Infant Baptism

FFH · May 25, 2006

Aqualung said:
If he recognised Christ for who he was, he was not without the law.

He recognized Christ had done nothing wrong, but was ignorant of who he was, and also ignorant of His teachings on salvation, which most people were at that time, even Christ's disciples, except Peter, and possibly James and John, were ignorant of who Chirst really was. John the baptist also had doubts that Christ was the Messiah. Most people were ignorant of who Christ was and certainly of his teachings on salvation, especially a thief, who had most likely spent time in prison, during Christ's ministry, awaiting his day of crucifixion.

Luke 23: 41
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/
And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.

Aqualung · May 25, 2006

Yet, if he did NOT know Christ was who he said he was, he did much wrong, for he said he was the Son of God.

linwood · May 25, 2006

sojourner said:
Perhaps the meaning is quite deeper than a shallow reading can elicit.

And perhaps not.
With no other scriptural evidence to support an alternative view all one really has to base a belief that Baptism is not necessary on is the word of man.
To do this is to take the word of man over the word of God.
That can`t be good.

Aqualung said:
Yeah. At least LDS have an explanation.

Yes you do and for that reason I`ll exclude Mormons in my future references to Christians in this thread.
Thanks Aqualung.

madllama said:
I thought unbaptised babies go to limbo? That's what they taught me in Catholic school anyway.

I think they recently did away with limbo...not sure.

Mr Emu said:
The Catholic Church does see baptism as a nessecary(sp) part of salvation,.....

Thats Catholic Dogma Mr. Emu.
We both know Catholic dogma isn`t the word of God.

FFH said:
Mark 1: 4

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Luke 3: 3

And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

All Baptisms are Baptisms of repentance.
The washing away of sins.
Johns baptism of repentance was a part of the parcel of his water baptisms.

Still no Biblical scripture to support the concept that this infant does anything but burn in hell for eternity.

I`m not trying to be difficult here it merely seems to me that if one professes to be a Biblical Christian and doesn`t hold to the BoM then Christs word is the most powerful edict there is.

Even if there were Biblical scripture that supported salvation without baptism I would argue it held no strength unless it was from Christs mouth himself.
He was after all the messenger of salvation, the Alpha and Omega.

If there is scripture supporting salvation without baptism from Christs mouth himself I will merely point out that Jesus is contradicting himself unless the scripture pertains to some special circumstance.

Anything else is human dogma.

Evandr2 · May 25, 2006

Mister Emu said:
Theif on the cross next to Jesus went to paradise, without water baptism...

You are correct. The thief most likely had not been baptized but there is no way to determine that for sure, However, the statement that the thief would be in paradise with Christ makes perfect sense without voiding the need for baptism.

Christ was not going directly to the presence of the Father in His exalted kingdom until shortly after His resurrection. This we know because Christ told Mary not to touch Him at the site of His tomb because He had not yet ascended to the Father.

We can discuss more on that topic later :camp:

Paradise is a transitional place wherein is a great divide between the righteous and the unrighteous. No, I'm not talking about Heaven and Hell. One of the accomplishments of Christ while His body lay in the tomb was to bridge that great divide so that the work of salvation could continue in the spirit realm.

It would clear up a great deal of religious confusion if more people understood that the course to exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom of God was more than just a system of - Start life somewhere around conception, take your chances on earth, die and go to Heaven of Hell.

There are so many reasons to believe that there is a great deal more than that that I cannot begin to state them here. Read my book if you want a more in-depth look at how it all fits together perfectly. I challenge everybody who has issue with me to do debate here as well as in my own debating arena.

Vandr

Booko · May 25, 2006

Evandr2 said:
I have a question about baptism.

Consider the following situation. Two people, all things being equal, die after a long life and stand before the judgment seat of God.
One was baptized as an infant and one was never baptized at all.

Which one would fare better?
Would it matter?

I have an opinion but I will reserve it until I get some responses.

