A talk about infant baptism....

[Velo Princesse]

All those interested, discuss it here. Lets keep the 90 Days thread clear of this topic. Thanks :)

Randi

[gitlance]

Sure Christ taught by example...but even Christ couldn't talk when He was a little baby. He couldn't say "Excuse me grown ups...baptise me as an infant" nor could He do it Himself ;) So yes, He didn't teach infant baptism by example and that could be because He didn't want it done but it could equally be because being an infant Himself and He couldn't teach anything, let alone infant baptism, at that time.

Though according to Cyprian, a newly conceived Jesus baptized John in the Holy Spirit through his Mother's womb...

[Nice Dream]

"JESUS was a jew and did not have original sin. He was circimcized on the 12th day as the law required. HE was confirmed at HIS baptism. "

The thing is Jesus didn't need to be baptized at all. So why was he doing it? To teach by example.



"Sure Christ taught by example...but even Christ couldn't talk when He was a little baby. He couldn't say "Excuse me grown ups...baptise me as an infant" nor could He do it Himself ;) So yes, He didn't teach infant baptism by example and that could be because He didn't want it done but it could equally be because being an infant Himself and He couldn't teach anything, let alone infant baptism, at that time."

If it was the Father's will i'm sure he could have told Mary what needed to be done .

[Finella]

[font=Arial][size=2][color=black]"JESUS was a jew and did not have original sin. He was circimcized on the 12th day as the law required. HE was confirmed at HIS baptism. "

Uhhhh....

But don't we all, as humans, have original sin? Oh, wait.... I misread this. I thought you were saying Jesus didn't have original sin because he was a Jew.

My bad.

Nothing to see here, go back to your regularly scheduled posting. :blush:

[Velo Princesse]

If it was the Father's will i'm sure he could have told Mary what needed to be done .

I have a theory that infant baptism is more for the comfort of the parents than for the salvation of the baby. That is, however just a theory. Another is that infant baptism is just another reason to eat cake... Hey... maybe I should get my kids baptized!

Anyway, back to my original statement... My priest spoke about this on Sunday. Basically, the impression I got from him was that we are unsure what the age of accountability is and infant baptism is a sort of safe guard... like if your six year old dies you can have the comfort of knowing they were baptized already and pray that that means something. He also seemed to imply that people baptized as infants could still get baptized as adults at an age of consent w/out it being a re-baptism. I might be getting everything he said totally wrong, but I'm pretty sure that was it.

Randi

[Fish and Bread]

The thing is Jesus didn't need to be baptized at all. So why was he doing it? To teach by example.

If Jesus had been baptised as an infant, it would have been by Mary, very few people would have known about it until the Gospel of Luke came out. :) I think it was down later for several reasons:

1. It was a very public event, thus making it very clear that baptism was something that should be undertaken by all Christians.

2. The dove could descend upon Jesus, showing that he was the King of the Jews and had the Holy Spirit (The dove is both a symbol of Israel and the Spirit of God). If he had been an infant, I somehow can't imagine that there'd have been a dove. :)

3. It was done at a time where John the Baptist could perform it, those symbolizing this important prophet's recognition of Jesus as the Messiah. :)

It also is worth keeping in mind that since Jesus was sinless, it wasn't technically necessary that he be baptised anyhow, so it wasn't a problem for him to wait. :)

John

[Fish and Bread]

Also, to me, the bottom line on this baptism issue is that, aside from converts, all Christians were baptised as infants for at least a thousand years. Since baptism is the way one joins the Church and Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church, it follows that infant baptisms must be valid in God's eyes or else there would have been no Church for 1,000 years; which would in turn mean that the gates of hell had prevailed and that Jesus was mistaken. So, that's, above any other reason, to me the most important evidence of the validity of infant baptism.

John

[Nice Dream]

If Jesus had been baptised as an infant, it would have been by Mary, very few people would have known about it until the Gospel of Luke came out. :) I think it was down later for several reasons:

3. It was done at a time where John the Baptist could perform it, those symbolizing this important prophet's recognition of Jesus as the Messiah. :)

It also is worth keeping in mind that since Jesus was sinless, it wasn't technically necessary that he be baptised anyhow, so it wasn't a problem for him to wait. :)

John

If God wanted John the Baptist to perform it when Jesus was an infant. John the Baptist would have been born much earlier than he was so he could.

