Infant Baptism?

[Jane_Doe]

Referring to sin as screwing up gives me a hint that you might not fully understand the holiness of God, nor the sin of man. If you don't understand the magnitude of the problem then you won't understand the solution either.

Ok, then explain the problem to me then.

What did a newborn baby do, whom dies an hour an after it's born, they are so horrible that they deserve to go straight to Hell?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Ok, then explain the problem to me then.

What did a newborn baby do, whom dies an hour an after it's born, they are so horrible that they deserve to go straight to Hell?

Romans 5:12 covers this, "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—"

 

[drstevej]

Ok, then explain the problem to me then.

What did a newborn baby do, whom dies an hour an after it's born, they are so horrible that they deserve to go straight to Hell?

Why is a eight year old hell bound?

 

[Ironhold]

Why is a eight year old hell bound?
View attachment 166237

Go back to my earlier posts.

The church holds that by the time a child is 8, they should be able to not only understand right vs. wrong but also why something is right or wrong.

 

[Ironhold]

Romans 5:12 covers this, "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—"

It's this kind of sentiment that drives people away from mainline Christianity.

 

[drstevej]

It's this kind of sentiment that drives people away from mainline Christianity.

Romans 5 drives folks from mainline Christianity? The truth sometimes steps on toes and exposes moral culpability.

 

[Ironhold]

Romans 5 drives folks from mainline Christianity? The truth sometimes steps on toes and exposes moral culpability.

The sentiment that even newborn babes who die before having a chance to do anything are automatically condemned to Hell simply for existing.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

It's this kind of sentiment that drives people away from mainline Christianity.

That's true, and equally true, coming to the awareness of one's complete and utter sinfulness also drives many a person to his knees as he's reconciled to God. God's word will accomplish what He wants it to. (Isaiah 55:11)

If sin is simply screwing up, then there really is no need for Hell, and there is also no need for the cross. It's understandable that you think God is overreacting in judgement if sin is no more than a mistake in judgement.

"But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!" (John 10:1 ESV)

 

[ViaCrucis]

What did a newborn baby do, whom dies an hour an after it's born, they are so horrible that they deserve to go straight to Hell?

Two issues I'd have here would be this:

1) Seeing hell as a place of punishment, that is, we do bad things so God sends us to a place called hell for all eternity as punishment.

2) The assumption that infants or small children go to hell.

I'm not familiar with many mainstream Christian denominations that would argue that an unbaptized infant goes to hell. Further, the very question of hell is a hardly well defined concept in historic orthodox Christianity. Some churches have dogmatic views about what hell is and who "goes" there, but the topic is immensely broad in scope within the larger theological conversation of the Church catholic.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ironhold]

I'm not familiar with many mainstream Christian denominations that would argue that an unbaptized infant goes to hell.

I know of two families who were, indeed, told that their infant or toddler was going to Hell because they hadn't been baptized before being killed. (One got out of his playpen and was hit by a vehicle; the other was given alcohol by a third party.)

IIRC, one of the ministers who made the pronouncement was a Lutheran.

So yes, it does, indeed, happen.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I know of two families who were, indeed, told that their infant or toddler was going to Hell because they hadn't been baptized before being killed. (One got out of his playpen and was hit by a vehicle; the other was given alcohol by a third party.)

IIRC, one of the ministers who made the pronouncement was a Lutheran.

So yes, it does, indeed, happen.

I didn't say it doesn't happen. I said I am not aware of many mainstream churches where that is the argument. Individual opinions, well that's a different story.

The Lutheran minister in question wasn't speaking from the position of the Confessions.

While Luther's opinions are not authoritative (outside the Confessions) in Lutheranism, they are valuable; here is Dr. Luther's own words on the subject:

"We must keep the ordered power in mind and form our opinion on the basis of it. God is able to save without Baptism, just as we believe that infants who, as sometimes happens through the neglect of their parents or through some other mishap, do not receive Baptism are not damned on this account. But in the church we must judge and teach, in accordance with God’s ordered power, that without the outward Baptism no one is saved." - Luther, Lectures on Genesis

Luther gives the example of God's ordered power, e.g. that fire burns; and yet we read in the book of Daniel that Daniel's three companions were thrown into the fiery furnace and were not burned. The extraordinary act of God is that God can do what God will; but God has nevertheless given us His order and established for us what is normative. So we can say that Baptism is necessary for salvation, but we cannot say that Baptism is absolutely necessary.

