A thought or two about Infant Baptism

[bbbbbbb]

It is not inconsistent to believe that God's grace encompassed every member of the households mentioned in the new testament. It is faith to make that acknowledgement. And it is excuse making to attack it.

Then I have misunderstood you and I apologize for that. I understood you to believe that the unbelieving slaves and servants in a household were not baptized, because unbelievers are not to be baptized. If you believe that God's grace in baptism is to be given to every person, why does your church only baptize infants and professing Catholics?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Say rather, and far more accurately, that God is pleased to work through his earthly representatives in the matter of the Church baptising a person.

Nevertheless, without the human effort put forth in the work of baptism, that grace cannot be received. Thus, work is entailed in the rite of baptism.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You are right, the Lord Jesus Christ did not say the words you typed. Yet he did say unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. and Catholics understand his words to be about baptism.

There is no point in beating this dead horse further. I understand your eisegetical approach to this passage and I believe that you understand my exegetical approach.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Then I have misunderstood you and I apologize for that. I understood you to believe that the unbelieving slaves and servants in a household were not baptized, because unbelievers are not to be baptized. If you believe that God's grace in baptism is to be given to every person, why does your church only baptize infants and professing Catholics?

Because you are still misunderstanding me. I will clarify.

• Baptism is administered by the Church to infants and believing people who have made a profession of faith only.
• Household baptisms included all in the household, as far as the new testament records imply.
• God's grace extended to all in the household because they all came to faith.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Nevertheless, without the human effort put forth in the work of baptism, that grace cannot be received. Thus, work is entailed in the rite of baptism.

The person baptised is doing no work, he/she is passive.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

There is no point in beating this dead horse further. I understand your eisegetical approach to this passage and I believe that you understand my exegetical approach.

Call it whatever names you like, it is what Catholics believe, it is what I believe.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Because you are still misunderstanding me. I will clarify.

• Baptism is administered by the Church to infants and believing people who have made a profession of faith only.
• Household baptisms included all in the household, as far as the new testament records imply.
• God's grace extended to all in the household because they all came to faith.

So, all infants came to faith, as well as slaves and servants in the household and, as a result, they were baptized. This is sheer speculation, of course.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The person baptised is doing no work, he/she is passive.

The person who undergoes baptism is far from passive. He or she, at a minimum, must arrange for the rite to be performed and get themselves to the sacred location. They must unwittingly or willingly permit the priest to perform the rite.

If, in fact, no effort was required, then God would simply bestow His baptismal grace upon all mankind in their passive state, without any fuss or bother on the part of people.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Call it whatever names you like, it is what Catholics believe, it is what I believe.

That has never been in question on my part. At the outset I informed you that I am quite cognizant of RCC doctrine.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

So, all infants came to faith, as well as slaves and servants in the household and, as a result, they were baptized. This is sheer speculation, of course.

Okay, no point in any other comments from me on the matter.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That has never been in question on my part. At the outset I informed you that I am quite cognizant of RCC doctrine.

What you wrote and reality are in conflict.

 

[bbbbbbb]

What you wrote and reality are in conflict.

How so? Do you not understand my position?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

How so? Do you not understand my position?

 

[Valletta]

That has never been in question on my part. At the outset I informed you that I am quite cognizant of RCC doctrine.

That's an extremely disturbing statement given your gross representation of Catholic teaching just the other day on the "Question about praying to Mary" forum, below is the relevant portion of my reply from post #55:
"False. Mary is not omniscient nor omnipresent. Why do you misrepresent the Catholic faith? Consider that perhaps you do so because you cannot factually disprove the Catholic faith. If you want a serious discussion about actual Catholic teaching please quote the Catholic Catechism, as I have told people so many times. Typically Catholic bashers pick their own incorrect rendition of Catholicism and then start from there.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I have a correction to make to an earlier post that I wrote. I mistakenly included a reference that was wrong. I offer the following as a correction.

