-
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!
Infant Baptism and the Atonement
- Thread starter mormonman
- Start date
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
But Jesus Christ himself was baptized -- by water, too. He said he was doing so "to fulfill all righteousness." Of course it's what's in your heart that counts. But if it was only what was in your heart that counted, Jesus would not have made sure that He got baptized. He also said specifically, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned." It doesn't sound like an optional thing to me, if you know what I mean.jgallandt said:
Oh, don't go putting on the flameproof suit! I'm not all that mean, am I?
Jesus said, "Except a man be born ofwater and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." What is the kingdom of God if not Heaven?
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
I would take this one up with God! Do we have a record of someone on the way to the baptismal being killed in such a manner? Do you not think that God is able to ensure the safety of this individual, since he desires EVERYONE to be saved?
jgallandt said:
jeffrey
â Ãig Dogâ
Kat, I agree that's what the Bible states. But it never gives a criteria for whom can Baptize. I believe that is a ritual, for the benefit of man, to take something that he can't see, (recieving the Holy Spirit) and putting it in a way for him to see. It's one thing to say it, but sinks in better by doing it, if that makes sense.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Jesus was FULL of grace and truth and he never sinned! Grace is being just like God.Victor said:
John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. NIV
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I was probably not using the word "grace" in exactly the same way you were. I believe that Jesus Christ's atonement accomplished more than redeeming us of our sins. It also made it possible for every human being who has ever lived to be resurrected. This blessing is given to all who have ever lived -- both the righteous and the wicked. It is through God's grace that we will live again. He has promised that little children who die before the age of accountability will not only be saved from the permanance of death, but will receive the fullness of His glory. In offering them His grace, He is giving them Eternal Life in His presence without expecting anything of them in return. That sounds very much like grace to me. The rest of us -- those who are in a position to be able to recognize when we have sinned and repent when we do -- are under an obligation to do so. When we are baptised, we enter into a covenant relationship with our Savior. This is necessary for us because, unlike children, we have sinned.Victor said:
(Lunch hour's over. See ya'll after work.)
Kathryn
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
I missed this one earlier...
The best reference to it being water is:
Acts 8:34 The eunuch asked Philip, "Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?" 35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?" 37 Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing. NIV
I don't see a single conversion in Acts where it was not an integral part. God has asked us to do something that makes no sense to us, just to prove our desire to obey him. It's faith personified and according to the scriptures, quite neccesary.jgallandt said:
The best reference to it being water is:
Acts 8:34 The eunuch asked Philip, "Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?" 35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?" 37 Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing. NIV
I tend to agree Jeff. I believe God knows what is in our hearts, and that a baptism carried out just for the sake of accomodating culture (which does happen, I have seen it) will have less value than a good prayer at the appropriate moment.jgallandt said:
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
In the OT, infants entered into convenants with God through the parents/guardians [circumcision]. The NT is no different. Your concept of grace suffices for the conversation at hand. If you could be so kind as to address my observation that I noted to ND.Katzpur said:
~Victor
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
I think what is being missed here is that God's Grace is what is sufficing. NOT YOUR BELIEF. Why do you think God used WATER?michel said:I tend to agree Jeff. I believe God knows what is in our hearts, and that a baptism carried out just for the sake of accomodating culture (which does happen, I have seen it) will have less value than a good prayer at the appropriate moment.
~Victor
Hey all,
After a long hiatus from this board, a friend asked me to check out this thread, and I couldn't resist just putting in my two cents.
First, we must remember that with the first transgression, and Ancestral sin, the law of sin (Romans 7:18, 7:22-23), began to take root in him and began to develop. Since the Fall, our freewill does not incline toward the good, but towards evil. A physical consequence of the fall is DEATH. Infants, in being mortal, are still under the consequence of the Fall. We are not guilty for Adam's sin, but through Adam's sin, our nature, all of ours, is marred. We are spiritually sick, and it is this sickness the Good Physician Christ, incarnated to remedy. Romans 5:12 tells us that "As by one mansin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned (Romans 5:12). "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psalm 51 [50 Septuagint]: 5).