Forgiveness of sin doesn't come from baptism. It's an outward show of the inward change in a person.

[Nice Dream]

Also, to me, the bottom line on this baptism issue is that, aside from converts, all Christians were baptised as infants for at least a thousand years. Since baptism is the way one joins the Church and Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church, it follows that infant baptisms must be valid in God's eyes or else there would have been no Church for 1,000 years; which would in turn mean that the gates of hell had prevailed and that Jesus was mistaken. So, that's, above any other reason, to me the most important evidence of the validity of infant baptism.

John

How do you know that the church has always taught infant Baptism?

[Fish and Bread]

If God wanted John the Baptist to perform it when Jesus was an infant. John the Baptist would have been born much earlier than he was so he could.

In the Gospel of Luke, it says that John lept in his mother's womb when Elizabeth greeted Mary, who was pregnant with Jesus. So they were likely born fewer than nine months apart. :) I don't know much about early childhood development, but most nine-month olds can't even talk, let alone baptise, right?

Forgiveness of sin doesn't come from baptism. It's an outward show of the inward change in a person.

The Nicene Creed, written in 325AD, says "we believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin". It is an ancient belief affirmed by the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran churches. Even some Methodists may affirm it, though I'm not sure. I respect people's right to disagree, but personally I am very comfortable affirming the baptism forgives our sins. :)

John

[Nice Dream]

In the Gospel of Luke, it says that John lept in his mother's womb when Elizabeth greeted Mary, who was pregnant with Jesus. So they were likely born fewer than nine months apart. :) I don't know much about early childhood development, but most nine-month olds can't even talk, let alone baptise, right?



The Nicene Creed, written in 325AD, says "we believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin". It is an ancient belief affirmed by the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran churches. Even some Methodists may affirm it, though I'm not sure. I respect people's right to disagree, but personally I am very comfortable affirming the baptism forgives our sins. :)

John

I meant that God could have made John be born much earlier than Jesus in the sense that he could have decided that John be born 30 years before Jesus for example if it was his will.

Who says the one baptism is infant baptism? The baptism for forgiveness of sin is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, not water baptism. There are instances where someone gets baptized in the Holy Spirit before water baptism.

[Fish and Bread]

How do you know that the church has always taught infant Baptism?

Here are some quotes from an article on the subject of infant baptism from the Eastern Orthodox perspective:



Polycarp stated at his martyrdom (167/8 A.D.) that he had been in the "service of Christ" for eighty-six years. Other recorded dates from Polycarp's life make it likely that eighty-six years was his age from birth. Jaochim Jeremias, in The Origins of Infant Baptism, concludes the following from these facts: "This shows at any rate that his parents were already Christians, or at least were converted quite soon after his birth. His parents were pagans at his birth, he would have been baptized with the 'house' at their conversion. But even if his parents were Christians, the words 'service of Christ for eighty-six years' supports a baptism soon after his birth rather than one as a child of 'mature years' ... for which there is no evidence at all."


Jeremias supposes something similar for Polycrates of Ephesus. In 190/91, when writing to Rome concerning the dispute over Easter, Polycrates states that he is "sixty five years in the Lord." Since this reference to his age is made "because of his concern for his long unimpeachable Christian standing," Jeremias postulates that his baptism "took place soon after birth, rather than that there was an age limit for baptism."


Justin Martyr gives still another testimony to the practice of infant baptism by stating that many old men and women of sixty and seventy years of age had been disciples of Christ from childhood.


No incident is recorded in the earliest of Christian history which gives evidence that baptism was forbidden to any person on the basis of an age limit, or that the right of a Christian parent to have his children baptized had ever been challenged or renounced.


Although several examples exist from the third century of the children of Christians being baptized as infants, in all of the literature and collections of inscriptions from that century there is not a single example of Christian parents delaying the baptism of their children.


Neither the Ebionites, Novatians, Arians, Donatists, Montanists, nor any other early heresy refuted infant baptism; many were even noted as practicing it.


