Infant Baptism and the Atonement

[jeffrey]

Oh, yeah...but it does seem to be a rare exception.

But it IS an exception. Show me scripture where is forbids to Baptize yourself. Like I have stated in previous posts, it's best to be Baptized, but there is no doubt in my mind that their are people in Heaven that where not Baptized.

 

[nutshell]

But it IS an exception. Show me scripture where is forbids to Baptize yourself. Like I have stated in previous posts, it's best to be Baptized, but there is no doubt in my mind that their are people in Heaven that where not Baptized.

Here's a scripture that says all must be baptized. John 3:3-5, "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again•, he cannot see• the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? 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.

Baptism can only be performed by one who has authority. This is the distincition John the Baptist makes in Matthew 3:11, "I• indeed baptize• you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire•:

John is recoginizing that he has the authority to baptize with water, but Christ, who has the greater authority, would come and baptize with fire (the Holy Ghost).

So you see, authority is required to perform baptism and baptism is required to see the Kingdom of God (aka Heaven).

 

[jeffrey]

I does not say that anywhere. It states who did the Baptism, that Jesus would Baptize with the Holy Spirit. But no where does say that only a person of authority can. IT'S WHAT'S IN THE HEART, NOT THE ACT! I can see you have not read the entire thread.

 

[nutshell]

I does not say that anywhere. It states who did the Baptism, that Jesus would Baptize with the Holy Spirit. But no where does say that only a person of authority can. IT'S WHAT'S IN THE HEART, NOT THE ACT! I can see you have not read the entire thread.

I agree that it's what's in the heart as well. NO person is to be brought to the waters of baptism unless they demonstrate a broken heart and contrite spirit.

Regarding authority, if you turn positives into negatives, you'll see that John was saying he was not able to baptize with fire. Why? Because he didn't have the authority, but Jesus did.

 

[nutshell]

How about Matthew 18:1-3 "AT the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest• in the kingdom of heaven?

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.

I'd be interested in knowing how any Catholics or Orthodox respond to the scripture above and how this scripture might be applied to the practice of infant baptism.

 

[Quiddity]

I'd be interested in knowing how any Catholics or Orthodox respond to the scripture above and how this scripture might be applied to the practice of infant baptism.

Conversion is a process that takes place in those old enough to reason. I don't really see a connection to infant baptism. Perhaps you can tell me what you have in mind.

~Victor

 

[jeffrey]

nutshell, It can also be interpreted that only Jesus can Baptize with the Holy Spirit, which in a sense, is true. But it never says one can't Baptize themselves, if the heart is in the right place. I'm not saying people should, But if a situation comes up, where you had no other option, I believe that it would work. Because it's where your heart is, not a piece of paper.

 

[jeffrey]

As far as infant Baptism goes, in opinion, it can't hurt. I was Baptized as a baby and later in my 20's. My daughter, age 7, was just Baptized, and I'm sure, when she gets older, she will again. Like I said, it can't hurt!

 

[nutshell]

Conversion is a process that takes place in those old enough to reason. I don't really see a connection to infant baptism. Perhaps you can tell me what you have in mind.

~Victor

Then why do infants get baptized? Shouldn't baptism come after conversion? And aren't infants not old enough to reason?

The scripture, I think, points to the innocence of little children and I don't believe the innocent need baptism. As you said, it is for those old enough to reason (and make mistakes).

 

[Quiddity]

As far as infant Baptism goes, in opinion, it can't hurt. I was Baptized as a baby and later in my 20's. My daughter, age 7, was just Baptized, and I'm sure, when she gets older, she will again. Like I said, it can't hurt!

Absolutely it can't hurt. If anything, I think it will help.

~Victor

 

[Quiddity]

Then why do infants get baptized? Shouldn't baptism come after conversion? And aren't infants not old enough to reason?

The scripture, I think, points to the innocence of little children and I don't believe the innocent need baptism. As you said, it is for those old enough to reason (and make mistakes).

Nutshell, there is much that has been written in the thread to answer you. Although I will give you a short answer and tell you that baptism is an extension of God's grace and understanding/reason is not needed for God to give a person grace. I hope you can see this and I don't have to pull out the bible verses where God gives grace without people even being aware of it or understanding.

Peace in Christ
~Victor

 

[jeffrey]

Very good, Victor. Frubals to you.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Then why do infants get baptized? Shouldn't baptism come after conversion? And aren't infants not old enough to reason?

The scripture, I think, points to the innocence of little children and I don't believe the innocent need baptism. As you said, it is for those old enough to reason (and make mistakes).

Precisely my point, NS. They just don't need it!

Victor,

As for "understanding"... again it is an attitude of the heart:

Acts 28:26" 'Go to this people and say,
"You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving."
27For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.' NIV

You won't "turn" until you understand that you are indeed lost.

There are four types of baptisms spoken of in the NT (5 if you count Moses' baptism).

John's Baptism: Jesus underwent this to fulfill scripture and for OTHERS it was for repentance. Of course, the scripture was referenced earlier.

Baptism with fire...

Acts 2:1 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. NIV

It happened once with the apostles, and we have no record of it since.

Baptism with the Spirit...