Baptism is the washing of regeneration, it is being "born again". Truly, Christ was speaking of the mystery/sacrament of baptism when He said "you must be born again of water and the Spirit". For those who would vainly argue that this is not a mystery, I would simply ask them to try and fathom for a second, how one is born again, what this means, all the faculties. I'm sure most would sit in silence and say "God knows". Let us remember the words of the Apostle St. Paul who called the elders of the Church "ministers of the mysteries of God" (1st Corinthians 4:1). If a child has, by generation, the seed of corruption in him/her, why would anyone deny them the washing of that sin, by the washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5). We are washed and sanctified (1st Corinthians 6:11). And after this baptism, into His death, suffering and ressurrection, we are called to walk in newness of life, in a new way (Romans 6:4). So, baptism, a good start, entry into the Church, does not ensure a good end, or that we will continue to walk in newness of life. But we do it, because we hope that we will continue on that path. And finally, when we move to a new life in Christ, we put on Christ. Who would deny this to a little child? "As man as have been baptized into Christ have PUT ON Christ" (Galatians 3:27). We know that the faithful brought their children to Him, to be blessed (Luke 18:15), and He did not say "Ah, but they don't understand and can't hear. They have no sin, and have no need for blessing". He touched and blessed them. Who are we then, to turn to these little ones, and say, "Nope, not for you".
There are mentions in the Holy Scriptures where entire families, households were baptized: the house of Lydia, the house of the prison guard, the house of Stephanas (1st Corinthians 1:16). Nowhere is it mentioned that this excluded children. Anymore than we can say that because "five thousand men" were mentioned at the miracle of the loaves and fish, that there were not women and children present. St. Gregory the Theologian, an early Church Father, commented to mothers with young children, to hurry and have them baptized, to not allow harm to increase. He rhetorically asked them, "Do you fear the weakness of human nature"? Do you fear, for instance, the child's lack of understanding, whether he'll be a sinful child? He says, "But even Hannah EVEN BEFORE GIVING BIRTH promised Samuel to God, and after birth she quickly dedicated him and raised him for the sacred garment, without fearing human weakness, but believing in God". Was the righteous Hannah wrong to dedicate Samuel to God in her womb? Do we vainly argue that she should have waited until her son himself chose to understand and know God? This was a woman who sought to please God, and who believed in Him? What else would she do but entrust her child to God, even from his infancy? The same is true in the Christian tradition. When we baptize an infant, we must take the responsibility of raising them in the Lord, and again, like a broken record, a good start doesn't mean a good end.
To argue that infant baptism denies the Atonement of Christ, is as nonsense as saying that the Apostles of Christ denied His Atonement of our sins when they said "be baptized for the forgiveness of sins" (Acts 2:38). If our sins were atoned, what need for baptism to wash them away? We are not responsible for Adam's sin, but through his sin, our nature is diseased. It is that disease, prevalent in all the world and all of us, that Christ comes to heal. For He so loved the WORLD, right?
As for personal conviction, what one feels or believes is not all that important. What we should be asking ourselves, if we are honest, is "What has the Church always taught about infant baptism"? And James is correct to point out, that the innovators were those Protestant reformers who began to deny Infant Baptism in the 15th century onward. But "Baptizing kids makes them scream". Uh oh. But hey, on that note, so do vaccinations. Better not get my kid vaccinated for diseases, until he understands enough to say "Daddy, infant diseases are bad, can I get some medicine"? He doesn't like baths? They make him scream...better scratch those. Vegetables? Hey, nutrition, schmutrtion...better get those out too. Sorry for the sarcasm, but we all know that a conscientious parent is not going to wait for a child to say "hey, i need this". They are the parent, the child is accountable to the parent. They will give that child whatever they feel is necessary for his physical, and yes, spiritual health.
In Christ, the least,
Ted (Theodore)
After a long hiatus from this board, a friend asked me to check out this thread, and I couldn't resist just putting in my two cents.