A significant parallel exists between Jewish proselyte baptism (when pagans were converted to Judaism) and early Christian baptism. The contacts between early Christian baptism and proselyte baptism, with the similarities in terminology, interpretation, symbolism, and the rite itself, are especially notable. What is of greatest interest, however, is that the baptism of the early Church followed that of proselyte baptism, in which children and infants were baptized with the convert's family. This is especially significant when one realizes that the very early Church was made up primarily of converted Jews.


There is no evidence that anyone being against infant baptism in the early Church on the grounds that you must first "believe" and be baptized. Tertulian (160 230 A.D.), was the only one who questioned infant baptism. The bulk of his objection, however, was due to his heresy that sin after baptism was almost unforgivable.


Cyprian, a leading bishop of North Africa, convened a synod of sixty-six bishops at Carthage to discuss whether or not they felt that infant baptism should be delayed until the eighth day after birth instead of the usual second or third day. Their unanimous decision upheld the universally accepted practice which they had always followed.


The complete article may be found at:
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7067.asp

John

[Nice Dream]

None of these examples prove that infant baptism has always been taught, there are a lot of 'likely's' and 'supposedly's' in there

[Fish and Bread]

I meant that God could have made John be born much earlier than Jesus in the sense that he could have decided that John be born 30 years before Jesus for example if it was his will.

That true. It might have messed up the rest of God's plan, though. I'm assuming that a lot of these events and happenings are a little like a jigsaw puzzle in that they all needed to occur in exactly the way they occurred or the picture wouldn't have come together nearly as perfectly as it did. :)

Who says the one baptism is infant baptism?

Well, my view is that baptism may occur at any age, in infancy or adulthood. That's also the view of most of the churches which do infant baptism. Baptism as soon as possible is preferable, but adult baptisms can and do occur for converts and, at least with the Anglican church, we also accept all adult baptisms done by other churches which have the same understanding of the trinity that we have and which are performed with water and done "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". :) The young lady I am dated, for example, was baptised in a Baptist church and transferred to the Episcopal Church without having to be baptised again, since ECUSA said her initial baptism counted. :)

The baptism for forgiveness of sin is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, not water baptism. There are instances where someone gets baptized in the Holy Spirit before water baptism.

The Holy Spirit can sometimes work in the unbaptised, as it did for many in the Old Testament. One of the advantages of being Christian, though, is that for us baptism provides for the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit and not just a temporary indwelling. :)

John

[Fish and Bread]

None of these examples prove that infant baptism has always been taught, there are a lot of 'likely's' and 'supposedly's' in there

That's true. I'll freely admit that I can't prove that infant baptisms have always been done. That's why some denominations do them and others do not, because arguments can be made both ways. I think the best evidence we have is that infant baptisms are a long standing practice dating back to the early church, though. We know, certainly, that they were the stand practice of the entire church prior to the Reformation, so if they weren't valid, the Church would have temporarily ceased to exist, meaning that the gates of hell would have prevailed, right?

John

[Nice Dream]

The Holy Spirit can sometimes work in the unbaptised, as it did for many in the Old Testament. One of the advantages of being Christian, though, is that for us baptism provides for the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit and not just a temporary indwelling. :)

John

But the Holy Spirit sometimes doesn't come upon a person immediately after being baptized (i'm sure there's an instance of this in the bible) so water baptism is not essential to salvation, but is something we should do as we are told to as christians.

[Nice Dream]

That's true. I'll freely admit that I can't prove that infant baptisms have always been done. That's why some denominations do them and others do not, because arguments can be made both ways. I think the best evidence we have is that infant baptisms are a long standing practice dating back to the early church, though. We know, certainly, that they were the stand practice of the entire church prior to the Reformation, so if they weren't valid, the Church would have temporarily ceased to exist, meaning that the gates of hell would have prevailed, right?

John

No, just because the church doesn't get everything right doesn't mean that the gates of hell have prevailed.

[Fish and Bread]

But the Holy Spirit sometimes doesn't come upon a person immediately after being baptized (i'm sure there's an instance of this in the bible)

There's a passage in Acts of the Apostles where that happens, but it says that it occurred because they have only received "the baptism of John" (As opposed to the baptism of Jesus). Beyond that, I agree that the Holy Spirit isn't always active in people who have been baptised in an obvious way since they have free will to accept or reject it's proddings, and sometimes it even can fall asleep within them for a time, but it's there. :) In confirmation, hands are laid on the people making an adult profession of faith and we often ask the Holy Spirit to become more active in their lives.

