Infant Baptism and the Myth of Original Sin

Rev Randy · Nov 22, 2012

Schroeder said:
seems to me this needs to be answered. What is the definition of FAITH. We are saved by GRACE through FAITH. eph. 2:8-9. get this right and maybe the rest will be better understood. the two most misused words speaking on salvation faith and grace. and you could throw in Works as well.

There is a thread where many attempted to define Faith. Some thought they had but only sucseeded in showing what faith does. That is not a definition.

TheDag · Nov 22, 2012

Schroeder said:
please show me the definition of FAITH. there is faith before and faith after. read rom 10:14-15 and 7-9. Gods grace is his son whom we are to believe. john 6:28-29.

Faith is defined in the bible. Hebrews 11:1 Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Rev Randy · Nov 22, 2012

TheDag said:
Faith is defined in the bible. Hebrews 11:1 Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Again, that is what faith does rather than a definition imo.

Schroeder · Nov 22, 2012

TheDag said:
Faith is defined in the bible. Hebrews 11:1 Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

this is true but is this after salvation or before. i think after salvation. HEAVEN. but eph 2 says we are saved by grace through faith. Faith in what. maybe thats what i meant to ask.

Rev Randy · Nov 22, 2012

Schroeder said:
this is true but is this after salvation or before. i think after salvation. HEAVEN. but eph 2 says we are saved by grace through faith. Faith in what. maybe thats what i meant to ask.

You only gave two choices. I'd saybefore or at the very point of salvation. Believe or have faith in what? That Jesus is Lord and completely able to cleanse of of all sin.
There is a bit of a misunderstanding on our teachings of Baptism. Do we believe we are baptized unto salvation. Yes. Does that mean we think we are saved by baptism? Not really if we were having the mindset of the evangelical. I would, to put in evangelical terms, say our Confirmation would be what evangelical call being saved. We believe we are sealed into Christ at Baptism then after training as to who Jesus is, we confess Him before men. You see some churches give altar calls and people moved will come forward and confess that Jesus is their Lord. But when you speak to them later and mention the fact that Jesus is God , some have this look on their face like it's the first time they've heard that. If they confessed a Jesus without knowing who He is, are they really saved?
While after the reformation some retained infant baptism and some partially rejected it and others fully left it behind. The partial ones are those who "dedicate" their infant to the Lord. This is oddly simular (not the same completely)to infant baptism. The difference is mainly in what is expected from God and of coarse the actual Rite of Holy Baptism. But in infant Baptism the dedication is indeed present from both parents and seregate parents in case something ( death or something unforseen)causes the parents not to follow through.

Trogool · Nov 22, 2012

A priest once explained baptism to me by asking why it was I thought God had put an IQ requirement on salvation.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

Rev Randy · Nov 22, 2012

Trogool said:
A priest once explained baptism to me by asking why it was I thought God had put an IQ requirement on salvation.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

I like that.

OrthodoxyUSA · Nov 23, 2012

I see faith as a reflection of grace. In my experience it is that the person feels they have been touched by The Holy Spirit. 'Moved' by the spirit is a term often used, especially when I was young. Something happens that acknowledges the presense of God. In most cases the person feels 'touched' as if through a thin membrane which on the other side resides Glory.

This is recongnition of grace, which I happen to believe can, and does happen to everyone.

The ultimate goal of that faith building experience is to bring all of mankind to the healing powers of the fullness of grace. That is to say the unification of man to God.

Here is an example of Christ despencing grace upon Children.

Mat 19:13-14 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put [his] hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Some of you may know that one of these children grows up to be St. Ignatius, third bishop of Antioch, also known as Theophorus. It is of note that this Church (Antioch est. 38AD) claims to have always baptised infants as she had followed in the ways of the Church at Jerusalem.

There is no valid reason for keeping children away from grace.

Forgive me...

Tangible · Nov 23, 2012

Clare73 said:
Indeed, he does.

That is NT, we are not under the Mosaic Law.

In Ro 5:12-21, Paul was addressing the sin of one man being imputed to many, as the righteousness of one man is imputed to many.

In the faith,
Clare

Our natural man is indeed still under the Law, he is sold into sin and will suffer the wages of sin. Under the Law our old man stands condemned. We simply cannot achieve righteousness under the Law. But Christ did for us. Now if we are in Christ there is no condemnation, we have passed from death to life. Those who have been baptized into Christ are in Christ.