Hey, I'm still wondering why it would make any difference to the RCC that I was baptized in a Protestant Church whose baptisms they recognize. In order to get a dispensation from the local archbishop to be married in a Catholic Church (my husband was agnostic at the time, but raised Catholic), it made a huge difference that I was baptized.

Except...I wasn't even a Christian any more.

How that baptism could count for anything, when I had no choice in it and obviously left the Church, I have no earthly idea. But then, the RCC has a view of sacraments that's different than what I was raised with in the Reformed Church, so maybe that's my problem.

Hm...I've been baptized and I believe in Jesus...uh, does that mean that I get to go to Heaven? :sarcastic

Booko · May 25, 2006

Evandr2 said:
I have a question about baptism.

Consider the following situation. Two people, all things being equal, die after a long life and stand before the judgment seat of God.
One was baptized as an infant and one was never baptized at all.

Which one would fare better?
Would it matter?

I have an opinion but I will reserve it until I get some responses.

Hey, I'm still wondering why it would make any difference to the RCC that I was baptized in a Protestant Church whose baptisms they recognize. In order to get a dispensation from the local archbishop to be married in a Catholic Church (my husband was agnostic at the time, but raised Catholic), it made a huge difference that I was baptized.

Except...I wasn't even a Christian any more.

How that baptism could count for anything, when I had no choice in it and obviously left the Church, I have no earthly idea. But then, the RCC has a view of sacraments that's different than what I was raised with in the Reformed Church, so maybe that's my problem.

Hm...I've been baptized and I believe in Jesus...uh, does that mean that I get to go to Heaven? :sarcastic

Evandr2 · May 26, 2006

linwood said:
Acts 2:38
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Mark16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

John 3:5

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

These and other Biblical verses state that Baptism is a necesity to enter the Kingdom of God.
Can anyone show me any scripture that would make these nul and void?

The scriptures you quote sustain themselves AND the fact that infant baptism is useless.

Repent and be baptized - A child is not capable of repentance yet this scripture indicates that repentance is a prerequisite to baptism.

Whoever believes and is baptized - Here again is a plain requirement that little children cannot accomplish. Belief requires a more developed thought process than a child is capable of.

You misquoted John 3:5 unless you are using some other interpretation of the Bible:

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Being born of the spirit is to say that wisdom is combined with free agency to the learning and knowledge of a man through the gift of the Holy Ghost. Again, small children cannot do this nor do they need to. Children are automatically saved through the blood of Christ because they are innocent of sin.

John the Baptist recognized this innocence in the Lord and shrunk from baptizing Him because Christ was already clean before God yet the Lord suffered it so as to, in His own words, "fulfill all righteousness".

Christ did not want anyone in the world to believe that they needed no baptism because they supposed themselves to be without sin or that it was something you could do without.

It is interesting to note that Christ waited until he could be baptized by someone in authority to do so. It is also interesting to note that our Heavenly Father did not prepare John the Baptist to baptize Jesus in the manger. Evidently, being baptized as a child is not necessary to fulfill all righteousness but being baptized is.

Being LDS I have a clear understanding of how this ordinance can be accomplished for those who have died without knowledge or opportunity to be baptized.

The answer has been obscured from the Bible by translators who did not understand the concept of vicarious baptism or by the direction of authority figures that could not deal with the idea. There is one exception in 1 Corinthians 15:29.

29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

In this verse Paul was confounding the notion that the dead are not resurrected and at the same time indicating that vicarious baptism was practiced in the ancient church.

Vandr

sojourner · May 26, 2006

linwood said:
And perhaps not.
With no other scriptural evidence to support an alternative view all one really has to base a belief that Baptism is not necessary on is the word of man.
To do this is to take the word of man over the word of God.
That can`t be good.

Yes you do and for that reason I`ll exclude Mormons in my future references to Christians in this thread.
Thanks Aqualung.