Scripture references that refute the concept of soul sleep include:​

• Ecclesiastes 12:7, which states, "And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it." This verse suggests that the soul does not sleep after death, but rather continues to exist in some form in the presence of God.
• Luke 16:19-31, which describes the story of the rich man and Lazarus. This passage suggests that the souls of the dead are conscious, as the rich man is described as being in torment and aware of his surroundings after death.
• Revelation 6:9-10, which describes the souls of the martyrs under the altar crying out for justice. This suggests that the souls of the dead are not in a state of unconsciousness, but are conscious and active.

Deuterocanonical references that support the continued existence of the soul after death include:​

​

• Wisdom 3:1-3, which states, "But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no torment will ever touch them. In the eyes of the foolish they seemed to have died, and their departure was thought to be an affliction, and their going from us to be their destruction; but they are at peace." This passage suggests that the souls of the righteous are at peace after death and not in a state of unconsciousness.

These scriptural references, including those from the Deuterocanonical books, suggest that the soul does not sleep after death, but rather continues to exist in some form in the presence of God, and that the souls of the righteous are at peace.​

 

[Dan Perez]

When I find an infant that can read that and agrees to repent - then I for sure will support that infant being baptized.

I have met a number of adults and children that have done that - but so far... no infants.


I have met a number of adults and children that accept the symbolism of "buried with him in baptism" and agree to it - but so far no infants doing that - that I have found.

Does not say "They are holy only if they have been baptized".

No doubt parents can carry children to have them blessed.

But we are talking about baptism. IN Mark 10 Jesus is not baptizing anyone.


Also a lot of non-Catholics agree that our 10,11,12 year old children are available for baptism if they so choose.

That is not the part that is being questioned.

We are specifically talking about a group that Catholics agree can not repent and be baptized and have no understanding at all about "being buried with Christ in baptism".

I notice you are leaving Peter out of this. Let's allow him to tell us what he thinks of baptism - he may not have been Catholic but at least a lot of Catholics hold him in high regard.

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered for sins once for all time, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which He also went and made proclamation to the spirits in prison, 20 who once were disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Peter points to the very thing that infants can't do -- Infants don't make "an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"

Baptism is one of the biggest divisions in the bible , among believers .

Even when they read John 1:31 , And I knew him not , but that he should be MADE MANIFEST to Israel , therefore am I come to BAPTIZE with Water ,

It is then obvious that WATER BAPTISM is for Israel and not the BODY OF CHRIST .

In Genesis 7 we see that 8 people were saved in the ARK and the ones that were IMMERSED or WATER BAPTIZED , or SPRINKLED
Were those OUTSIDE of the ARK .

This means that there is a DRY BAPTISM and WATER BAPTISM as Acts 1:5 says it is ,

Then there is always some that say , but what about the THIEF on the CROSS ?

Or , what about a baby that dies , IMMEDIATELY after birth , born in SIN and no chance to repent , is tha Baby SAVED or LOST .

My answer to this is Rom 9:11 .

what say you ?

dan p

 

[BobRyan]

Baptism is one of the biggest divisions in the bible , among believers .

Even when they read John 1:31 , And I knew him not , but that he should be MADE MANIFEST to Israel , therefore am I come to BAPTIZE with Water ,

It is then obvious that WATER BAPTISM is for Israel and not the BODY OF CHRIST .

A lot of people getting baptized in the NT are Christian -- and prior pagans. So never were Jews at all. See Acts 10 and 11.

 

[BobRyan]

I have a correction to make to an earlier post that I wrote. I mistakenly included a reference that was wrong. I offer the following as a correction.

Scripture references that refute the concept of soul sleep include:​

• Ecclesiastes 12:7, which states, "And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it."

does not mention anything about the person losing or retaining consciousness. But Eccl 9 says they know nothing at the point that they die. So if we allow the author and the entire book of Eccl to speak -- then it does have something to say on the topic.

Eccl 9:4 For whoever is joined to all the living, there is hope; for better a live dog, than a dead lion. 5 For the living know that they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor do they have a reward any longer, for their memory is forgotten. 6 Indeed their love, their hate, and their zeal have already perished,

• This verse suggests that the soul does not sleep after death, but rather continues to exist in some form in the presence of God.

