is my infant baptism enough?

[bekkilyn]

Again, thanks for your time. Hopefully you can appreciate me not sorting through 759 links hoping to find something relevant. Truly, I'm not trying to be difficult. But I grew up in a church where things were seemingly declared sins at random with no explanations beyond "Because we said so." So my inclination when something is stated to be sinful is to inquire as to why. I consider it an educational opportunity for me to at least learn about someone else's faith.

Thanks again.

Someone asked my pastor once about re-baptism and he told them it wasn't necessary, and that "God didn't make a mistake the first time." Yes, it was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it made a point. Perhaps the sin isn't so much with the baptism itself, but with a lack of trust or faith in God to keep his promises. Getting baptized over and over has the appearance of us trying to earn our way into his favor rather than simply accepting his gift of grace.

 

[iwbswiaihl2]

Considering the way Greco-Roman households were constructed, once the "master" of the household decides something, the entire household is generally included in the decision. It's not like today where everything is individualized.

Under the Mosaic Covenant, babies were circumcised (the seal of the old covenant) when they were 8 days old, and that included slaves and resident aliens living among them, not just Israelites. They didn't get a choice of whether they wanted to be included in the covenant if they wanted to live with the Israelites in their society.

They weren't so much "have it your way" back in biblical times. That's a modern contrivance.

So yes, the "master" decides the household will become Christian and be baptized, then that's what they do.

I would not disagree with you concerning the children when they were 8 days old, but I do not believe that meant that they went on to become believers in the Lord. And concerning the slaves, they may have had no choice of being baptized, but that did not make them Christian. Only the individual person can accept the Lord.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Again, thanks for your time. Hopefully you can appreciate me not sorting through 759 links hoping to find something relevant. Truly, I'm not trying to be difficult. But I grew up in a church where things were seemingly declared sins at random with no explanations beyond "Because we said so." So my inclination when something is stated to be sinful is to inquire as to why. I consider it an educational opportunity for me to at least learn about someone else's faith.

Thanks again.

Oh, no, that was just in case you want a link to Councils and canons at some time, since you asked how to find out more about them.

Goodness no! To be honest, I didn't want to sound insulting, but unless you knew the baptismal rite used, and you also knew the nature of the heresy, the link I provided to Canon VII would not be clear in a great deal of what it was saying.

Canons are for Church government. That's why I don't study or know then unless a specific question comes up.

In what I have read, this is a very complex topic. It was simple when the Church was the Church, but when Rome separated, complications crept in. And with all the denominations from the efforts to reform Catholicism (and reform those reformers, and so on) it becomes incredibly complex. I've learned more in the last 24 hours than I actually wanted to know about it, because efforts to keep peace and politics with Rome enter in.

If you really, sincerely wanted to know, I can try to track it down, but for the current discussion, it only lends a little extra evidence to the efficacy of baptism.

Declaring things sins, or not, is another topic.

What might interest you along those lines though - it would be a sin for the one who performed the baptism. The shepherd is the responsible party, and it's a matter of Church policy. So while I would maintain that it would be a serious sin for them to rebaptize a validly baptized person, the sin does not fall on the one being baptized. (Unless they knowingly and deliberately misled the Presbyter, and in their case it probably wouldn't be as serious.) That might be more to the point of your concern.

 

[Neostarwcc]

Oh, no, that was just in case you want a link to Councils and canons at some time, since you asked how to find out more about them.

Goodness no! To be honest, I didn't want to sound insulting, but unless you knew the baptismal rite used, and you also knew the nature of the heresy, the link I provided to Canon VII would not be clear in a great deal of what it was saying.

Canons are for Church government. That's why I don't study or know then unless a specific question comes up.

In what I have read, this is a very complex topic. It was simple when the Church was the Church, but when Rome separated, complications crept in. And with all the denominations from the efforts to reform Catholicism (and reform those reformers, and so on) it becomes incredibly complex. I've learned more in the last 24 hours than I actually wanted to know about it, because efforts to keep peace and politics with Rome enter in.

If you really, sincerely wanted to know, I can try to track it down, but for the current discussion, it only lends a little extra evidence to the efficacy of baptism.

Declaring things sins, or not, is another topic.