I think they recently did away with limbo...not sure.

Thats Catholic Dogma Mr. Emu.
We both know Catholic dogma isn`t the word of God.

All Baptisms are Baptisms of repentance.
The washing away of sins.
Johns baptism of repentance was a part of the parcel of his water baptisms.

Still no Biblical scripture to support the concept that this infant does anything but burn in hell for eternity.

I`m not trying to be difficult here it merely seems to me that if one professes to be a Biblical Christian and doesn`t hold to the BoM then Christs word is the most powerful edict there is.

Even if there were Biblical scripture that supported salvation without baptism I would argue it held no strength unless it was from Christs mouth himself.
He was after all the messenger of salvation, the Alpha and Omega.

If there is scripture supporting salvation without baptism from Christs mouth himself I will merely point out that Jesus is contradicting himself unless the scripture pertains to some special circumstance.

Anything else is human dogma.

first of all, are you advocating a literalistic reading of scripture? Are you insisting that literalism is the standard by which we must interpret scripture? Because many certainly don't read the Bible that way.

Secondly, it sounds as if you're basing your analysis on sola scriptura, which many don't subscribe to either. The Bible is part of the Tradition, just as the Church's teaching and practice is part of the Tradition.

What is the word of God? The written words on the pages of the Bible? What good is the Church, if she is not able to interpret and implement God's will?

Incorrect. The instance of baptism you cite was the baptism of John. but Jesus (John says) baptizes differently.

I think you're attempting to hold the Christian faith and the Church (not to mention the Holy Spirit) hostage to an extremely narrow and legalistic modus operendi. Jesus sought to release the same kind of pharisaical stranglehold on Judaism, as well.

Evandr2 · May 26, 2006

Booko said:
Hey, I'm still wondering why it would make any difference to the RCC that I was baptized in a Protestant Church whose baptisms they recognize. In order to get a dispensation from the local archbishop to be married in a Catholic Church (my husband was agnostic at the time, but raised Catholic), it made a huge difference that I was baptized.

Except...I wasn't even a Christian any more.

How that baptism could count for anything, when I had no choice in it and obviously left the Church, I have no earthly idea. But then, the RCC has a view of sacraments that's different than what I was raised with in the Reformed Church, so maybe that's my problem.

Hm...I've been baptized and I believe in Jesus...uh, does that mean that I get to go to Heaven? :sarcastic

Baptism:
The question you should be asking yourself is "was my baptism performed by someone who had the authority to do so?"

If not, then your baptism is not binding in Heaven and serves very little purpose here on earth except to make you believe that further pursuing of the matter is not necessary when it clearly is. There are many who claim the authority but very few who actually have it.

Belief in Jesus:

When a person believes in something they act accordingly. Believing in Jesus Christ means seeking Him out in prayer and keeping His commandments. A sure knowledge of the divinity of Jesus Christ is given by the Holy Ghost only after you have prepared yourself to receive it.

Declaring your belief and then ignoring your responsibility to that belief will avail you nothing.

Vandr

sojourner · May 26, 2006

Evandr2 said:
Baptism:
The question you should be asking yourself is "was my baptism performed by someone who had the authority to do so?"

If not, then your baptism is not binding in Heaven and serves very little purpose here on earth except to make you believe that further pursuing of the matter is not necessary when it clearly is. There are many who claim the authority but very few who actually have it.

Belief in Jesus:

When a person believes in something they act accordingly. Believing in Jesus Christ means seeking Him out in prayer and keeping His commandments. A sure knowledge of the divinity of Jesus Christ is given by the Holy Ghost only after you have prepared yourself to receive it.

Declaring your belief and then ignoring your responsibility to that belief will avail you nothing.

Vandr

Did Jesus participate in a Christian baptism, since John wasn't a Christian? Jesus gave John permission to baptize him.

