Infant Baptism, why do you reject it?

[TexasSky]

It's not necessarily something we're meant to understand. You tell your young children not to touch the hot stove, right? Or warn them about sticking forks in light sockets? They don't necessarily understand WHY you're telling them this (though they can find out the hard way), but if they are obedient, they do as you say.

God commanded his people to sanctify their children to him, first through circumcision, then after Christ's coming, through baptism. Remember, the Old Covenant presages the New, just as the Old Testament reflects the New. Infant males were circumcised at the tender age of 8 days. The same is done with baptism, for all children (and as a bonus, baptism is much less painful than circumcision). It is God's wish; we should be obedient.

Can you give me the scripture verse that says to sanctify children by baptism?

 

[TexasSky]

The Bible speaks of Faith. Faith is mystical and even a child can posses it. Why should a child who has always loved the Lord and cannot ever recall a time that they did not (if their parents and church were doing their jobs) be one day told that they must 'believe' in Christ and be Baptised ?

I encourage everyone to search the Scriptures for examples of what the Bible means by household.

What is your explanation for those who go through the motions of loving Christ, and yet, in their soul, have no real desire to please God, only to please their earthly parents by going through the acts of faith?

 

[TexasSky]

You don't believe in original sin?

You don't believe that we all possess the stain of Adam?

We all die don't we?

That is the mark of original sin.

Why would anyone deny the protection that Baptsim brings to a little child?

Or is it that the protection itself is denied? As in, it offers no protection.

Forgive me.....

Is the infant that is guilty of original sin repenting when a parent baptizes them just a few days or weeks after birth?

 

[TexasSky]

If you won't baptize your child because you cannot pick your child's friends, why would you dedicate your child to someone? If you cannot pick your kid's friends (I think it's sad that we use this as an analogy for a sinner's relationship with Christ), why would you dedicate him to them?

But you're right. You don't get to choose. Our sovereign Lord does, and He has chosen the children of believers to enjoy the benefits of the covenant. "For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself" (Acts 2:39).

Dedication of an infant is a promise by the parents to try to teach the child about Christ, and a request from the parents to the church to pray for the child to come to the Lord.

 

[TexasSky]

The demons have faith too....

Forgive me.....

No - that is not correct.

Faith literally means "trust" when used in the religious sense. It is not just "head knowledge."

The demons believed Christ was real.
They did not place their trust in Him.

 

[TexasSky]

If one does not properly understand the fall of man, the role of the Church and the Sacraments of God, even Salvation itself, one will not understand Baptism, especially concerning those who Christ said, suffer not them who come to me ...

Are you suggesting that an infant carried into a church with no knowledge of what a church is, and no ability to agree or disagree with what is about to happen, has "come" to Christ?

 

[TexasSky]

To those who believe in infant baptism - and that it has the power to erase sin - -

When does it lose that power?

If that child, at age 2, steals a toy?
Or at age 9 curses God?
At age 11 announces they want to be Buddhist?
At age 12 rapes and murders someone?
At age 13 when they have a chance to be confirmed and refuse?

 

[Melethiel]

The problem is, since I never said otherwise, it's not logical. It's just another example of her not reading my posts before she responds and why she is on my ignore list.

All right, I made it on someone's ignore list! I must be doing something right.

 

[Melethiel]

To those who believe in infant baptism - and that it has the power to erase sin - -

When does it lose that power?

If that child, at age 2, steals a toy?
Or at age 9 curses God?
At age 11 announces they want to be Buddhist?
At age 12 rapes and murders someone?
At age 13 when they have a chance to be confirmed and refuse?

It does not lose it's power. No one has said that it does.

Are you suggesting that an infant carried into a church with no knowledge of what a church is, and no ability to agree or disagree with what is about to happen, has "come" to Christ?

Parents brought their infants to Jesus to bless them, and he said "let the little children come to me". Now, did they come, or did their parents bring them? Is there a difference?