We do not condemn the unbaptized child, we can only speak to what God has said, not to what God has not said. We know what is said about the baptized and about what Baptism promises, conveys, and confers on account of God's Word; what we cannot know is what is not said. Whoever is baptized is indeed truly saved, but we cannot say that if one is not baptized they must, therefore, be damned.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AMR]

In all of the years I've been doing religious debates (et al), there are a handful of issues that I've not gotten a straight answer on.

This is one of them.

On what basis is the act of infant baptism justified?

The only Biblical justification anyone's ever shown me was a passage talking about "entire households" being baptized, but that's an argument from silence as the ages of the involved aren't given.

I've also not seen any writings from the first few centuries of Christian history supporting the practice; if anything, I've seen more material that could be used to support vicarious baptism than infant baptism.

So - what's the theological justification?

Thanks.

This is one of the better discussions of the theological justification of infant baptism from a conservative covenantal Presbyterian perspective:

http://rscottclark.org/2012/09/a-contemporary-reformed-defense-of-infant-baptism/

See also:
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/articles/infant_baptism.shtml
http://www.gty.org/resources/Articl...nt-Baptism-The-Historic-PaedoBaptist-Position

 

[BigDaddy4]

Go back to my earlier posts.

The church holds that by the time a child is 8, they should be able to not only understand right vs. wrong but also why something is right or wrong.

If the lds is truly the "restored" church, why 8 years old? Where is your evidence in historical Christianity (or Jewish tradition) that age 8 is the appropriate age? Jewish tradition is age 13 for boys (bar mitzvah) or 12 for girls (bat mitzvah).

While there is no specific Bible verse that says "infant baptism", there are several that include "and family" or "household". Logic dictates that infants are part of a family or a household and may be included in such baptisms.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Go back to my earlier posts.

The church holds that by the time a child is 8, they should be able to not only understand right vs. wrong but also why something is right or wrong.

Surely a child who is 8 years and 1 second old who does not repent and believe won't be cast into external hell. And, if that is the case, God would certainly not judge a child who dies at 8 years and 1 hour old , and if he wouldn't do that, He would not also judge guilty a child who is 8 years and 1 day old. I mean, that would be beyond unreasonable. A few days or weeks after one's 8th birthday shouldn't present a big deal for such a big God. Or, am I looking at this all wrong? Maybe it's within ones 8th year of life. If a child is 8 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, 59 seconds. . . Oh, wait. I forgot to figure in leap year. . .

You've obviously never seen a 2 year old do something which he knew was wrong and be caught red-handed at it.

 

[Ironhold]

You've obviously never seen a 2 year old

4 nieces, 2 nephews.

Try me.

 

[Ironhold]

While there is no specific Bible verse that says "infant baptism", there are several that include "and family" or "household". Logic dictates that infants are part of a family or a household and may be included in such baptisms.

Mentioned this in my OP: it's an argument from silence of the type that we Mormons are usually bawled out for making.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Mentioned this in my OP: it's an argument from silence of the type that we Mormons are usually bawled out for making.

It's only silent if the Scripture is referring to only 1 family. I don't believe that. I believe "family" and "household" to be applicable to every family/household who chooses that path. Fathers are the head of the household, according to Scripture. And their decisions effect the whole household, including infants, untii such members make a choice otherwise.

Mormons are "bawled out" because they interpret Scripture incorrectly on some things.

 

[Ran77]

Romans 5:12 covers this, "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—"

Your interpretation indicates that a just God condemns a person for the actions of another. That is not just nor is it logical.

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[thankfulttt]

In all of the years I've been doing religious debates (et al), there are a handful of issues that I've not gotten a straight answer on.

This is one of them.

On what basis is the act of infant baptism justified?

The only Biblical justification anyone's ever shown me was a passage talking about "entire households" being baptized, but that's an argument from silence as the ages of the involved aren't given.

I've also not seen any writings from the first few centuries of Christian history supporting the practice; if anything, I've seen more material that could be used to support vicarious baptism than infant baptism.

So - what's the theological justification?

Thanks.

There seems to be no justification for infant baptism. Water baptism is a baptism of repentance. How can a baby know to repent?

Secondly Jesus qualified the little children as to believing in him.

Matthew 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Mark 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.