Infant Baptism and the Atonement

[James the Persian]

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.

I don't believe that baptism is a 'nice goal' at all. In fact, it's not a goal but a first step on the path towards theosis. This I and Scott have both said already on this thread. The major problem I see, in terms of our two sides' difficulty to understand one another, is that one side (the no infant baptism one) seems to think of conversion as a process that ends with baptism and the other (ours) sees conversion as a process without end that starts with baptism.

I don't think it's stretching to think that God would honour our desire for baptism if we are unable to go through with it before death, but then I don't see God in the legalistic sense that most of you appear to. I see Him as my Father before my judge. As a father myself, I absolutely know that I would praise my son for any good intention he had that he could not realise, not condemn him for his inability to realise it. I don't see how the God who is Love could possibly be less loving than I am. In fact, my love for William pales into insignificance next to God's love for us.

As for the idea of substitutionary atonement, no I do not hold to it. The Orthodox Church never has and never will believe that Christ was simply a sacrifice to the Father to wash away our sins and spare us from the wrath of a God that was offended by Adam. Christ's entire Incarnation is what brings about salvation in our belief. By his death and Resurrection he trampled down death and destroyed the hold of sin over man that was a natural consequence of the Fall, but here was no wrath of God on Adam's descendants to avert. Substitutionary atonement is over-simplistic and anthropomorphises God into a petty tyrant of the medieval mould. Once again, we do not hold to the Augustinian idea of Original Sin, yet we still baptise infants. That ought to tell you that for us, the significance of baptism, and particularly paedobaptism, is rather different than you appear to believe it is.

James

 

[James the Persian]

Victor,

I know that your practice of confirmation is more or less identical to our Chrismation, which is why confirmed RCs who convert to Orthodoxy are usually accepted by simple confession, rather than an Orthodox Chrismation. I wasn't saying that the RCC made major changes to the rite itself, just the time at which it was performed. I didn't know the Mexicans confirm directly after baptism, though. That's interesting. Do they also commune infants, then? I didn't think that RCs (other than the Uniates) practiced paedocommunion any more.

James

 

[jeffrey]

James, I agree. Baptism is a re-birth, which just like birth itself, should be the start of conversion. And Kat, as far as it being a 'nice goal' I have searched this thread and cannot find anyone that said that, or even eluded to that. Which post are you refering to?

 

[nutshell]

NPR interview a professor of theology from Notre Dame yesterday. The discussion was about the RC changing its views regarding LIMBO. Honestly, until I heard the interview, I never new the origin of this common word.

They didn't really get into it, but can any of the RCers on this forum clarify what the new teaching will be instead of LIMBO?

 

[Quiddity]

Victor,

I know that your practice of confirmation is more or less identical to our Chrismation, which is why confirmed RCs who convert to Orthodoxy are usually accepted by simple confession, rather than an Orthodox Chrismation. I wasn't saying that the RCC made major changes to the rite itself, just the time at which it was performed. I didn't know the Mexicans confirm directly after baptism, though. That's interesting. Do they also commune infants, then? I didn't think that RCs (other than the Uniates) practiced paedocommunion any more.

James

I apologize if I phrased it as a correction toward you, I was only clarifying. Mexicans, don't commune infants and I have never heard of any RCC parishes doing it.

~Victor

 

[James the Persian]

NPR interview a professor of theology from Notre Dame yesterday. The discussion was about the RC changing its views regarding LIMBO. Honestly, until I heard the interview, I never new the origin of this common word.

They didn't really get into it, but can any of the RCers on this forum clarify what the new teaching will be instead of LIMBO?

I suspect that it will be nothing. Limbo was an attempt to get around the rather vile consequences of adherence to the idea of Original Sin as taught by Bl. Augustine (and by nobody else before him). Only the western Church (and hence the RCC) ever followed his teachings on this, so only they came up with limbo. Given that they no longer appear to believe that all men are born guilty of Adam's sin, there's no need for the invention of a limbo or any other place to which unbaptised infants might be sent.

James

 

[James the Persian]

I apologize if I phrased it as a correction toward you, I was only clarifying. Mexicans, don't commune infants and I have never heard of any RCC parishes doing it.

~Victor

I have. As far as I'm aware, all the Uniate parishes commune infants because they still hold to Orthodox liturgical practice for the most part despite being under Rome. I've seen Uniates complain many times that western rite parishes won't commune their infants and I even know of a few who became Orthodox (this was in America) because of that attitude after they'd had to move to areas with no eastern rite parish. My question, though, is why on earth would you refuse communion to anyone who has already been both baptised and confirmed? I just cannot see a theological justification for this at all.

James