Only if one places creedence in that kind of authority does it matter. My denomination teaches that baptism is the sacramental act that initiates one into the Body of the faithful. Any member can celebrate that act, since that member is within the Body of Christ.

linwood · May 26, 2006

The scriptures you quote sustain themselves AND the fact that infant baptism is useless.

No, actually the scripture I quote sustains the fact that infants who die are condemned baptism or no baptism.
A literal reading of the text shows no indication of anything else.

Mark16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

This verse is double jeopardy for the dying infant as even if he is Baptised he has not the ability to "believe"
This text says whoever is baptised AND believes will be saved.
It does not say who ever is not baptised nor believes will be condemned except for infants.
It simply doesn`t say that and assuming that is it`s intention is nothing but unbased opinion .

John 3:5 says..
Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

It doesn`t say...
"I tell you the truth, no one but infants can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the spirit."

It`s fine if you wish to believe otherwise but there is no Biblical basis of support for your interpretation, don`t claim there is.
None that any here has been able to show me.

Repent and be baptized - A child is not capable of repentance yet this scripture indicates that repentance is a prerequisite to baptism.

Whoever believes and is baptized - Here again is a plain requirement that little children cannot accomplish. Belief requires a more developed thought process than a child is capable of.

This is what I`ve been saying all along.
There is no scriptural exemption for the child regardless of the cruelty of it all.
Your equivocating a position from emotional appeal not a position based within the scripture itself.
Essentially you cannot imagine your god would condemn an innocent child so you rationalise that he didn`t mean it.
I on the other hand have read the Bible an realise your god has no problem condemning the most innocent among us so I have no reason to resort to any such emotional appeal.

Children are automatically saved through the blood of Christ because they are innocent of sin.

No, they are not.
They are born with original sin as all humans are.
Have you read this book?
However if what you say is true I`m sure it has some basis in Biblical scripture.
Please cite this scripture and I`ll concede the entire debate.

sojournor said:
first of all, are you advocating a literalistic reading of scripture?

Where the context gives no reason to believe the verse is allegory or metaphor then it should be read literally.
The context here gives no hint that the text is intended to mean anything other than what it states at face value.

sojournor said:
Are you insisting that literalism is the standard by which we must interpret scripture?

No, I`m advocating a contextually correct reading of scripture.
There must be a contextual standard within the text itself used to determine whether or not a any part of scripture is to be read figuratively.
What is your standard for reading these verses figuratively?

sojourno said:
What is the word of God? The written words on the pages of the Bible?

Yes.

sojournor said:
What good is the Church, if she is not able to interpret and implement God's will?

I haven`t a clue, I`ve been pondering that question myself for years.

I think you're attempting to hold the Christian faith and the Church (not to mention the Holy Spirit) hostage to an extremely narrow and legalistic modus operendi.

Not at all.
I simply demand a reason/standard for figurative interpretation of Biblical text.
What is your standard for interpretting these verses figuratively?
If there is no standard then it`s nothing more than mental gymnastics.

The answer has been obscured from the Bible by translators who did not understand the concept of vicarious baptism or by the direction of authority figures that could not deal with the idea. There is one exception in 1 Corinthians 15:29.

This is not an exception.
1Cor 15:29 is speaking of an entirely different concept concerning Baptisim.
Paul is speaking about the practice of Baptising a living person in place of someone who has died in order for them to be resurrected when Christ returns.
I will admit that Paul is "ok" with this practice but it doesn`t change anything for the infant we speak of unless someone is Baptised in their stead after their death.
The child is condemned according to Biblical scripture.

Being LDS I have a clear understanding of how this ordinance can be accomplished for those who have died without knowledge or opportunity to be baptized.

Being LDS I`m unsure why you`re even having this debate as you don`t need Biblical support of the concept you espouse.
You have the D&C.
However for the non-Mormon Christain there seems to be no support for the concept.

sojourner · May 27, 2006

No, they are not.
They are born with original sin as all humans are.
Have you read this book?
However if what you say is true I`m sure it has some basis in Biblical scripture.
Please cite this scripture and I`ll concede the entire debate.