What is your explanation for those who go through the motions of loving Christ, and yet, in their soul, have no real desire to please God, only to please their earthly parents by going through the acts of faith?

There are such people in any group, whether they were baptized as infants or baptized later.

Faith literally means "trust" when used in the religious sense. It is not just "head knowledge."

Okay, we've established that faith is trust, not head knowledge. If so, why can't infants have faith? They may not have the mental capability to understand everything, but they can certainly trust.

 

[Borealis]

Far be it from me to put words in their mouths; perhaps Oblio and Borealis can contribute something to this…?

Well, since you asked so nicely...

With regard to the fate of deceased, unbaptized children...the Catholic Catechism states the following:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men shold be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," (Mk 10:14; cf. 1 Tim 2-4) allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for Children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

I hope that's clear enough for people? The Church does NOT say 'if you're not baptized, you're damned to an eternity in Hell.' Got it?

FINAL THOUGHT: WRT this "two baptisms" nonsense...it is up to you to prove that "baptism" doesn't mean "baptism". The Christian Church has, for two thousand years, understood Romans 6, Gal 3, Titus 3, Eph 5, 1 Peter 3, etc., to be speaking of water baptism, through which the Holy Spirit operates. It is YOUR burden to prove that this is incorrect. You are FORBIDDEN from assuming the consequent in order to prove your point. IOW, you can't use this kind of reasoning:

If all those verses are talking about water baptism, then that would mean that baptism actually does something. But since my theology tells me that baptism doesn't do anything, that can't be what those verses mean.
​

In logic, that's called petitio principii, or begging the question. In hermeneutics, it's called eisegesis.

Pax Christi tibi,

Kepler

Works for me.

 

[Borealis]

Can you give me the scripture verse that says to sanctify children by baptism?

Since I don't subscribe to sola scriptura, I don't feel the need to. The Church has always baptized children in infancy, from Apostolic times. Why would they have done that if it wasn't taught by the Apostles?

Can you give me the scripture verse that says that infants can't be baptized? Saying that only adults are baptized in the Bible doesn't wash (no pun intended), because not everything that Christ did and taught is in the Bible.

 

[Borealis]

All right, I made it on someone's ignore list! I must be doing something right.

Congratulations. He's on mine, so it balances out.

 

[Borealis]

To those who believe in infant baptism - and that it has the power to erase sin - -

When does it lose that power?

If that child, at age 2, steals a toy?
Or at age 9 curses God?
At age 11 announces they want to be Buddhist?
At age 12 rapes and murders someone?
At age 13 when they have a chance to be confirmed and refuse?

It cleanses us from original sin, as well as any sins we have previously committed. After that, if you sin, well...that's what the sacrament of Confession is for.

You seem to forget that Catholics and Orthodox don't see salvation as a one-shot, lifetime guarantee. It's something we spend our whole lives trying to achieve, because the gateway to Jesus is narrow, and not everyone who says, 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven. Paul states quite clearly that we are to 'work out our salvation through fear and trembling,' and made it equally clear that HE was working out HIS salvation. If St. Paul didn't have a certainty of salvation, what gives us the right to make that judgement on ourselves, let alone anyone else?

Jesus knew that we were imperfect, that we would be drawn to sin even after Baptism. That's why he gave the Apostles (and through them, their successors) the power to forgive or NOT forgive sins. There is not such thing as 'once saved, always saved' in the Catholic Church; it didn't exist in Christianity until long, LONG after the Apostles were gone. It's a man-made doctrine, one without historical or apostolic roots.

 

[mark75]

It cleanses us from original sin, as well as any sins we have previously committed. After that, if you sin, well...that's what the sacrament of Confession is for.

You know, that's an interesting thought: If one's original sin were to be erased, it seems as though this person would have no more sinful disposition and therefore unlikely to ever commit any sins. How exactly is that supposed to work, because the original sin that we have inherited from Adam is the only thing in our natures that would make sin attractive to us, so if it is erased, it seems that the consequences of it would also be erased. Thoughts??