John

[Fish and Bread]

No, just because the church doesn't get everything right doesn't mean that the gates of hell have prevailed.

That's true, it doesn't, but if the Church ever actually ceased to exist than the gates of hell would have prevailed. If baptism is required to join the Church, and infant baptism was the only baptism performed (except for a small number of adult converts) for a period of time in Christian circles (As was true for a time prior to the Reformation), then the Church would have had no members, since even the small number of adult baptisms would have likely been performed by people baptised by infants (And who would thus be non-members and incapable of doing a baptism). So, if infant baptisms weren't valid, and they were basically the only ones done, then there would have been no Church, and the gates of hell would have prevailed.

John

[erin74]

In the Gospel of Luke, it says that John lept in his mother's womb when Elizabeth greeted Mary, who was pregnant with Jesus. So they were likely born fewer than nine months apart. :) I don't know much about early childhood development, but most nine-month olds can't even talk, let alone baptise, right?



The Nicene Creed, written in 325AD, says "we believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin". It is an ancient belief affirmed by the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran churches. Even some Methodists may affirm it, though I'm not sure. I respect people's right to disagree, but personally I am very comfortable affirming the baptism forgives our sins. :)

John

Sorry John, I just need to make sure I've got you right on this.

Does this mean that I we get a large firefighting helicopter and fly over all the primary schools at lunchtime, and baptise them, they will be saved?

Are you actually saying the act of baptism saves?

[marciebaby]

I was reading "The History of Christianity" by Kenneth Scott Latourette. I got the impression that in the first few centuries of church history that the church leaders were pretty divided about this subject.

[Lel]

I was reading "The History of Christianity" by Kenneth Scott Latourette. I got the impression that in the first few centuries of church history that the church leaders were pretty divided about this subject.

Adult/infant baptism or the method by which humans are redeemed (baptism by water/baptism by Holy Spirit/salvation/other)?

[gitlance]

Jesus' baptism is unique in this aspect: we, in our baptisms, are made pure in the eyes of God and are adopted into the Church.

Jesus, in His wading into the river for baptism, made the very waters themselves pure, so that we might partake of those pure waters and be brought into the Church through His merits.

Everything Christ touched has become holy.

[Naomi4Christ]

Here is what the Church of England says about baptism:

Click! (http://www.cofe.anglican.org/lifeevents/baptismconfirm/)

At our church, we do infant baptism for infants of believing parents; if parents are unsure about making the baptismal promises, they can opt for a thanksgiving instead and still have the big party.

We also do full immersion baptism for adults, but the water doesn't come from the River Jordan - it comes from the Thames via a few other places.

[Fish and Bread]

Here is what the Church of England says about baptism:

Click! (http://www.cofe.anglican.org/lifeevents/baptismconfirm/)

At our church, we do infant baptism for infants of believing parents; if parents are unsure about making the baptismal promises, they can opt for a thanksgiving instead and still have the big party.

We also do full immersion baptism for adults, but the water doesn't come from the River Jordan - it comes from the Thames via a few other places.

For the most part, this is a good document, but the fact that they don't mention that baptism is "for the forgiveness of sins" anywhere in the entire document is a glaring ommision, given that the early Church found it important enough to mention that fact in the Nicene Creed! :)

I also would quibble with their mention that they say the baptism is free, but an adminstration fee may be charged. I guess if they do sometimes charge a fee, they should mention it, but my issue with it is that a) It's stupid to say something is free except for an adminstration fee. If there's an adminstration fee, it isn't free and b) There shouldn't be a fee charged for the adminstration of the sacraments in the first place. The sacraments being free was a settled issue very early in Christian history. The fact that we're regressing now and charging "adminstration fees" in some instances is really disturbing to me. The fact that they do similar things with weddings (Another sacrament) also drives me nuts. Of course a hefty voluntary donation from those who can afford it when a service is performed for them can be a good thing, but God doesn't charge for grace and neither should the Church! Fortuantely, this practice isn't widespread, but the fact that it exists at all makes me want to turn over a few money changing tables.

