Baby Baptism

[sojourner]

I believe that God would have to make that decision, not us, and being the merciful being that He is, I think you know what the answer would be. That does not change the fact that for those who are able, it is imperitive that we be obedient and be baptised upon hearing the word, believing in Jesus, repenting from a life of sin, and confessing that he is Lord and Savior.


I think that the eternal life is more important than the physical life, and that somehow and someway, a person wanting to be baptised would be able to. I have never heard of a situation where a person could absolutely not find a way to be baptised by water.

None of this is for God's benefit...it's for our benefit. God will always find a way.

 

[Scuba Pete]

So faith is legalism and means nothing? Hmnnn... that is indeed an interesting view point. Someone should tell Paul. He has been deceived all these years! Oh my!

 

[sojourner]

So faith is legalism and means nothing? Hmnnn... that is indeed an interesting view point.

I didn't say "faith is legalism." In fact, I'm aruguing just the opposite. I said that we had assigned a legalism to baptism. That legalism is not compelling where faith and spirit are concerned.

Allowing for only a certain kind of baptism, under certain circumstances, is legalism.

 

[Scuba Pete]

So, does an infant have faith?

Without faith then, THEIR baptism is pure legalism.

4) It is not the faith of the candidate that is efficacious.

If it doesn't do anything then why do we need it?

 

[Quiddity]

So faith is legalism and means nothing? Hmnnn... that is indeed an interesting view point. Someone should tell Paul. He has been deceived all these years! Oh my!

The legalism seems to be more on your side ND. A baby has no play in the legal arena. It cannot do any of what you noted earlier, which was clearly intended for adults.

 

[Katzpur]

None of this is for God's benefit...it's for our benefit. God will always find a way.

(1) God doesn't need to find a way. He has already spoken on the subject. Baptism is required of us.

(2) It is consistently spoken of in the scriptures as being intrinsically tied to repentence. Since infants have not sinned, they have no sins of which to repent and no need for baptism.

(3) Of course, parents need to do their part to teach and nuture our children. But part of our responsibility towards them is to prepare them to be baptized when they are old enough to recognize the difference between right and wrong, to repent of their sins, and to resolve to do better in the future.

I think that the parents, who are responsible for the child, express faith for the child, repent for the child, confess for the child who cannot speak for itself.

It is absolutely impossible for one person to repent for someone else! How on earth do you explain this statement?

 

[sojourner]

(1) God doesn't need to find a way. He has already spoken on the subject. Baptism is required of us.

(2) It is consistently spoken of in the scriptures as being intrinsically tied to repentence. Since infants have not sinned, they have no sins of which to repent and no need for baptism.

(3) Of course, parents need to do their part to teach and nuture our children. But part of our responsibility towards them is to prepare them to be baptized when they are old enough to recognize the difference between right and wrong, to repent of their sins, and to resolve to do better in the future.

It is absolutely impossible for one person to repent for someone else! How on earth do you explain this statement?

Then upon what basis can you argue for proxy baptism?

 

[sojourner]

So, does an infant have faith?

Without faith then, THEIR baptism is pure legalism.

If it doesn't do anything then why do we need it?

An infant has a soul. That soul needs care.
The work of the soul has no basis in legalism.

I didn't say that "baptism does nothing." I said that our faith is not what is efficacious in the act of baptism -- it's the Spirit that's efficacious.

 

[Scuba Pete]

The legalism seems to be more on your side ND. A baby has no play in the legal arena. It cannot do any of what you noted earlier, which was clearly intended for adults.

Really? I am not sure if you mean that I am more legalistic (I don't think babies need to be baptised), or that the arguement of avoiding legalism supports me more than the other. Just as faith and repentence are intended for adults, so too it is with baptism. There is no need for a baby to do ANY of these thing. REQUIRING them to be baptized is the height of legalism.

 

[Quiddity]

An infant has a soul. That soul needs care.
The work of the soul has no basis in legalism.

I didn't say that "baptism does nothing." I said that our faith is not what is efficacious in the act of baptism -- it's the Spirit that's efficacious.

:clap Well said.

 

[Scuba Pete]

An infant has a soul. That soul needs care.
The work of the soul has no basis in legalism.

I didn't say that "baptism does nothing." I said that our faith is not what is efficacious in the act of baptism -- it's the Spirit that's efficacious.

So Paul lied when he said:

26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus,

I'll be sure to pass that along.

 

[Quiddity]

Really? I am not sure if you mean that I am more legalistic (I don't think babies need to be baptised), or that the arguement of avoiding legalism supports me more than the other. Just as faith and repentence are intended for adults, so too it is with baptism. There is no need for a baby to do ANY of these thing. REQUIRING them to be baptized is the height of legalism.

Not in my bias.
REQUIREMENT of all them be done in one shot is just as much legalistic and insistance where there is none.

 

[Katzpur]

Then upon what basis can you argue for proxy baptism?

I'll answer this, but I would prefer that you start a new thread on the subject. I just have a feeling that my answer may end up hijacking this thread, which I don't want to do. Would you mind doing that? If you really don't want to, I'll try to answer as briefly as possible.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Great scripture to illustrate my point:

Colossians 2:9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. 11 In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. NIV

Now,

How are we raised? I don't see the Spirit even mentioned here, though obviously he is present and working.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Not in my bias.
REQUIREMENT of all them be done in one shot is just as much legalistic and insistance where there is none.

Oh Victor...

I don't require you or anyone to be baptised. That has to be done of your own free will, that that's the point. It has to be YOUR choice: not your mom or your dad's choice: just yours and yours alone. A baby can't decide. You might as well baptise a dead person or a dog.

 

[Quiddity]

Oh Victor...

I don't require you or anyone to be baptised. That has to be done of your own free will, that that's the point. It has to be YOUR choice: not your mom or your dad's choice: just yours and yours alone. A baby can't decide. You might as well baptise a dead person or a dog.

Of course the choice is crucial. (Our sacrament of Confirmation is just that a "concious confirmation of the faith") For it's obvious that they will have to make the choice at some point in their life anyways. The choice is done on a daily basis for Catholics. I becomes easier to see when you begin to view Christianity in a family setting and not a Westernized version of "me, my bible, and God".

 

[cardero]

Some people explain baptism as if it is important that someone be baptized on the “winning” team. I have never understood baptism as a confirmation of approval or acceptance or even as an efficient cleansing agent. I also do not believe that GOD would disregard someone because they haven’t gone through this ritual or tradition. I do not think that GOD stands on ceremony.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Of course the choice is crucial. (Our sacrament of Confirmation is just that a "concious confirmation of the faith") For it's obvious that they will have to make the choice at some point in their life anyways. The choice is done on a daily basis for Catholics. I becomes easier to see when you begin to view Christianity in a family setting and not a Westernized version of "me, my bible, and God".

So... it's crucial except when it comes to the most important decision in your life? BTW, are there any scriptural references to Confirmation? I have always seen it as an invention of man.

 

[Quiddity]

So... it's crucial except when it comes to the most important decision in your life?

I'm not following how this is connected to baptism.

BTW, are there any scriptural references to Confirmation? I have always seen it as an invention of man.

Acts 8:14-17 - the people of Samaria were baptized in Christ, but did not receive the fullness of the Spirit until they were confirmed by the elders. Confirmation is a sacrament that Jesus Christ instituted within His Catholic Church to further strengthen those who have reached adulthood.

Acts 19:5-6 - the people of Ephesus were baptized in Christ, but Paul laid hands on them to seal them with the Holy Spirit. This sealing refers to the sacrament of confirmation.

 

[Katzpur]

I do not think that GOD stands on ceremony.

But God does stand on His word.