"People were bringing little children to him in order that he might touch them; and the disciples spoke sternly to them. But when Jesus saw this, he was indignant and said to them, 'Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs. Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it.' And he took them up in his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them."

I think this says quite the opposite of what you are saying. God does give not only quarter, but preference to little children.

linwood · May 27, 2006

sojourner said:
"People were bringing little children to him in order that he might touch them; and the disciples spoke sternly to them. But when Jesus saw this, he was indignant and said to them, 'Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs. Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it.' And he took them up in his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them."

I think this says quite the opposite of what you are saying. God does give not only quarter, but preference to little children.

Not at all.
It actually solidifies my point.

The quote states that "..whomever does not recieve the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it"

I read that as one who does not accept Jesus as a child will not enter it....ever

An infant cannot accept Jesus as savior.
This also pretty much damns any and everyone who waits until they are adults to accept and be baptised.

Lotsa contradictions in this book huh?

sojourner · May 27, 2006

linwood said:
Not at all.
It actually solidifies my point.

The quote states that "..whomever does not recieve the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it"

I read that as one who does not accept Jesus as a child will not enter it....ever

An infant cannot accept Jesus as savior.
This also pretty much damns any and everyone who waits until they are adults to accept and be baptised.

Lotsa contradictions in this book huh?

Only if you read it in a very shallow manner. As I said before, we read, not only for content, but for meaning, as well. I think we've done a pretty good job of reading contextually here, which you are failing to do. All you're doing is proof-texting.:redcard:

linwood · May 27, 2006

sojourner said:
Only if you read it in a very shallow manner. As I said before, we read, not only for content, but for meaning, as well. I think we've done a pretty good job of reading contextually here, which you are failing to do. All you're doing is proof-texting.:redcard:

Believe what you must but the text does indeed say ...

"Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it. "

To me it is intellectual gymnastics to interpret this as ....

"All children go to heaven".

Please tell me the standard for your figurative interpretation of any verse cited in this thread.
You have yet to do this.

Evandr2 · May 28, 2006

linwood said:
No, they are not.
They are born with original sin as all humans are.
Have you read this book?
However if what you say is true I`m sure it has some basis in Biblical scripture.
Please cite this scripture and I`ll concede the entire debate.

Children do not sin. Neither are they guilty of any original sin because Adam and Eve could not sin without a knowledge of good and evil which they did not possess until after they partook of the forbidden fruit. The only thing that little children inherited from our original parents is the fact that they are born into mortality being subject to physical death - A death that Christ conquered by His resurrection. Resurrection is a gift to all.

Matthew 18:2

2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, and said, Verily, I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

A sinful person cannot enter into the kingdom of God. We must be like children, made innocent in the blood of Christ.

Matthew 19:13-14 (The same is in Mark 10:12, Matthew 19:14, and Luke 18:16)

13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them and pray. And the disciples rebuked them, saying, There is no need, for Jesus hath said, Such shall be saved.
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

"Such shall be saved" I really should not have to say any more than that. I will point out that Christ made a plain declaration when He said "for such is the Kingdom of God." Think about it, He was comparing the kingdom of God to little children. There is no sin or impurity in the kingdom of God as there is none in children..

John 2:12

12 I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake.

Any action a child takes that might be a sin if done by a person at or above the age of accountability is automatically forgiven them for the sake of Christ and therefore they are held innocent of sin.

Condemning an innocent person would render the atonement null and void because it would be an act of injustice by God, mercy could have no claim on anybody, and the whole plan of salvation would quickly fall in on itself.

You must believe that our Heavenly Father is some kind of monster.

Vandr

Evandr2 · May 28, 2006

sojourner said:
Did Jesus participate in a Christian baptism, since John wasn't a Christian? Jesus gave John permission to baptize him.

