-
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
Wow! That strikes me as rather "un-Christian" to say the least. I don't believe that little children are in need of baptism at all, since they do not have the capability to sin. (You have to be able to understand that you're doing something wrong in order to sin, in my opinion.) As for burying anybody in a less desirable place than someone else simply because he hadn't been baptized is about as judgmental a practice as I've ever heard. (There I go being judgmental.Rebecca said:
)
James the Persian
Dreptcredincios Crestin
Wow, I missed a lot of this thread. I still haven't seen any good arguments against paedobaptism raised here (or against paedocommunion - in fact that aspect has been basically ignored). I have noted, however, that people are bringing up whether or not we can be saved without baptism. For those of you who say no, might I suggest you remember the example of the Good Thief? He was not baptised and yet Christ clearly stated that he would be saved. You then also have countless early martyrs who were killed for their faith in Christ without any chance for baptism - the Roman soldier tasked with beheading St. Alban who professed faith in Christ and was then killed alongside him springs to mind. Do you think such people are condemned to hell ? (And , no, the Mormon practice of baptism for the dead does not solve this problem. I know of several such martyrs who appear to have had no descendants - what about them?) With God all things are possible and it's perfectly possible for Him to save someone who is not baptised. The Church always had three ways in which 'baptism' was achieved. First is baptism in fact (by immersion was the norm), the second is baptism by blood (dying for the faith before baptism was possible), the third was baptism by desire. That latter one is important. It means that someone truly believes and desires to be baptised but died without it being performed. This applies to the Good Thief. It also, I dare say, applies to a large number of catechumens in the first centuries and probably some up to this day. In the early Church the catechumenate lasted for from 1 to 3 years. Clearly catechumens have faith and the desire to be baptised and clearly in such a period of time people may die unexpectedly. Do you think such people are damned? We don't and, in fact, to this day if an Orthodox catechumen dies unbaptised they are still given an Orthodox funeral service, which is normally only open to full members of the Church.
James
James
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
It's always great to think about the "exceptions" to any rule... and that's the real problem. We look at Baptism as a "rule" to be enforced, or not and consequently we search for the "loop hole" that would enable us to squeak through the crack. In doing so we miss the ENTIRE point.
The entire point of Baptism was to restore the sinner to having a child like relationship with the father: one of full trust and obedience. Kids (including infants) already HAVE that relationship to God. If not, are we worried about the "still born" or the child who dies in the NICU never having the chance for baptism? Well, I am not.
Peter sums this all up:
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 alsonot 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 handwith angels, authorities and powers in submission to him. NIV
The word "pledge" has been translated as "appeal" (RSV?), "response", and "answer" (KJV). It requires your head to be straight when this happens: that can't happen with a small child or infant: and in fact they JUST DON'T NEED IT! You can't push Christianity on your kids. They will come to a CHOICE at some point in their lives. Some churches add the rite of "Confirmation". It baptism is done according to scriptures, there is no reason to "invent" a rite not found in them. You see, Baptism is not a "RULE"... it's a response to God's love. I don't want a "loop hole" when it comes to God's love!
The entire point of Baptism was to restore the sinner to having a child like relationship with the father: one of full trust and obedience. Kids (including infants) already HAVE that relationship to God. If not, are we worried about the "still born" or the child who dies in the NICU never having the chance for baptism? Well, I am not.
Peter sums this all up:
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 alsonot 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 handwith angels, authorities and powers in submission to him. NIV
The word "pledge" has been translated as "appeal" (RSV?), "response", and "answer" (KJV). It requires your head to be straight when this happens: that can't happen with a small child or infant: and in fact they JUST DON'T NEED IT! You can't push Christianity on your kids. They will come to a CHOICE at some point in their lives. Some churches add the rite of "Confirmation". It baptism is done according to scriptures, there is no reason to "invent" a rite not found in them. You see, Baptism is not a "RULE"... it's a response to God's love. I don't want a "loop hole" when it comes to God's love!
jeffrey
â Ãig Dogâ
Loophole, your word, not mine. I'm Baptized, my kids are Baptized, and if I have more, so shall they be. But understand it for what it is A pact. It's the piece of paper saying you agree, not the actual agreement. It's what's in your heart that matters, not that piece of paper. Repent and be Baptized. If you do not repent, you will be damned. Notice it does not include the word Baptize. Alot of People go through the motions, but it's not in their heart. And I believe it's what's in your heart.
James the Persian
Dreptcredincios Crestin
ND,
Confirmation is not a rite invented by a few churches. Those that have confirmation inherited it from the RCs. The RC practice is a medieval change to the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox practice of Chrismation, which happens immediately after baptism. This is the right of annointing with oil which grew out of a simple laying on of hands and signifies the sealing of the Holy Spirit. It is a very old practice. It changed to confirmation in Rome when they started interpreting the whole significance of entry into the Church as some sort of legal pact which required an age of reason. The believers baptism idea stems from this very same medieval Roman Catholic concept, unheard of in the early Church, except that instead of moving the Chrismation to later life baptism was moved instead. I dare say that this is due to nothing more than the fact that the Reformers abolished as many sacraments as they could - it's hard to move a sacrament you don't hold to.