First, we must remember that with the first transgression, and Ancestral sin, the law of sin (Romans 7:18, 7:22-23), began to take root in him and began to develop. Since the Fall, our freewill does not incline toward the good, but towards evil. A physical consequence of the fall is DEATH. Infants, in being mortal, are still under the consequence of the Fall. We are not guilty for Adam's sin, but through Adam's sin, our nature, all of ours, is marred. We are spiritually sick, and it is this sickness the Good Physician Christ, incarnated to remedy. Romans 5:12 tells us that "As by one mansin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned (Romans 5:12). "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psalm 51 [50 Septuagint]: 5).
Baptism is the washing of regeneration, it is being "born again". Truly, Christ was speaking of the mystery/sacrament of baptism when He said "you must be born again of water and the Spirit". For those who would vainly argue that this is not a mystery, I would simply ask them to try and fathom for a second, how one is born again, what this means, all the faculties. I'm sure most would sit in silence and say "God knows". Let us remember the words of the Apostle St. Paul who called the elders of the Church "ministers of the mysteries of God" (1st Corinthians 4:1). If a child has, by generation, the seed of corruption in him/her, why would anyone deny them the washing of that sin, by the washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5). We are washed and sanctified (1st Corinthians 6:11). And after this baptism, into His death, suffering and ressurrection, we are called to walk in newness of life, in a new way (Romans 6:4). So, baptism, a good start, entry into the Church, does not ensure a good end, or that we will continue to walk in newness of life. But we do it, because we hope that we will continue on that path. And finally, when we move to a new life in Christ, we put on Christ. Who would deny this to a little child? "As man as have been baptized into Christ have PUT ON Christ" (Galatians 3:27). We know that the faithful brought their children to Him, to be blessed (Luke 18:15), and He did not say "Ah, but they don't understand and can't hear. They have no sin, and have no need for blessing". He touched and blessed them. Who are we then, to turn to these little ones, and say, "Nope, not for you".
There are mentions in the Holy Scriptures where entire families, households were baptized: the house of Lydia, the house of the prison guard, the house of Stephanas (1st Corinthians 1:16). Nowhere is it mentioned that this excluded children. Anymore than we can say that because "five thousand men" were mentioned at the miracle of the loaves and fish, that there were not women and children present. St. Gregory the Theologian, an early Church Father, commented to mothers with young children, to hurry and have them baptized, to not allow harm to increase. He rhetorically asked them, "Do you fear the weakness of human nature"? Do you fear, for instance, the child's lack of understanding, whether he'll be a sinful child? He says, "But even Hannah EVEN BEFORE GIVING BIRTH promised Samuel to God, and after birth she quickly dedicated him and raised him for the sacred garment, without fearing human weakness, but believing in God". Was the righteous Hannah wrong to dedicate Samuel to God in her womb? Do we vainly argue that she should have waited until her son himself chose to understand and know God? This was a woman who sought to please God, and who believed in Him? What else would she do but entrust her child to God, even from his infancy? The same is true in the Christian tradition. When we baptize an infant, we must take the responsibility of raising them in the Lord, and again, like a broken record, a good start doesn't mean a good end.
To argue that infant baptism denies the Atonement of Christ, is as nonsense as saying that the Apostles of Christ denied His Atonement of our sins when they said "be baptized for the forgiveness of sins" (Acts 2:38). If our sins were atoned, what need for baptism to wash them away? We are not responsible for Adam's sin, but through his sin, our nature is diseased. It is that disease, prevalent in all the world and all of us, that Christ comes to heal. For He so loved the WORLD, right?
As for personal conviction, what one feels or believes is not all that important. What we should be asking ourselves, if we are honest, is "What has the Church always taught about infant baptism"? And James is correct to point out, that the innovators were those Protestant reformers who began to deny Infant Baptism in the 15th century onward. But "Baptizing kids makes them scream". Uh oh. But hey, on that note, so do vaccinations. Better not get my kid vaccinated for diseases, until he understands enough to say "Daddy, infant diseases are bad, can I get some medicine"? He doesn't like baths? They make him scream...better scratch those. Vegetables? Hey, nutrition, schmutrtion...better get those out too. Sorry for the sarcasm, but we all know that a conscientious parent is not going to wait for a child to say "hey, i need this". They are the parent, the child is accountable to the parent. They will give that child whatever they feel is necessary for his physical, and yes, spiritual health.
In Christ, the least,
Ted (Theodore)