Only if one places creedence in that kind of authority does it matter. My denomination teaches that baptism is the sacramental act that initiates one into the Body of the faithful. Any member can celebrate that act, since that member is within the Body of Christ.

LOL! Are you saying that John the Baptist was not a Christian?

Either way I never said that a person had to fall under anybodies definition of Christianity. I said that the person doing the baptizing had to be called of God and duly authorized. The fact that such a person can only be found associated with the real church of Jesus Christ, and therefore a Christian, is beside the point.

Vandr

linwood · May 28, 2006

Evandr2 said:
Children do not sin. Neither are they guilty of any original sin because Adam and Eve could not sin without a knowledge of good and evil which they did not possess until after they partook of the forbidden fruit.

Evandr,
I am addressing popular Christian doctrine.
The LDS do not hold to the doctrine of original sin.
The LDS have their own dogma and doctrine that refutes the concept as I`ve said now three times in this thread.

I have limited my contribution to this debate within the limits of Biblical scripture as it is what shapes the beliefs of the vast majority of Christians.

If it means anything to you I agree with the LDS interpretation of Genesis as far as the Biblical concept of original sin goes however it is not a doctrine shared by the majority of the worlds Christians.

In short, I cannot debate you on this topic because your dogma allows for salvation without Baptism.
I can only debate the common Christian dogma pulled from Biblical scripture.
If you would like to remain within those boundries then I welcome your input but any and all LDS doctrine is a moot point to my assertion as it doesn`t apply.

"Such shall be saved" I really should not have to say any more than that. I will point out that Christ made a plain declaration when He said "for such is the Kingdom of God." Think about it, He was comparing the kingdom of God to little children. There is no sin or impurity in the kingdom of God as there is none in children..
Condemning an innocent person would render the atonement null and void because it would be an act of injustice by God, mercy could have no claim on anybody, and the whole plan of salvation would quickly fall in on itself.

I am in complete agreement with you and your interpretation of this scripture which is why I cannot debate you here as we both essentially hold the same position, but again the vast majority of Christianity is not in agreement with the LDS interpretation of this scripture.
That is who I am debating.

You must believe that our Heavenly Father is some kind of monster.

Yes I do.
I don`t see how any rational moral person can read the Bible and come away with any other impression of the Biblical deity.
It befuddles me.

sojourner · May 28, 2006

Believe what you must but the text does indeed say ...

"Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it. "

To me it is intellectual gymnastics to interpret this as ....

"All children go to heaven".

Please tell me the standard for your figurative interpretation of any verse cited in this thread.
You have yet to do this.

Try: "Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs." for it is to such as these [children] that the kingdom of God belongs.

What's so hard to understand about that statement? Jesus loves the little children. He will accept them, even though his disciples will not. In fact, he loves them so much, that he uses their innocence as an example for the rest of us to follow. jesus says that the kingdom belongs to people just like this -- the meek, the innocent, the pure, the lowly, the humble. This is an example teaching -- not a law book.

sojourner · May 28, 2006

Evandr2 said:
LOL! Are you saying that John the Baptist was not a Christian?

Either way I never said that a person had to fall under anybodies definition of Christianity. I said that the person doing the baptizing had to be called of God and duly authorized. The fact that such a person can only be found associated with the real church of Jesus Christ, and therefore a Christian, is beside the point.

Vandr

BINGO! There was no Christian Church before Jesus was baptized. Jesus began his ministry after spending 40 days in the desert, following his baptism.

Beside the point? It is the point. Jesus authorized John to baptize him. John didn't drag Jesus kicking and screaming into the river -- Jesus sought out John. John didn't want to do it, but Jesus asked him to. None of this means that John was a "Christian." "Christians" didn't exist before the resurrection. John had his own Jewish followers, just as Jesus did.

Infant Baptism

Veteran Member

Tasty

Well-Known Member

Member

Deviled Hen

Deviled Hen

Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Well-Known Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Well-Known Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006