John

[erin74]

see I thought the "one baptism for the remission of sins" was about the baptism by the holy spirit. The baptism we give is an external sign of the internal mystery - receipt of the holy spirit.

[Fish and Bread]

Sorry John, I just need to make sure I've got you right on this.

Does this mean that I we get a large firefighting helicopter and fly over all the primary schools at lunchtime, and baptise them, they will be saved?

Are you actually saying the act of baptism saves?

Baptism combined with faith does save, at least according to the bible. :) One who is at the proper age must consent to be baptised, though -- baptism against one's will would not to my way of thinking be an acceptable practice. :)

John

[erin74]

so then infants are not saved by being are baptised, cause that's what I thought you were saying there. I just wanted to be clear on the matter.

[Fish and Bread]

so then infants are not saved by being are baptised, cause that's what I thought you were saying there. I just wanted to be clear on the matter.

Imagine a checklist:


Salvation


__ Baptism
__ Faith




Though you may check off those two things in any order, the biblical path to salvation involves checking off both at some point, in my view (Though people who have faith and don't have the opportunity to be baptised with water and spirit are probably baptised with spirit by God, which I'd imagine is close enough. :)). :) God may choose to save people who only check off one or don't check off either, though. He's God and can thus do whatever he wants. :) Personally, I'd like to see everyone who wants to go to heaven be saved and I think there is a very real possibility that it may happen. :)

John

[karen freeinchristman]

Can I be really stupid and ask what does it mean to be baptised in the Holy Spirit? I have heard people say this a lot, and I don't know what it means! :confused:

[higgs2]

But the Holy Spirit sometimes doesn't come upon a person immediately after being baptized (i'm sure there's an instance of this in the bible) so water baptism is not essential to salvation, but is something we should do as we are told to as christians.
Given the fact that according to your profile you are a Baptist, it is not surprising that you disagree with standard Anglican teaching on infant baptism. Are you having a hard time understanding it? or do you simply not agree?

[erin74]

Can I be really stupid and ask what does it mean to be baptised in the Holy Spirit? I have heard people say this a lot, and I don't know what it means! :confused:

I am assuming it means when we receive the holy spirit. Part of becoming a christian.

Imagine a checklist:


Salvation


__ Baptism
__ Faith




Though you may check off those two things in any order, the biblical path to salvation involves checking off both at some point, in my view (Though people who have faith and don't have the opportunity to be baptised with water and spirit are probably baptised with spirit by God, which I'd imagine is close enough. :)). :) God may choose to save people who only check off one or don't check off either, though. He's God and can thus do whatever he wants. :) Personally, I'd like to see everyone who wants to go to heaven be saved and I think there is a very real possibility that it may happen. :)

John



The thing is.... if baptism is part of salvation then it goes against the bible's teachign that we all we need is faith......

I think baptism is somethign we should do... but I don't think it is part of salvation - as you said there are people who God saves who aren't baptised.

Now God is a just God and a righteous God. If he says you have to be baptised or salvation doesn't work then he can't very well back down on that. Otherwise it compromises his justice and rightesousness. But he is a merciful God. He made a way for us to be right with him that satisfies his righteosness - and that was by sending christ to die. If faith isn't enough, then it implies that christ's death was not sufficient. If we need baptism, then christ's death was not sufficient, and the guy next to Jesus on teh cross is not saved - there's no way he can be baptised.

You can't just say God is God - he'll sort it out. God doesn't work like that. He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. If he has somethign that must be satisfied then it must be satisfied or He isn't the same, and isn't just and isn't righteous.

Jesus death was sufficient, and to say that we need anythign more than the faith he has given us is a slap in the face to God. Baptism is a matter of obedience - we do it to symbolise receiving the holy spirit (and yet there is more to it), but it does not have the power to save. I think it is something far more complicated than what some make out (ie it is more than just a symbol), but at the same time, it is not a salvation requirement.

sorry to get carried away...

erin

[karen freeinchristman]

The baptism for forgiveness of sin is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, not water baptism. There are instances where someone gets baptized in the Holy Spirit before water baptism.

