Church?

P.S. And where do people get this strange idea that the forbidden fruit was an apple from? I've never understood that.

I've often wondered the same thing.

Kathryn

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

So what's the real reason behind the practice of infant baptism in the Orthodox Church?

It's what I said it was, although there's a little more to it. We believe that baptism is death and rebirth in Christ, as a Mystery but really, not as a symbol (we don't hold with Protestant ideas of symbolic sacraments). As such it doesn't matter in the slightest if you are old enough to appreciate it when it happens or not, the effect is the same. As Christ's body on earth is the Church, it follows from this belief that you cannot be a member of that body until you are baptised (though we do allow the idea of baptism by blood or baptism by intent such as for the good thief or many martyrs). This is significant because we also believe that infants should be chrismated (annointed) immediately after baptism, which is roughly analogous to western confirmation and more importently, we commune infants. As we commune nobody outside the Church, this clearly pre-supposes infant baptism. We take Christ's words to 'suffer the little children to go to Him' very seriously indeed, and this means allowing them to take the Eucharist in which we believe Christ is really present as a Mystery. That most important Christian sacrament is most certainly not simpy symbolic either. I don't doubt that you'll disagree with us, but I hope that you will understand.

James

P.S.

You knew me elsewhere, I believe, as jmbejdl. I've chosen a slightly more readable handle on this forum. I think we managed to discuss things reasonably despite disagreements before and I hope we can continue to do so now.

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by James

As such it doesn't matter in the slightest if you are old enough to appreciate it when it happens or not, the effect is the same.

So do the little Tykes repent as well? That is a precursor to baptism according to scriptures.

I would also suggest that God is way into symbolism (check scripture), even if you are not. The following scripture brings up the second issue I have with infant Baptism... how is the infant "pledging" here? Me thinks that your confirmation (though that may be an RC thing) tries to cover this, but I find no support of scripture for that either.

I Peter 3;18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19t hrough whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him. NIV

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

So do the little Tykes repent as well? That is a precursor to baptism according to scriptures.

I would also suggest that God is way into symbolism (check scripture), even if you are not. The following scripture brings up the second issue I have with infant Baptism... how is the infant "pledging" here? Me thinks that your confirmation (though that may be an RC thing) tries to cover this, but I find no support of scripture for that either.

I Peter 3;18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19t hrough whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him. NIV

Firstly, I didn't discount symbolism entirely, I said the sacraments are not simply symbolic so that argument falls rather flat. As for repentance, surely there is only need for repentance if you have sinned? In the, purely hypothetical, case of an adult who hadn't sinned being baptised, would you expect them to repent? For what? That argument makes no sense to me. It certainly is no argument against infant baptism, unless you believe infants are sinners? As for the pledge, this is a part of both baptism and chrismation and is done on behalf of the child by the godparents. Do you believe that this is wrong? Why? If my son wanted to pledge something now, as a minor, wouldn't I actually have to do this for him? Once the child is old enough then, of course he needs to live up to it, or abandon the Church, but I can't see this as an argument against infant baptism either.

Your single quote taken out of context simply does not invalidate the ancient practice of the Church as exemplified by whole households being baptised in Acts and nor does it trump Christ's words as I mentioned in my previous post. It's also apparent that you are homing in on very minor issues which are peculiarly of interest to Protestants while missing the major issues of infant communion and death and rebirth in Christ. I accept that this is because you and I come from totally different Church traditions, but we might as well be speaking different languages. I don't expect you to agree with us but I had hoped you might be able to understand our position nonetheless.

James

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by James

I said the sacraments are not simply symbolic so that argument falls rather flat.

No, that's NOT what you said. You said:

Originally Posted by James

as a Mystery but really, not as a symbol

Unfortunately, many Christians get the idea that the spiritual is not nearly as true as the physical. Baptism is all about spiritual re-birth and not a physical one.

Originally Posted by James

surely there is only need for repentance if you have sinned?

Just as "there is only need for baptism if you have sinned".

Do you believe that this is wrong?

Wrong as in sinful? No. However it is completely unsupported by scripture. Whole households do not by default have young children or infants in them. My current household consists of my Son (16), my wife and me. Please show me an instance of baptism in the Bible of a young child or an infant. No, all of the conversions are of ADULTS making a conscious decision to "Repent and be Baptised" as Peter told the very first converts to do.

Your single quote taken out of context

I am hurt by this. Should I quote the ENTIRE chapter next time? Then you call me a protestant, which I am NOT. In fact them thars fightin' words!!! (If only I fought! )

Originally Posted by James

I accept that this is because you and I come from totally different Church traditions

I avoid traditions and instead rely on a scriptural basis for my beliefs.

Originally Posted by James

I don't expect you to agree with us but I had hoped you might be able to understand our position nonetheless.

Again, I am hurt by this. I think that the record on this forum will show that I have defended Catholics from untoward criticisms. I don't believe in them. Howevder, if you are looking for me to rubber stamp my approval on what I see as a scripturally flawed position, then I will simply have to dissapoint you. I fully understand your position and reject it because of that understanding.

[jeffrey]

Our 5 year old was just Baptized 3 weeks ago. Our son doesn't fully understand it, but it also was about his Godparents agreeing to be his Godparents. And as he becomes older, his understanding will grow also. Look at it like insurance. If he gets to the age of knowing right from wrong, commits a sin and dies, well, I'd rather be Baptized at a young age then not at all.

[jeffrey]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

OF,

Sin has consequences as well as punishment. Sometimes those who are innocent share in the consequences (car accidents, etc). So no, the pain of childbirth is not a punishment, but the consequense of not having a perfect communion with God.

It is not readily apparent if physical death was already present. This is referring to a "spiritual death", which was a separation from God and fairly immediate. This happens to EVERYONE once they sin.

A good example of that would be God taking the life of David's son, " The wife of Uriah had borne to David" because of King David's sins.