 

[Borealis]

You know, that's an interesting thought: If one's original sin were to be erased, it seems as though this person would have no more sinful disposition and therefore unlikely to ever commit any sins. How exactly is that supposed to work, because the original sin that we have inherited from Adam is the only thing in our natures that would make sin attractive to us, so if it is erased, it seems that the consequences of it would also be erased. Thoughts??

Good question. Back to the Catechism, if you don't mind, since the Church has already answered this question.

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, "the tinder for sin" (fomus peccanti); since concupiscence "is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ." (Council of Trent) Indeed, "an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules." (2 Timothy 2:5)

Far wiser minds than mine came to this understanding, so don't yell at me for passing it on.

 

[mark75]

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, "the tinder for sin" (fomus peccanti); since concupiscence "is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ." (Council of Trent) Indeed, "an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules." (2 Timothy 2:5)

I understand the position stated in the catechism; my question is this. If somehow I could have my original sin removed, then that would mean a couple of things. First, because of Adam's original sin, death entered into the world. Now it doesn't make sense that I would still bear the consequence of death any longer if I have had the cause for that consequence removed. Second, it is the original sin in us that compels us to be attracted to actual commission of sin as soon as we are old enough. Again, if I could have original sin removed, I would no longer be attracted to committing sin anymore. And finally, with no original sin, I would have no further need for salvation because since the time of Adam, that is what salvation is from ultimately. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but those statements just don't mix well to me.

 

[Lynn73]

An outward act such as baptism can't cleanse the heart and mind of original sin or any sin for that matter. It takes the blood of Christ to cleanse from sin and this is applied when a person trusts in Christ as Savior. If I go into the water a lost person with no real belief in Christ, I will come up the same way. There's no magical grace in the water that will convert me to Christ. Do an experiement. Get someone off the street, an unbeliever, take them and put them under the water and see if it changes anything in their life There's no magic in the water. Cleansing from sin depends upon our trust and faith in Christ and His sacrifice for those sins. I really don't get why this isn't understood. Water does NOT save.

 

[KEPLER]

Can you give me the scripture verse that says to sanctify children by baptism?

Peter 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. This promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

That was easy.

***wipes hands***

 

[KEPLER]

I understand the position stated in the catechism; my question is this. If somehow I could have my original sin removed, then that would mean a couple of things. First, because of Adam's original sin, death entered into the world. Now it doesn't make sense that I would still bear the consequence of death any longer if I have had the cause for that consequence removed. Second, it is the original sin in us that compels us to be attracted to actual commission of sin as soon as we are old enough. Again, if I could have original sin removed, I would no longer be attracted to committing sin anymore. And finally, with no original sin, I would have no further need for salvation because since the time of Adam, that is what salvation is from ultimately. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but those statements just don't mix well to me.

From the Lutheran side --

In baptism, original sin is forgiven, but the sinful nature remains. The sinful nature remains until we die (see Romans 7 & 8) and are given new bodies. Thus we say that the Christian is simul iustus et peccator: simultaneously justified and sinful. Hense Jesus' satement: "The Spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."

K

 

[KEPLER]

An outward act such as baptism can't cleanse the heart and mind of original sin or any sin for that matter. It takes the blood of Christ to cleanse from sin and this is applied when a person trusts in Christ as Savior. If I go into the water a lost person with no real belief in Christ, I will come up the same way. There's no magical grace in the water that will convert me to Christ. Do an experiement. Get someone off the street, an unbeliever, take them and put them under the water and see if it changes anything in their life There's no magic in the water. Cleansing from sin depends upon our trust and faith in Christ and His sacrifice for those sins. I really don't get why this isn't understood. Water does NOT save.

Lynn73, you keep bringing this silly "argument" up.... but (as you have been told time and time and time before), it is a strawman. You clearly do not understand what the EO, the RC or the Lutherans believe about baptism, because what you describe above has nothing to do with anything.





K