Tangible · Nov 23, 2012

Schroeder said:
this is true but is this after salvation or before. i think after salvation. HEAVEN. but eph 2 says we are saved by grace through faith. Faith in what. maybe thats what i meant to ask.

I've heard faith compared to our sense of sight. we have eyes to see, but if there is no light we cannot see. Grace is the light of Christ.

Through vision we see the light of a candle. Through faith we receive the grace of Christ. The object we see is the candle. The object of our faith is Christ.

Rev Randy · Nov 23, 2012

Tangible said:
Our natural man is indeed still under the Law, he is sold into sin and will suffer the wages of sin. Under the Law our old man stands condemned. We simply cannot achieve righteousness under the Law. But Christ did for us. Now if we are in Christ there is no condemnation, we have passed from death to life. Those who have been baptized into Christ are in Christ.

Very well spoken.

VolRaider · Mar 10, 2013

Funny how those that make such a stink against infant baptism do NOT think that believer's baptism has any regenerative effect. So then I ask those people - what is the big deal about WHEN you are baptised?
Personally, I think this is just one more example of those who hate the Catholic Church so much that they are willing to do everybody in their power to not look like them. Silly.

Ignatius21 · Mar 12, 2013

ViaCrucis said:
Well, for one, the baptizing of infants wasn't something that came after the doctrine of Original Sin was articulated and set forth by Augustine. If it was, then the East wouldn't also baptize infants, however they do just as we do in the West. The Augustinian Doctrine of Original Sin is unknown in the theology of the East because St. Augustine was never influential outside of the West.

Further, the baptizing of infants is well known and was practiced almost universally centuries before Augustine. We have in the writings of St. Hippolytus the standard practices of Christian Baptism, and concerning infants and children he writes:

"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" - The Apostolic Tradition 21:4

The earliest opponent of infant baptism is Tertullian of Carthage, not because he does not believe baptism is not efficacious for infants and small children, but because Tertullian's theology was highly legalistic, believing it nearly impossible to find forgiveness after Baptism, thus he believes it better to delay Baptism as long as possible:

"According to circumstance and disposition and even age of the individual person, it may be better to delay Baptism; and especially so in the case of little children. Why, indeed, is it necessary -- if it be not a case of necessity -- that the sponsors to be thrust into danger, when they themselves may fail to fulfill their promises by reason of death, or when they may be disappointed by the growth of an evil disposition? Indeed the Lord says, 'Do not forbid them to come to me'" - On Baptism 18:4

All who write on the subject, even Tertullian who opposes it on his own idiosyncratic grounds, take the baptism of infants as a given, something widespread and having been done for quite some time.

Earlier than both Hippolytus and Tertullian, Irenaeus writes in his tome, Against Heresies,

"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" - Against Heresies 2:22:4

Infants, therefore, are to be included in the Church, as full members of Christ's Body; and the entryway is new birth in Christ, which happens in Holy Baptism.

So even if we remove Augustine entirely from the equation, and the doctrine of Original Sin as he defined it and put forth and which the West has embraced; even without Augustine and "Original Sin", the baptism of infants had long been an integral part of Christian practice, because infants and children were never to be outside of the purview of the Church's ministry, Christ's commission and command to make disciples of all nations excludes no one on the basis of age.

Christ does not discriminate, thus neither should we. Indeed, when Christ's own disciples sought to discriminate against the little ones, our Lord specifically aid, "Do not prevent the little ones from coming to Me, for to such as these belongs the kingdom". If Christ has spoken thus, why should we prevent the little ones from being with Christ?

Why deprive infants of Jesus Christ?

-CryptoLutheran

Well said. Nice to see someone who understands that there is an eastern view, not to mention understands what it is.

Lutherans are cool

OrthodoxyUSA · Mar 12, 2013

Ignatius21 said:
Well said. Nice to see someone who understands that there is an eastern view, not to mention understands what it is.

Lutherans are cool

I second that.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

Infant Baptism and the Myth of Original Sin

Sometimes I pretend to be normal

I don't like titles

Sometimes I pretend to be normal

Veteran

Sometimes I pretend to be normal

Well-Known Member

Sometimes I pretend to be normal

Well-Known Member

Decision Theology = Ex Opere Operato

Decision Theology = Ex Opere Operato

Sometimes I pretend to be normal

Regular Member

Can somebody please pass the incense?

Well-Known Member

Similar threads