You have equated "sleep" with "does not exist" -- but that is not how we think of it since I consider myself to still exist while sleeping even in the natural daily concept.

• Luke 16:19-31, which describes the story of the rich man and Lazarus. This passage suggests that the souls of the dead are conscious,

Its a parable. The Bible parable about trees electing a king suggests that trees have meetings, discussions and elections.

• Revelation 6:9-10, which describes the souls of the martyrs under the altar crying out for justice. This suggests that the souls of the dead are not in a state of unconsciousness

That text tells the souls under the altar to rest longer. The very element you suggest is not there.
Even though it is using symbolism of apocalyptic writing, we know that Satan in Rev 12 is not a literal dragon and Christ in Rev 5 is not a sheep

We see in Heb 12 that Abel's blood speaks from the ground -- but that too is symbolism.

===================

Please remind me - what does any of this have to do with infant baptism??

Since this is your thread to start with - I assume you make some connection here.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

does not mention anything about the person losing or retaining consciousness.

What Eccl 12:7 does not say is said in Rev 6:9-11, but you still act as if no scripture speaks of the souls of the just being in God's hands* and being conscious. Oh wait, that last part is a quote from scripture too, only SDAs reject it. Guess you can get any answer you like as long as you get to delete any scripture that says different.
*Wisdom 3:1 But the souls of the just are in the hand of God, and the torment of death shall not touch them.

But Eccl 9 says they know nothing at the point that they die. So if we allow the author and the entire book of Eccl to speak -- then it does have something to say on the topic.

Eccl 9:4 For whoever is joined to all the living, there is hope; for better a live dog, than a dead lion. 5 For the living know that they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor do they have a reward any longer, for their memory is forgotten. 6 Indeed their love, their hate, and their zeal have already perished,

Better use a translation that is less obscure.

Ecclesiastes 9:4-6 But anyone who is alive in the world of the living has some hope; a live dog is better off than a dead lion. 5 Yes, the living know they are going to die, but the dead know nothing. They have no further reward; they are completely forgotten. 6 Their loves, their hates, their passions, all died with them. They will never again take part in anything that happens in this world.​

Completely forgotten by whom? By people in this world, not by God, eh?
Never again take part in anything that happens in this world, so no ghosts are here on earth haunting this world. SDAs misuse these verses, why? Because SDA doctrine demands unconsciousness in death. And remember the souls of the just are in God's hands. With God, to whom they return, as the scripture says (Eccl 12:7).

Its a parable. The Bible parable about trees electing a king suggests that trees have meetings, discussions and elections.

You protest too much; it is a story told by the Lord Jesus Christ. Not some folk tale full of lies. Luke 16:19-31, which describes the story of the rich man and Lazarus. This passage suggests that the souls of the dead are conscious. But you think some old testament metaphor about trees is the same as the Lord's story? No wonder SDA theology is so erroneous on this matter.

That text tells the souls under the altar to rest longer. The very element you suggest is not there.
Even though it is using symbolism of apocalyptic writing, we know that Satan in Rev 12 is not a literal dragon and Christ in Rev 5 is not a sheep

We see in Heb 12 that Abel's blood speaks from the ground -- but that too is symbolism.

More of the same bad SDA theology.

Revelation 6:9-11 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw, under the altar, the souls of those who had been slain because of the Word of God and because of the testimony that they held. 10 And they were crying out with a loud voice, saying: "How long, O Holy and True Lord, will you not judge and not vindicate our blood against those who dwell upon the earth?" 11 And white robes were given to each of them. And they were told that they should rest for a brief time, until their fellow servants and their brothers, who were to be slain even as they were slain, would be completed.​

They are not sleeping, they talk, receive new clothing, and rest - not sleep, rest - for a brief time. The passage doesn't say what you want to, so you latch onto "rest" and pretend that they are unconscious with no memory and no activity, goodness me! With such bad use of scripture it is no wonder SDA theology on this matter is so bad.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Nevertheless, without the human effort put forth in the work of baptism, that grace cannot be received. Thus, work is entailed in the rite of baptism.

What effort is put forth by an infant when he/she is baptized?

-CryptoLutheran