What might interest you along those lines though - it would be a sin for the one who performed the baptism. The shepherd is the responsible party, and it's a matter of Church policy. So while I would maintain that it would be a serious sin for them to rebaptize a validly baptized person, the sin does not fall on the one being baptized. (Unless they knowingly and deliberately misled the Presbyter.) That might be more to the point of your concern.

Where's the link you posted? I cannot find it on the last few pages. Thanks.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I would not disagree with you concerning the children when they were 8 days old, but I do not believe that meant that they went on to become believers in the Lord. And concerning the slaves, they may have had no choice of being baptized, but that did not make them Christian. Only the individual person can accept the Lord.

Infant baptism does not relieve the person of pursuing their own relationship with Christ.

When an infant is baptized, it can only be done with the intention and obligation of a believing Christian who will raise them in the faith. The child must have his own faith, and continue in it, or the infant baptism is "lost" in a sense. (But if the child grew up and desired to come to faith as an adult, we would not rebaptize.)

 

[Phil 1:21]

Oh, no, that was just in case you want a link to Councils and canons at some time, since you asked how to find out more about them.

Goodness no! To be honest, I didn't want to sound insulting, but unless you knew the baptismal rite used, and you also knew the nature of the heresy, the link I provided to Canon VII would not be clear in a great deal of what it was saying.

Canons are for Church government. That's why I don't study or know then unless a specific question comes up.

In what I have read, this is a very complex topic. It was simple when the Church was the Church, but when Rome separated, complications crept in. And with all the denominations from the efforts to reform Catholicism (and reform those reformers, and so on) it becomes incredibly complex. I've learned more in the last 24 hours than I actually wanted to know about it, because efforts to keep peace and politics with Rome enter in.

If you really, sincerely wanted to know, I can try to track it down, but for the current discussion, it only lends a little extra evidence to the efficacy of baptism.

Declaring things sins, or not, is another topic.

What might interest you along those lines though - it would be a sin for the one who performed the baptism. The shepherd is the responsible party, and it's a matter of Church policy. So while I would maintain that it would be a serious sin for them to rebaptize a validly baptized person, the sin does not fall on the one being baptized. (Unless they knowingly and deliberately misled the Presbyter.) That might be more to the point of your concern.

In my jaunt through Googleland I ended up at an Orthodox (Russian, I think) message board where they were discussing which denomination's baptisms were valid, which weren't, and who they would and would not re-baptize and under what circumstances. I must admit, a flow chart would have been handy.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Where's the link you posted? I cannot find it on the last few pages. Thanks.

To the Councils and canons?

They can be searched specifically and often found on Orthodox and Catholic sites, but the link I posted was CCEL - NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

 

[bekkilyn]

I would not disagree with you concerning the children when they were 8 days old, but I do not believe that meant that they went on to become believers in the Lord. And concerning the slaves, they may have had no choice of being baptized, but that did not make them Christian. Only the individual person can accept the Lord.

In one sense I agree, which is why those who were baptized as infants usually have some sort of process of confirmation to publicly declare their faith once they reach some age of accountability, but in another sense, God has saved an entire household on the basis of the patriarch's faith. For example, it wasn't just Noah who was saved from the flood, but his entire household. And Lot and his entire household was spared the destruction of Sodom because of his uncle Abraham's faith. If God decided to do similarly with Christian households, it would not be inconsistent with his character.

 

[~Anastasia~]

In my jaunt through Googleland I ended up at an Orthodox (Russian, I think) message board where they were discussing which denomination's baptisms were valid, which weren't, and who they would and would not re-baptize and under what circumstances. I must admit, a flow chart would have been handy.

Well, the Russians are a bit unique, because they were cut off quite a bit during the 20th century after the Bolshevik revolution and under an atheist government. So they are (were) in some ways not exactly in step with the rest of Orthodoxy. That is being healed, but things tend to take time.


ETA - I should make clear. They are still not "rebaptizing". They are considering other "baptisms" to be not sacramental, and so not baptism in the first place.

 

[Neostarwcc]

To the Councils and canons?

They can be searched specifically and often found on Orthodox and Catholic sites, but the link I posted was CCEL - NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Thanks a lot! I'll take a look at it when I'm done playing WoW.

