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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Michael Servetus called paedobaptism "...an invention of the devil, an infernal falsity for the destruction of all Christianity."
I was wondering what the emphasis is on.
Well We'll take it all with a grain of sand.Michael Servetus called paedobaptism "...an invention of the devil, an infernal falsity for the destruction of all Christianity."
I was wondering what the emphasis is on.
What does the Bible say about infant baptism / paedobaptism?Michael Servetus called paedobaptism "...an invention of the devil, an infernal falsity for the destruction of all Christianity."
I was wondering what the emphasis is on.
I had to look him up as I had never heard of the man before.Michael Servetus called paedobaptism "...an invention of the devil, an infernal falsity for the destruction of all Christianity."
I was wondering what the emphasis is on.
Since you're mormon, do y'all inherit anti paedobaptism from Arius or any early Christians?
I had to look him up as I had never heard of the man before.
For others this is Michael Servetus: Michael Servetus | Spanish theologian
Here is the pope he is so concerned about: Clement VII | pope
It says Servetus primary problems were with the Trinity and that his King (of Spain) was too supportive of pope Clement. He hated the political intertwining of the church with politicians. Servetus was very concerned about corruption in the church, while Clement was a politician in priestly garb. Servetus was interested in separating church and state, and he felt the church could be restored to its former purity by this and by reversing the Nicene Council. So it seems he felt that the Nicene Council was where the church got mixed up with politics, and that was why he wanted to make changes. That would probably also be why he was against infant baptism.
Servetus did not have access to the History like people of modern times (2000+). He had access to some History but would have lacked the benefit of many archeological finds available now. The problems with the church went way, way back before the Nicene Council, and I think Servetus was working on the false assumption or the hope that things had been Ok before that. He then devised a plan which involved correcting some semantics and separating church and state, reversing whatever he identified that was political in nature. This was how he viewed infant baptism.
Ironically he was executed by the authorities in Geneva under the influence of John Calvin. He should never have crossed or discussed anything with John Calvin who was quite bloody. He would have gotten better treatment from the pope, but no he ran to Geneva. It seems he was surrounded by betrayals and duplicity everywhere he went, but he did his best with what he had.
********* Finally in response to the OP after that research I think:
I'm not sure but it appears that in Servetus time people baptized as babies were then bound by ecclesiastical laws, so of course that would be a different situation than if babies were being baptized strictly into Christ. I agree with him about separating churches from politics. I don't think infant baptism is wrong on its own. Perhaps though it is wrong if the government is involved.
It is a case of some wanting to control the lives of others while not minding to their own business.
Is the baptism a declaration of faith or a promise to inculcate faith in another? Does the baptism directly or indirectly involve the baptisee?That's ridiculous.. Infant baptism is about the promise to raise the child a Christian or a naming ceremony or both.. There is NOTHING diabolical about it.
I do not see anything wrong in baptising a child into the faith of the parents: it makes for a good and stable family.I
Is the baptism a declaration of faith or a promise to inculcate faith in another? Does the baptism directly or indirectly involve the baptisee?
I don't see any evidence for that. Do unstable families have a higher rate of baptism than stable ones. Do criminals often think back to their baptisms and abandon their crimes?I do not see anything wrong in baptising a child into the faith of the parents: it makes for a good and stable family.
The purpose of baptism is to provide knowledge to the child that a God exists: what the child does with that knowledge as it grows is entirely a matter for the child and no one else.I don't see any evidence for that. Do unstable families have a higher rate of baptism than stable ones. Do criminals often think back to their baptisms and abandon their crimes?
Is the purpose of baptism to stabilize families? I thought it was to make the baptisee acceptable to God; to make it possible for the baptisee to enter Heaven.
When I was baptized I had no idea God existed, and I don't recall anyone attempting to explain Christian theology to me at the time. In fact, at my level of neurological development, I didn't even realize I was a separate, individual being.The purpose of baptism is to provide knowledge to the child that a God exists: what the child does with that knowledge as it grows is entirely a matter for the child and no one else.
Nor would the infant ever want to see God, it turns out not to be a worthwhile endeavour that one needs for ones survival on this planet. Of course, there is the promise of Heaven for the gullible."An unbaptized infant can never see God."