Infant Baptism and the Atonement

[mormonman]

I, of course, don't want to offend anybody's religion, but doesn't infant baptism actually deny the Atonement of Christ? Infant baptism assumes that all men are born in sin and that to be cleansed from this original sin they must be baptized. Why would we be responsible for anyone else's sin anyway? The answer is that we're not. Christ's Atonement atoned for all sin, even Adam's transgression. Baptism, in the pure sense of baptism by immersion, represents the death of the old sinful person and the rebirth of the new person into the church of God. It also represents the death and resurrection of Christ. I would love hear your comments on this.

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

I don't believe in infant baptism either. In fact, I don't even believe in baptism at a very young age. Ithink the child should know what they are doing before they get baptized.I've heard a lot of stories about parents pressuring their eight-year-olds into getting baptized, or kids getting baptized just because their friends are. Infants don't know why are they are getting sprinkled (I didn't know congregations actually baptized infants) with water at all. It just makes them scream.

 

[michel]

I don't believe in infant baptism either. In fact, I don't even believe in baptism at a very young age. Ithink the child should know what they are doing before they get baptized.I've heard a lot of stories about parents pressuring their eight-year-olds into getting baptized, or kids getting baptized just because their friends are. Infants don't know why are they are getting sprinkled (I didn't know congregations actually baptized infants) with water at all. It just makes them scream.

I guess that's a fair point; I must admit that my wife and I had our children baptized at a young age, because 'It was the right thing to do' as we thought. God-parents were carefully chosen.

Much as I hate to admit it, it was because it was 'the done thing'; we believed we were doing right by our kids, until they were old enough to decide for themselves.....

 

[Linus]

I, of course, don't want to offend anybody's religion, but doesn't infant baptism actually deny the Atonement of Christ? Infant baptism assumes that all men are born in sin and that to be cleansed from this original sin they must be baptized. Why would we be responsible for anyone else's sin anyway? The answer is that we're not. Christ's Atonement atoned for all sin, even Adam's transgression. Baptism, in the pure sense of baptism by immersion, represents the death of the old sinful person and the rebirth of the new person into the church of God. It also represents the death and resurrection of Christ. I would love hear your comments on this.

Uh, oh. Scott won't like this one bit.

 

[James the Persian]

I, of course, don't want to offend anybody's religion, but doesn't infant baptism actually deny the Atonement of Christ? Infant baptism assumes that all men are born in sin and that to be cleansed from this original sin they must be baptized. Why would we be responsible for anyone else's sin anyway? The answer is that we're not. Christ's Atonement atoned for all sin, even Adam's transgression. Baptism, in the pure sense of baptism by immersion, represents the death of the old sinful person and the rebirth of the new person into the church of God. It also represents the death and resurrection of Christ. I would love hear your comments on this.

Infant baptism does not assume that all men are born in sin. We Orthodox deny the doctrine of Original Sin (as in, all men being born guilty of Adam's sin) and yet we still baptise infants. We do, however, also have a rather different soteriology from many western Christians and substitutionary atonement, and indeed the whole juridical view, is not a part of it. We do baptise by triple immersion (never sprinkling) and we do see baptism as death and rebirth in Christ, but it is by baptism that we enter the Church and thus have access to the Mysteries, particularly the Eucharist. We commune infants after their baptism and see it as much more than just a washing away of sin, though it is indeed this for those who are old enough to have sinned before being baptised. I must say that it always strikes me that refusal to baptise and commune infants is in effect to ignore Christ when He said to 'suffer the little children to come unto me'. For those who don't agree with infant baptism (and you're almost all certainly believers in substitutionary atonement which I have no great wish to discuss here), how exactly do you allow the little children to come to Him?

James

 

[jeffrey]

I agree with a lot of what James says. Makes sense.

The way I had always thought of this was when you Baptize your baby, it's stating that the parents will raise that child in a Godly way, and acknowledging the fact that the child is of God. Then when that Child reaches the age of reason, where he knows right from wrong, he/she should be Baptized again.​

Hope this makes sense.

 

[jeffrey]

Let me also add, that I myself have been Baptized 3 times. Seems that everytime we change churches, they want to Baptize us in theirchurch, which I disagree with. It's like saying the other churches Baptism didn't really count.

 

[Steve]

I agree with a lot of what James says. Makes sense.