Please, if you want to continue to argue that the early Church did not practice paedobaptism and, indeed, that this practice contradicts the teachings of Christ, do you think that you might like to provide at least one piece of evidence to support your claim. Your own interpretations of the Scriptures are insufficient for this as I and others can, and do, interpret those passages very differently. Unless, of course, your objection is nothing more thana personal opinion?
James
Confirmation is not a rite invented by a few churches. Those that have confirmation inherited it from the RCs. The RC practice is a medieval change to the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox practice of Chrismation, which happens immediately after baptism. This is the right of annointing with oil which grew out of a simple laying on of hands and signifies the sealing of the Holy Spirit. It is a very old practice. It changed to confirmation in Rome when they started interpreting the whole significance of entry into the Church as some sort of legal pact which required an age of reason. The believers baptism idea stems from this very same medieval Roman Catholic concept, unheard of in the early Church, except that instead of moving the Chrismation to later life baptism was moved instead. I dare say that this is due to nothing more than the fact that the Reformers abolished as many sacraments as they could - it's hard to move a sacrament you don't hold to.
Please, if you want to continue to argue that the early Church did not practice paedobaptism and, indeed, that this practice contradicts the teachings of Christ, do you think that you might like to provide at least one piece of evidence to support your claim. Your own interpretations of the Scriptures are insufficient for this as I and others can, and do, interpret those passages very differently. Unless, of course, your objection is nothing more thana personal opinion?
James
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
James,
Your accusation that I have provided no evidence is a slap in the face. No one has quoted scriptural references as much as I have. That being said, you have yet to show a clear instance of infant baptism in the Scriptures. None, nada squat. In that respect, my "understanding" (I don't use the word "interpretation") is just as valid as yours, a synod's or an entire system of dogma.
I have never demanded that you or anyone else agree with me. What you see as an "argument", I see as a discussion in which I feel free to offer a counter view point of the Orthodox dogma. Am I missing something or am I getting the notion that you just want me to "shut up"?
Your accusation that I have provided no evidence is a slap in the face. No one has quoted scriptural references as much as I have. That being said, you have yet to show a clear instance of infant baptism in the Scriptures. None, nada squat. In that respect, my "understanding" (I don't use the word "interpretation") is just as valid as yours, a synod's or an entire system of dogma.
I have never demanded that you or anyone else agree with me. What you see as an "argument", I see as a discussion in which I feel free to offer a counter view point of the Orthodox dogma. Am I missing something or am I getting the notion that you just want me to "shut up"?
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
You know, I find "cetificates of baptism" to be highly amusing. I can see someone standing at the pearly gates looking through their papers feverishly trying to find it before they get in. Bwahahahaha! This reeks of "legalism", doesn't it? God doesn't care if you have a piece of paper: not in the least!jgallandt said:
Amen Bro! Amen! That's been my point all along! AND... if you don't need to repent, then surely you don't need to be baptised!jgallandt said:
Amen Bro! Amen! That's also been my point all along!jgallandt said:
Let's face it: we want God to "spell it out" for us. My kids are much the same way. When my son was young, I did just that. "Yes" and "No" were the main components of my direction to him when he was 3. Now that he's 16 I tell him to do what he thinks best. Afterwards, we might discuss his actions where he determines whether he really did what was "best" or merely expedient.
God is no different. Consider this passage:
II Corinthians 3:1 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation to you or from you? 2 You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everybody. 3You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
4 Such confidence as this is ours through Christ before God. 5 Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. 6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenantnot of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. NIV
The "letter of the law" doesn't matter, but the Spirit means everything. Too many people see baptism (or repentance, or...) as merely a "requirement" to be met for their "saved" merit badge. It's not. It's a heartfelt response to the love of God which is something an infant is incapable of doing and in fact they don't need to even worry about it.
BTW, in response to whether a person can baptise themselves... I have never considered it. However, when I finally realised that I needed to be baptised (college, Fall of 1975) there was very little that could keep me out of the water. I am sure that if there was no one there to assist me, that I would have done precisely that. In fact it was done late at night, and if they hadn't gotten the key to the church, I would have gladly done it in Hume Pond (yuck). Even at that late hour, there were probably 20 or more brothers and sisters there to welcome me into the Kingdom. Thanks to Guy Hanson, wherever you are!
James the Persian
Dreptcredincios Crestin
No, I don't want you to shut up. I'm sorry if the tone of my post was a bit harsh. It's just that we've been here before and it's still just your interpretation against the interpretation of my Church. It's getting a little frustrating. I was hoping you could find some evidence for your view that doesn't rely on debatable Scriptural interpretations, then we might have something more to discuss, otherwise we'll just keep going round in circles. As for Scripture, I would say that whole households being converted almost certainly includes small children. You disagree, but I think that the Scriptural evidence for our position is at least as good as for yours. And you know, I am sure, that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Even if thousands of infants had been baptised there would be no requirement for it to have been written down in the Scriptures. My side of the argument can produce arguments from Church history, the Fathers etc. Your side seemingly can not. You're entitled to, and to voice, your opinions and I am genuinely sorry if I upset you by my post, but the weight of evidence seems to be so firmly on my side of the argument that there appears to be little left for us to discuss.NetDoc said:
James
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
And I doubt you will get an objection from James or I on that. But I'm sure someone that was saying "it's all in the heart" while not reading the scriptures is far-fetched for you. A true heart wants to serve the Lord in any way He Wills.
Peace be with you
~Victor
