-
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!
What is the case for anti paedobaptism?
- Thread starter Sjruru
- Start date
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
Well, I belong to a group which is very much against infant baptism. Since that is so, I would venture to say that anti-paedobaptism is not what Michael Servetus presents it as. Indeed, I would say that he got the whole thing precisely the wrong way around.
As to what the emphasis is on, I haven't got a clue. Anybody else?
As to what the emphasis is on, I haven't got a clue. Anybody else?
sooda
Veteran Member
That's ridiculous.. Infant baptism is about the promise to raise the child a Christian or a naming ceremony or both.. There is NOTHING diabolical about it.
Well We'll take it all with a grain of sand.
He was interesting he calls it on the Trinity and you can see it in phythagoras understanding. So what ever is going in in the pre-frontal cortex is pretty nonsensical but normal as we intellectually develop up through time as a species n Western culture. It's a no starter topic.
Baby baptism.. . Who cares and it idiotic and feels good all at the same time and is irrelevant.
What does the Bible say about infant baptism / paedobaptism?
There is much confusion about baptism in the various Christian denominations. However, this is not a result of the Bible presenting a confusing message on baptism. The Bible is abundantly clear of what baptism is, who it is for, and what it accomplishes. In the Bible, only believers who had placed their faith in Christ were baptized - as a public testimony of their faith and identification with Him (Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3-4). Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience after faith in Christ. It is a proclamation of faith in Christ, a statement of submission to Him, and an identification with His death, burial, and resurrection.
With this in view, infant baptism is not a Biblical practice. An infant cannot place his or her faith in Christ. An infant cannot make a conscious decision to obey Christ. An infant cannot understand what water baptism symbolizes. The Bible does not record any infants being baptized. Infant baptism is the origin of the sprinkling and pouring methods of baptism - as it is unwise and unsafe to immerse an infant under water. Even the method of infant baptism fails to agree with the Bible. How does pouring or sprinkling illustrate the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ?
I had to look him up as I had never heard of the man before.
For others this is Michael Servetus: Michael Servetus | Spanish theologian
Here is the pope he is so concerned about: Clement VII | pope
It says Servetus primary problems were with the Trinity and that his King (of Spain) was too supportive of pope Clement. He hated the political intertwining of the church with politicians. Servetus was very concerned about corruption in the church, while Clement was a politician in priestly garb. Servetus was interested in separating church and state, and he felt the church could be restored to its former purity by this and by reversing the Nicene Council. So it seems he felt that the Nicene Council was where the church got mixed up with politics, and that was why he wanted to make changes. That would probably also be why he was against infant baptism.
Servetus did not have access to the History like people of modern times (2000+). He had access to some History but would have lacked the benefit of many archeological finds available now. The problems with the church went way, way back before the Nicene Council, and I think Servetus was working on the false assumption or the hope that things had been Ok before that. He then devised a plan which involved correcting some semantics and separating church and state, reversing whatever he identified that was political in nature. This was how he viewed infant baptism.
Ironically he was executed by the authorities in Geneva under the influence of John Calvin. He should never have crossed or discussed anything with John Calvin who was quite bloody. He would have gotten better treatment from the pope, but no he ran to Geneva. It seems he was surrounded by betrayals and duplicity everywhere he went, but he did his best with what he had.
********* Finally in response to the OP after that research I think:
I'm not sure but it appears that in Servetus time people baptized as babies were then bound by ecclesiastical laws, so of course that would be a different situation than if babies were being baptized strictly into Christ. I agree with him about separating churches from politics. I don't think infant baptism is wrong on its own. Perhaps though it is wrong if the government is involved.
Ellen Brown
Well-Known Member
It is a case of some wanting to control the lives of others while not minding to their own business.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
(grin) since we are 'Restorationists,' the answer is, of course, from the very earliest of Christians.
Although we, like the Arians, are not trinitarians, believing that God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are three entirely separate beings, Arians practiced infant baptism. We do not.
Last edited:
Sjruru
New Member
How do you accept you're Christian while remaining liberal considering, whatever you think of jesus, God is pure being and it takes rationalism to get to him not pluralist subjectivity or empiricism?
To your response, I feel he had a rational reason to disliking paedobaptism and it extends to a form or body that we haven't encountered in awhile (a specific drive to do what's right and not just what feels right). I figure I need to read more into early christianity, before the perversion of Aquinas, because he had a passionate reason for disliking it and it wasn't just cause that's how he felt, although that's been the justified position of modern cultural times.
Edit: The big battle of what is good and what is evil plays out in these understandings. More specifically, how we should view God if we want to be good of Christian. I understand protestants want to simply say as long as you accept God you're fine, but the question comes up if you're actually accepting God or are, just instead, accepting a personal God of your own creation.
Last edited:
Sjruru
New Member
Hard hitting dissection
I
Is the baptism a declaration of faith or a promise to inculcate faith in another? Does the baptism directly or indirectly involve the baptisee?
Shantanu
Well-Known Member
I do not see anything wrong in baptising a child into the faith of the parents: it makes for a good and stable family.
I don't see any evidence for that. Do unstable families have a higher rate of baptism than stable ones. Do criminals often think back to their baptisms and abandon their crimes?
Is the purpose of baptism to stabilize families? I thought it was to make the baptisee acceptable to God; to make it possible for the baptisee to enter Heaven.
Shantanu
Well-Known Member
The purpose of baptism is to provide knowledge to the child that a God exists: what the child does with that knowledge as it grows is entirely a matter for the child and no one else.
When I was baptized I had no idea God existed, and I don't recall anyone attempting to explain Christian theology to me at the time. In fact, at my level of neurological development, I didn't even realize I was a separate, individual being.
Baptizing an infant teaches it nothing. No teaching is even attempted. Everyone realizes an infant is incapable of understanding
"An unbaptized infant can never see God."
Baptism transforms an infant into a spiritual creature, capable of entering Heaven. At least, that's the philosophy I've always heard in churches, literature and movies.
Shantanu
Well-Known Member
Nor would the infant ever want to see God, it turns out not to be a worthwhile endeavour that one needs for ones survival on this planet. Of course, there is the promise of Heaven for the gullible.