 

[thecolorsblend]

The best official source I can easily point you to is the Nicene Creed (which is the "definition" of Christianity for this site, and served as such for the early Church after it was codified) ... which includes the phrase, "I/we believe ... in one baptism for the remission of sins."

This is an interesting point. If every member who rejected this line of the creed was banned, I have to wonder how empty CF would be.

 

[~Anastasia~]

This is an interesting point. If every member who rejected this line of the creed was banned, I have to wonder how empty CF would be.

Shhhhhh ..... I don't think we want to do that.

They already specifically allow it need not be considered regenerative. I think they'd expand that allowance too.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thanks a lot! I'll take a look at it when I'm done playing WoW.

Prepare to be overwhelmed ....


Seriously though, if I need to look at a canon, I need to know which one from which council. But the Councils are interesting reading in many sections, to me anyway. Maybe I'm a theology nerd, lol.

 

[iwbswiaihl2]

Infant baptism does not relieve the person of pursuing their own relationship with Christ.

When an infant is baptized, it can only be done with the intention and obligation of a believing Christian who will raise them in the faith. The child must have his own faith, and continue in it, or the infant baptism is "lost" in a sense. (But if the child grew up and desired to come to faith as an adult, we would not rebaptize.)

Thanks

 

[Neostarwcc]

Prepare to be overwhelmed ....


Seriously though, if I need to look at a canon, I need to know which one from which council. But the Councils are interesting reading in many sections, to me anyway. Maybe I'm a theology nerd, lol.

Oh wow it is a lot to take in. I skimmed it really quick. Seems quite detailed.

 

[High Fidelity]

I feel like Christ didn't accept me when I was baptized as an infant and he would accept a "proper" baptism more. What do you think?

You cannot possibly affirm Christ as Lord as a baby.

It's weighing on your heart for a reason, brother.

 

[iwbswiaihl2]

In one sense I agree, which is why those who were baptized as infants usually have some sort of process of confirmation to publicly declare their faith once they reach some age of accountability, but in another sense, God has saved an entire household on the basis of the patriarch's faith. For example, it wasn't just Noah who was saved from the flood, but his entire household. And Lot and his entire household was spared the destruction of Sodom because of his uncle Abraham's faith. If God decided to do similarly with Christian households, it would not be inconsistent with his character.

But nevertheless this example does not mean they were not trusting the Lord just as Noah was or Lot. Nor does it mean they were granted salvation just because they got to go with daddy. After all, 4 families had to repopulate the earth again God also allowed all under the age of twenty to go through the wilderness wanderings but that was quickly shown that not all were saved and would go to heaven. For whosoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Its a personal commitment, I cannot make that decision for anyone other than myself. If anyone will come after Me, they must deny themselves and follow Me is what Jesus said.

 

[Neostarwcc]

You cannot possibly affirm Christ as Lord as a baby.

It's weighing on your heart for a reason, brother.

That is a good point and it was one of the reasons I wanted to get baptized again. But people have convinced me That's a bad/pointless idea.

 

[bekkilyn]

But nevertheless this example does not mean they were not trusting the Lord just as Noah was or Lot. Nor does it mean they were granted salvation just because they got to go with daddy. After all, 4 families had to repopulate the earth again God also allowed all under the age of twenty to go through the wilderness wanderings but that was quickly shown that not all were saved and would go to heaven. For whosoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Its a personal commitment, I cannot make that decision for anyone other than myself. If anyone will come after Me, they must deny themselves and follow Me is what Jesus said.

It just means that there is some precedence for the idea that God could implement if he chose. I certainly wouldn't suggest depending on it now in any case. Regardless of when (or even if) someone gets baptized, one would still need to make that personal commitment to Jesus. And if God should decide to extend his grace under any other conditions, well that would be a bonus!

 

[High Fidelity]

That is a good point and it was one of the reasons I wanted to get baptized again. But people have convinced me That's a bad/pointless idea.

It isn't pointless and it certainly isn't a bad idea.

Baptism is not required for salvation, but it is a matter of obedience to God.

It is weighing on your heart for good reason and it begs the question of what bad could come from it?

A baby cannot profess Christ. It's that simple.