This is one of the quotes I am referring to when I asked the question, "what is baptism of the Holy Spirit", when clearly Nice Dream is seeming to say that it is different from "water baptism". I have a friend (an Anglican), who says that she was baptised in the Holy Spirit, that it is different in some way, but I haven't had the chance to ask her how it is different. :scratch:

[Nice Dream]

That's true, it doesn't, but if the Church ever actually ceased to exist than the gates of hell would have prevailed. If baptism is required to join the Church, and infant baptism was the only baptism performed (except for a small number of adult converts) for a period of time in Christian circles (As was true for a time prior to the Reformation), then the Church would have had no members, since even the small number of adult baptisms would have likely been performed by people baptised by infants (And who would thus be non-members and incapable of doing a baptism). So, if infant baptisms weren't valid, and they were basically the only ones done, then there would have been no Church, and the gates of hell would have prevailed.

John

See i don't believe baptism(with water) is essential for salvation. Look for example at the theif on the cross, did he recieve a water baptism? No, but he was saved through the grace of God, and when one recieves salvation from God they get baptized in the Holy Spirit. Look at John the baptist i'm sure he said to Jesus "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" Now why would he say this if baptism by water was the baptism required for salvation?

[Nice Dream]

This is one of the quotes I am referring to when I asked the question, "what is baptism of the Holy Spirit", when clearly Nice Dream is seeming to say that it is different from "water baptism". I have a friend (an Anglican), who says that she was baptised in the Holy Spirit, that it is different in some way, but I haven't had the chance to ask her how it is different. :scratch:

Baptism in the Holy Spirit is the gift which God gives when a person is saved. The Holy Spirit is the Helper God gives to guide a Christian and through this baptism Christians recieve many spiritual gifts such as prophecy for example whereas baptism by water is an outward show of an inward change in a person. Going under the water represents dying to the flesh and coming up represents a new life in Christ. It also represents that one believes in Jesus life, death and ressurection.

[Nice Dream]

Given the fact that according to your profile you are a Baptist, it is not surprising that you disagree with standard Anglican teaching on infant baptism. Are you having a hard time understanding it? or do you simply not agree?

I simply don't agree with infant baptism. From what i understand an infant is baptised and washed clean of all original sin from this baptism, then if later in life that same child wants to make the personal decision to accept Christ they have confirmation which is a sort of outward show of an inner change. I have one question though... probably a touchy one... what about the infants that don't recieve baptism, do they go to hell? Personally i believe in an age of accountability, and that all infants under that age go to heaven, i think in most baptist churches that would be around the age of 13.

[gtsecc]

Erin and NiceDreams,



The Church upholds the faith and teachings. The Bible is one of those teachings. You can just have sacramental teachings or just take the Bible – they go together. You will never find the whole Bible from the sacraments, and likewise you may not get a full understanding of the sacraments from the Bible. In the reformation, people faced with a corrupt church found all of their authority in the bible. In addition, they became concerned with the absolutes, and the minimums of the faith. While infant baptism is possibly mentioned in the Bible when whole families are baptized, you can’t get the entire teaching from it. We can look to the undivided church’s teaching and gain knowledge. And, since Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox agree, we know it is not a corrupt teaching. Also, we have writings on Baptism from the Apostles, like the Didache, and thousands of writings predating the corrupt medieval Roman Catholic Church. We thankfully don’t have to do “Bible only.”

[Nice Dream]

Erin and NiceDreams,



The Church upholds the faith and teachings. The Bible is one of those teachings. You can just have sacramental teachings or just take the Bible – they go together. You will never find the whole Bible from the sacraments, and likewise you may not get a full understanding of the sacraments from the Bible. In the reformation, people faced with a corrupt church found all of their authority in the bible. In addition, they became concerned with the absolutes, and the minimums of the faith. While infant baptism is possibly mentioned in the Bible when whole families are baptized, you can’t get the entire teaching from it. We can look to the undivided church’s teaching and gain knowledge. And, since Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox agree, we know it is not a corrupt teaching. Also, we have writings on Baptism from the Apostles, like the Didache, and thousands of writings predating the corrupt medieval Roman Catholic Church. We thankfully don’t have to do “Bible only.”