The way I had always thought of this was when you Baptize your baby, it's stating that the parents will raise that child in a Godly way, and acknowledging the fact that the child is of God. Then when that Child reaches the age of reason, where he knows right from wrong, he/she should be Baptized again.​

Such a baptism as you just mentioned has nothing to do with biblical baptism though, biblical baptism is about the washing away of sin and also signifies the death of the old man, and rebirth. It biblically has nothing to do with stating how you will raise your child. You could throw a "i will raise my child Godly" party and then if they child does grow up and understand sin and there need for Christ then let them believe and be baptized.

 

[James the Persian]

Let me also add, that I myself have been Baptized 3 times. Seems that everytime we change churches, they want to Baptize us in theirchurch, which I disagree with. It's like saying the other churches Baptism didn't really count.

That wouldn't happen (assuming that you've ever been baptised in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit - in the correct form, as we would say) if you were to become Orthodox. That doesn't mean that your heterodox baptism would be accepted as valid, however. We tend to say that we know where the Church is but not where she is not. Therefore, if you were baptised using the correct form you would be accepted by Chrismation (roughly like confirmation) which is considered to fill the form with any Grace that might have been lacking (but not being God we can't say for certain whether it was or was not lacking). In effect we bring the heterodox baptism into the Church. As a rule, we don't rebaptise people because we believe baptism is, as the Creed suggests, a once only event.

James

 

[James the Persian]

Such a baptism as you just mentioned has nothing to do with biblical baptism though, biblical baptism is about the washing away of sin and also signifies the death of the old man, and rebirth. It biblically has nothing to do with stating how you will raise your child. You could throw a "i will raise my child Godly" party and then if they child does grow up and understand sin and there need for Christ then let them believe and be baptized.

Do you believe that all of the households baptised in Scripture were childless? How do you think that the practice of paedobaptism is witnessed from very early in Church history without a single eyebrow raised by a single writer but when those who wished to deny infants baptism 1500 years later came along it raised such a stink? In my opinion the Protestant idea of believer's baptism is nothing more than an overreaction to medieval Roman Catholic teachings on Original Sin coupled, ironically, with the blind acceptance of another medieval Roman Catholic idea: that of the 'age of reason'. It has very little basis in Scripture unless that Scripture is read in an overly literal and prescriptive way and absolutely no basis in Holy Tradition, the Fathers or the beliefs of the early Church. I'll take the opinions of those who lived soon after Christ long before I'll accept the opinions of reformers over a millennium later and they were clearly in favour not just of paedobaptism but paedocommunion as well.

James

 

[jeffrey]

Good answer, James! One of the reasons my wife and I stopped going to the RC church is that, once a member, we would have to be baptized again. 4th time. And the fact that since my divorce 9 years ago was not done by the Catholics, they would have to contact my ex, ask her why we got divorced, and re-marry in the church and in the mean time my wife was not really my wife and we where living it sin

 

[jeffrey]

Steve, let me add this. I believe that Baptism is more symbolic then anything else. It's what's in your heart that counts, not the water.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Do you believe that all of the households baptised in Scripture were childless?

While they may not have been "childless" there is no evidence that they had SMALL children or infants.

Acts 2:37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"

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. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call." 40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. NIV

Notice that Jesus put "Repent" before baptism, and included it as a neccesary part of conversion. Infants and small children have nothing to repent of and have no need of salvation at this point in their lives. In fact, Jesus told us to BECOME like children to see the Kingdom of God.

How do you think that the practice of paedobaptism is witnessed from very early in Church history without a single eyebrow raised by a single writer but when those who wished to deny infants baptism 1500 years later came along it raised such a stink?

James, salvation is an emotional issue. There are references in the Scriptures to people being baptised for the dead, but it never agrees that it's a good idea.

In my opinion the Protestant idea of believer's baptism is nothing more than an overreaction to medieval Roman Catholic teachings on Original Sin coupled, ironically, with the blind acceptance of another medieval Roman Catholic idea: that of the 'age of reason'. It has very little basis in Scripture unless that Scripture is read in an overly literal and prescriptive way and absolutely no basis in Holy Tradition, the Fathers or the beliefs of the early Church. I'll take the opinions of those who lived soon after Christ long before I'll accept the opinions of reformers over a millennium later and they were clearly in favour not just of paedobaptism but paedocommunion as well.

James

Somehow, you have seemed to over generalise why many of us believe that baptism is essential.

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, 19 through 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

I just don't see how an infant or small child is able to make any sort of pledge. You see, Baptism is a RESPONSE and not a "sacrament". WHEN they were cut to the heart... they asked (most sincerely) "Brothers, what shall we do?" WHOA! Christianity is a radical departure from corporate salvation: it focuses on the individual's response.

