toldailytopic: Infant baptism: what do you think of it?

elohiym

Well-known member
But this does not answer the question of whether infants can be legitimately baptized.

To answer that question you first have to start with scriptural origin of baptism. You have to first understand why the Jews did it and what their scriptural justification was for doing it. Ezekiel 36:25 isn't applicable to infants who have no knowledge of good and evil, and that verse is part of the scriptural basis for water baptism and is a prophecy about the water baptism of John.
 

zippy2006

New member
To answer that question you first have to start with scriptural origin of baptism. You have to first understand why the Jews did it and what their scriptural justification was for doing it. Ezekiel 36:25 isn't applicable to infants who have no knowledge of good and evil, and that verse is part of the scriptural basis for water baptism and is a prophecy about the water baptism of John.

Why do you think the verse is not applicable to infants? Baptism in orthodox Christianity revolves around original sin.
 

elohiym

Well-known member
Why do you think the verse is not applicable to infants? Baptism in orthodox Christianity revolves around original sin.

Original sin is perceptual and based on having a knowledge of good and evil (Ge 3:7 et al.). Infants do not have that knowledge (Deut 1:39). The children of those born of God are conceived holy and have no need to be washed from original sin (1Co 7:14).
 

zippy2006

New member
and that verse is part of the scriptural basis for water baptism and is a prophecy about the water baptism of John.

Christian baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is different from John's baptism:


But above all must be considered the baptism of St. John the Precursor. John baptized with water (Mark 1) and it was a baptism of penance for the remission of sins (Luke 3). While, then, the symbolism of the sacrament instituted by Christ was not new, the efficacy which He joined to the rite is that which differentiates it from all its types. John's baptism did not produce grace, as he himself testifies (Matthew 3) when he declares that he is not the Messias whose baptism is to confer the Holy Ghost. Moreover, it was not John's baptism that remitted sin, but the penance that accompanied it; and hence St. Augustine calls it (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book V) "a remission of sins in hope". As to the nature of the Precursor's baptism, St. Thomas (III.38.1) declares: The baptism of John was not a sacrament of itself, but a certain sacramental as it were, preparing the way (disponens) for the baptism of Christ." Durandus calls it a sacrament, indeed, but of the Old Law, and St. Bonaventure places it as a medium between the Old and New Dispensations. It is of Catholic faith that the Precursor's baptism was essentially different in its effects from the baptism of Christ, It is also to be noted that those who had previously received John's baptism had to receive later the Christian baptism (Acts 19).




Original sin is perceptual and based on having a knowledge of good and evil (Ge 3:7 et al.). Infants do not have that knowledge (Deut 1:39). The children of those born of God are conceived holy and have no need to be washed from original sin (1Co 7:14).

Original sin is not perceptual, it is a lack (of grace) in our very nature.

:e4e:
 

PureX

Well-known member
The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for December 5th, 2011 10:22 AM


toldailytopic: Infant baptism: what do you think of it?

I think we should just drown the little buggers and send 'em right strait to heaven!

guitarist.gif
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
Twice in Acts, once in 1 Corinthians, it is said that entire households were baptized. Babies were certainly baptized in the early Church, there is a historical record of it.

But do we know if infants were in those households? :D
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
There is no record of an infant being baptised in the Bible.

And there is no record that they were not. There is a record of infant baptisms in the very Early Church, and from that historical record on to today. And, the liturgy is very much the same as that outlined by the historical record.

Our church dedicates babies. Parents or parent works with the pastor and it is usually that they go up front and maybe give a verse that is important to them as an adult Christian in charge of their family and then the pastor says a prayer and includes the congregation to remind us if we would also pray for that child's faith journey. The church is a family. We never use water to dedicate babies.

I think that is a very nice tradition in your church. I would respectfully point out that if you hold to the "no tradition of man" in your church, that this would fall in that category. I have no problem with tradition, the church is built on it equally with scripture, following Paul's admonition to follow the traditions he himself had left to them. I would also respectfully point out that a baby dedication is a faint echo of infant baptism.
 

elohiym

Well-known member
Christian baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is different from John's baptism:

Water baptism started with the ministry of John in fulfillment of Ezekiel 36:25. The water baptism that Jesus and his Apostles continue is the same water baptism in fulfillment of Ezekiel 36:25. It is a ritual to take away all uncleanness, to sanctify ritually. The water of baptism is symbolic of God's Spirit, which is what cleanses us, the Life in the blood of Christ. Babies have no sin (that is our fundamental disagreement, in my opinion). Therefore, without having to debate the place of water baptism in Christianity today in general, we can know that infant baptist can serve no purpose and is virtually meaningless.

Original sin is not perceptual, it is a lack (of grace) in our very nature.

It is self-evident that it is only a perception of the lack of grace caused by nurture, and that God extended grace to all men when he gave His only begotten Son for all men. Everyone has been given God's grace; one only need perceive that (faith).
 

zippy2006

New member
Water baptism started with the ministry of John in fulfillment of Ezekiel 36:25. The water baptism that Jesus and his Apostles continue is the same water baptism in fulfillment of Ezekiel 36:25. It is a ritual to take away all uncleanness, to sanctify ritually. The water of baptism is symbolic of God's Spirit, which is what cleanses us, the Life in the blood of Christ. Babies have no sin (that is our fundamental disagreement, in my opinion). Therefore, without having to debate the place of water baptism in Christianity today in general, we can know that infant baptist can serve no purpose and is virtually meaningless.

Some of that is right, a lot of it is wrong (e.g. original sin is not the same as personal sin, that is just a misunderstanding). It can all be meted out via the article I gave. I can't get into a long discussion here.

It is self-evident that it is only a perception of the lack of grace caused by nurture

That is not self evident and has never been taught by orthodox Christianity.

:e4e:
 

sky.

BANNED
Banned
And there is no record that they were not. There is a record of infant baptisms in the very Early Church, and from that historical record on to today. And, the liturgy is very much the same as that outlined by the historical record.

The historical record I use is the Bible. It isn't in there.

I think that is a very nice tradition in your church. I would respectfully point out that if you hold to the "no tradition of man" in your church, that this would fall in that category. I have no problem with tradition, the church is built on it equally with scripture, following Paul's admonition to follow the traditions he himself had left to them. I would also respectfully point out that a baby dedication is a faint echo of infant baptism.

Yes it's a tradition and I like it. If they ever turned it into a doctrine it would turn it into a false teaching.

Is infant baptism a doctrine of the Catholic denomination?
I admit I don't know if it is or isn't a doctrine in the Catholic denomination.
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
The historical record I use is the Bible. It isn't in there.

We are not limited to the Bible. :)
Yes it's a tradition and I like it. If they ever turned it into a doctrine it would turn it into a false teaching.

Well, if the tradition isn't a problem for you, you're not in the group which eschews all traditions of men, and that's fine. It's not our tradition, of course.

Is infant baptism a doctrine of the Catholic denomination?
I admit I don't know if it is or isn't a doctrine in the Catholic denomination.

Absolutely.
 

chickenman

a-atheist
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Infant water baptism makes about as much sense as adult water baptism during this dispensation of grace.
 
Top