Acts 2:37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
38Peter 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. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call." NIV

There is a FOURTH baptism that is referenced: Baptism for the dead. I wonder if Victor believes in this, since there is more evidence for it, than for infant baptism.

I Corinthians 15:29 Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? 30 And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? 31 I die every day—I mean that, brothers—just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32 If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised,
"Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die." 33 Do not be misled: "Bad company corrupts good character." 34 Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God—I say this to your shame. NIV

There is no comment by Paul as to the validity of this type of baptism, only that some people were doing it. If we view baptism as MERELY a requirement to be checked off for salvation, then let's go baptize the cat!

 

[Quiddity]

Precisely my point, NS. They just don't need it!

Victor,

As for "understanding"... again it is an attitude of the heart:

Acts 28:26" 'Go to this people and say,
"You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving."
27For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.' NIV

You won't "turn" until you understand that you are indeed lost.

There are four types of baptisms spoken of in the NT (5 if you count Moses' baptism).

John's Baptism: Jesus underwent this to fulfill scripture and for OTHERS it was for repentance. Of course, the scripture was referenced earlier.

Baptism with fire...

Acts 2:1 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. NIV

It happened once with the apostles, and we have no record of it since.

Baptism with the Spirit...

Acts 2:37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
38Peter 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. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call." NIV

There is a FOURTH baptism that is referenced: Baptism for the dead. I wonder if Victor believes in this, since there is more evidence for it, than for infant baptism.

I Corinthians 15:29 Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? 30 And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? 31 I die every day—I mean that, brothers—just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32 If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised,
"Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die." 33 Do not be misled: "Bad company corrupts good character." 34 Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God—I say this to your shame. NIV

There is no comment by Paul as to the validity of this type of baptism, only that some people were doing it. If we view baptism as MERELY a requirement to be checked off for salvation, then let's go baptize the cat!

This is going to turn into an interpretation difference with no solution. Only proving the need of an objective interpreter. Just one reason why I left Protestantism. Gracias...

I pray you understand some day and read how interpretation issues were handled in the early Church. Hint: Acts 15.

Peace In Christ
~Victor

 

[Scott1]

Why do Catholics sprinkle with water when Jesus was emersed?

Not all "sprinkle"... it is just easiest, but some still baptize by immersion.... both work.

 

[Scott1]

For the record, most objections I've seen on this thread don't deal with the reality of RC theology about baptism:

"The sacraments of Christian initiation - Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist - lay the foundations of every Christian life. "The sharing in the divine nature given to men through the grace of Christ bears a certain likeness to the origin, development, and nourishing of natural life. The faithful are born anew by Baptism, strengthened by the sacrament of Confirmation, and receive in the Eucharist the food of eternal life. By means of these sacraments of Christian initiation, they thus receive in increasing measure the treasures of the divine life and advance toward the perfection of charity."

Infant Baptism is only the first step... Confirmation "completes" Baptism and is more akin to what has been referred to as a "believers baptism".... we just do it differently.

 

[Buttons*]

...i was baptized when i was an infant... is there really something wrong with that? (other than the fact that i dont believe that it helped anything...)

 

[Katzpur]

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 think NetDoc's post was right on the money. Children who are too young to know the difference between right and wrong do not have the ability to sin. Sin involves a willfull choice. Now unless you somehow think that Jesus' sacrifice did not atone for Adam's sin, the burden of proof is on you? Why baptize an infant unless you believe he will be held accountable for something Adam did?

I have noted, however, that people are bringing up whether or not we can be saved without baptism.

Yeah, these baptism threads have a way of drifting slightly off topic, don't they?

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.

Are you sure? Do you think you'd find anybody on death row today who'd been baptized? I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying you don't know, so you can't really argue the point based on that logic.

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 ?

No, I don't.

(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?)

Of course it does. I have ancestors who go way, way back. I need not be someone's direct descendent in order to be baptized on their behalf. Besides, when it gets right down to it, we're all related in God's eyes.

With God all things are possible and it's perfectly possible for Him to save someone who is not baptised.

Of course it's possible, but it would mean that He didn't really mean what He said, wouldn't it? It would mean that a person doesn't really need to be born of water and of the spirit in order to enter into the Kingdom of God. But what God has done is provide a way for all of His children to receive baptism. He can require it, just as He said He does, but permit it to be done by proxy, as was the case in the ancient Church.

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.

That sounds like quite a stretch to me. Are you saying that dying for one's faith or simply wanting to be baptized are the same thing as actually being baptized? Why didn't Jesus give us any indication that that was the case?

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.

Again, no they aren't damned. As far as I can see from your comments (and from the comments of every person here who believes that baptism is a nice goal but not a necessity), the only real reason you can come up with for this belief is the idea that damning people to hell for eternity simply because they hadn't been baptized is not very much in line with how we think a loving God would handle the situation. It doesn't strike us as fair or reasonable or merciful. Well, if that's how God worked, it wouldn't be fair or reasonable or merciful. The great thing about the way He really works is that He can require something of all of His children and actually make it possible for them to accomplish what He has required.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Just one reason why I left Protestantism.

I left it too, as well as Catholicism. Being "just" a Christian works wonders for me!

 

[Scuba Pete]

other than the fact that i dont believe that it helped anything

I think that was my entire point, gnosis! Thanks!!!!