 

[jeffrey]

NetDoc, I always value your opinions. Let me ask you this. Do you believe that you need to be Baptized by water to be saved?

 

[James the Persian]

ND,

We've been over this before and I have no wish to argue with you but I'll bring up a couple of points. Firstly, when talking to an adult, of course Christ would say 'Repent and be baptised', but that doesn't mean that repentance is a pre-requisite for baptism any more than if I were to command you to sing and dance that would mean that you can't dance unless you sing first, that's what I meant by an over-literal and prescriptive reading of Scripture. Repentance is a pre-requisite of baptism for those who have sinned prior to baptism, not those who are sinless, and repentance most certainly continues after baptism as well. The two are fairly separate. And despite what you say, baptism is a sacrament and was viewed as such by the Church from the earliest times.
I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about when you say I have over generalised why you believe baptism is essential. I never mentioned the essential nature of baptism at all, but took that as a given, it's the 'believers baptism' idea I was questioning.
As for infants making pledges, children in general cannot make pledges - their parents or guardians do so for them until they are of the age to be held responsible for themselves. This is normal human practice, so why do you think God wouldn't honour the pledges of parents or Godparents on behalf of a baptised infant? It makes no sense to me unless you believe that baptism is the end of the road, the final destination of a conversion experience that results in absolute assurance of salvation. We absolutely do not believe such. On the contrary it is the first step in a process of salvation that is a constant struggle against sin and turning to God in repentance until the very end of our lives.

James

 

[Scuba Pete]

Matthew 9:9 As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.

10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" 12 On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." NIV

The little ones are without sin: they don't need a saviour yet. You see, Jesus does not need to die for the sinless.

Romans 5:6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. NIV

Does Jesus see children as sinless? I would think so:

Matthew 19:14 Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." 15 When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there. NIV

As for the overgeneralization: I referred to your understanding of WHY we believe it is essential for salvation, not whether it is.

 

[Katzpur]

I agree with a lot of what James says. Makes sense.

The way I had always thought of this was when you Baptize your baby, it's stating that the parents will raise that child in a Godly way, and acknowledging the fact that the child is of God. Then when that Child reaches the age of reason, where he knows right from wrong, he/she should be Baptized again.​

Hope this makes sense.

It seems to me that the scriptures always speak of baptism in conjunction with a belief in the atonement of Jesus Christ and with repentence. In my opinion, baptism done without any understanding of its purpose on the part of the individual being baptized is completely pointless. The parents can make statement as to their convictions as to how they will raise their child without performing an ordinance that may just be repeated later on.

Let me also add, that I myself have been Baptized 3 times. Seems that everytime we change churches, they want to Baptize us in their church, which I disagree with. It's like saying the other churches Baptism didn't really count.

I can see where you're coming from, Jeff, but you have already stated that you believe baptism to be purely symbolic and not a requirement for salvation. Looking at it from where you stand, your point of view would make sense. I believe, however, that baptism is not only a required ordinance but that it must be performed by someone who has been given the authority by God to do so. When someone leaves my Church and joins, say, the Roman Catholic Church, they must be re-baptized. And it's always such a big issue. The LDS baptism doesn't count. Well, it shouldn't count, in my opinion. If the LDS Church does not hold the proper authority to be performing this ordinance (and obviously the person converting from Mormonism to Catholicism has rejected LDS authority in the process), it's entirely logical to me to expect that the Catholic Church would feel the need to rebaptize him.

 

[Quiddity]

It seems to me that the scriptures always speak of baptism in conjunction with a belief in the atonement of Jesus Christ and with repentence. In my opinion, baptism done without any understanding of its purpose on the part of the individual being baptized is completely pointless.

Perhaps to you. But God is not limited to extending his Grace only to those who "understand". It makes perfect sense that belief and baptism were always connected with ADULTS.

~Victor

 

[Katzpur]

Perhaps to you. But God is not limited to extending his Grace only to those who "understand". It makes perfect sense that belief and baptism were always connected with ADULTS.

God's grace extends to those who can believe and repent of their sins. It also extends to children who have not reached the age of accountability and who therefore are without sin.

 

[jeffrey]

Kat, I won't disagree with that. But, (puts flame proof suit on) I also believe that Baptism is just a ritual. It is not needed to get to heaven. In a sense, you can Baptize yourself. It's saying and believing the Holy Spirit will enter your body. I agree a child is without sin. When does that stop? Continued on next message.