I just don't see how it follows that because 4 denominations agree then it must be correct.

[gtsecc]

I just don't see how it follows that because 4 denominations agree then it must be correct.

Well, it means that Christians have always bnelieved this.
Even when they disagreed on things and split apart, they still agreed on this because it is a core belief that has never been questioned.

Some denominations question it, but they have come up with a new teaching, and one that has not been embraced by any of the denominations which hold traditional teachings. They did this as a reaction to a corrupt midevil Roman Catholic Church - with no access to the Eastern Orthodox. We now have access to the EO, and the corrupt RC Chuch no longer exists. Nontheless, some denominations are clearly still preaching and teachign as though they are still fighting it.

[Nice Dream]

I have another question which isn't really linked to the topic: Do Anglicans believe in purgatory?

[gtsecc]

I have another question which isn't really linked to the topic: Do Anglicans believe in purgatory?
Start a new thread

[Nice Dream]

Well, it means that Christians have always bnelieved this.
Even when they disagreed on things and split apart, they still agreed on this because it is a core belief that has never been questioned.

Some denominations question it, but they have come up with a new teaching, and one that has not been embraced by any of the denominations which hold traditional teachings. They did this as a reaction to a corrupt midevil Roman Catholic Church - with no access to the Eastern Orthodox. We now have access to the EO, and the corrupt RC Chuch no longer exists. Nontheless, some denominations are clearly still preaching and teachign as though they are still fighting it.

There is no proof this has always been a teaching. There are elements of evidence from both arguements but no proof.

[leia]

I have a theory that infant baptism is more for the comfort of the parents than for the salvation of the baby. That is, however just a theory. Another is that infant baptism is just another reason to eat cake... Hey... maybe I should get my kids baptized!

Anyway, back to my original statement... My priest spoke about this on Sunday. Basically, the impression I got from him was that we are unsure what the age of accountability is and infant baptism is a sort of safe guard... like if your six year old dies you can have the comfort of knowing they were baptized already and pray that that means something. He also seemed to imply that people baptized as infants could still get baptized as adults at an age of consent w/out it being a re-baptism. I might be getting everything he said totally wrong, but I'm pretty sure that was it.

Randi

This is the basic view of all the Catholics I've talked to. It is the "be sure" doctrine. In the Baptist church I go to, we do a dedication and state we will help the parents and the parents agree to raise the child in Christ, but no water is used. Once for all time and first repentence then baptism.

I am a little confused about the whole Jesus teaching by example thing. Ya know....if He was too young to tell the adults, or if Mary did it herself (why not Joseph - he was Mary's "headship"?), why through the next however many years of His dealing with children didn't he say anything about baptising children or the children of the converts? Why didn't the apostles? There was no teaching by example in this. They all had alot of years to do at least ONE if they had felt the need to. All the rest of the examples He and the Apostles gave us was when they were older, why was that one never done?

leia

[gtsecc]

There is no proof this has always been a teaching. There are elements of evidence from both arguements but no proof.
We don't have video tapes of infants being baptised from the 1st century.
Even if we did, someone could suggest they were computer graphics. What we do have is volumes of writings specifically about infant baptism. What more do you want?

[gtsecc]

This is the basic view of all the Catholics I've talked to. It is the "be sure" doctrine. In the Baptist church I go to, we do a dedication and state we will help the parents and the parents agree to raise the child in Christ, but no water is used. Once for all time and first repentence then baptism.

I am a little confused about the whole Jesus teaching by example thing. Ya know....if He was too young to tell the adults, or if Mary did it herself (why not Joseph - he was Mary's "headship"?), why through the next however many years of His dealing with children didn't he say anything about baptising children or the children of the converts? Why didn't the apostles? There was no teaching by example in this. They all had alot of years to do at least ONE if they had felt the need to. All the rest of the examples He and the Apostles gave us was when they were older, why was that one never done?

leia

Well, you are looking for sacramental rubrics in the Bible - which wouldn't contain those sort of things. We do have the Didache, written by the Apostles, which does contain the sacramental instruction.

[Nice Dream]

We don't have video tapes of infants being baptised from the 1st century.
Even if we did, someone could suggest they were computer graphics. What we do have is volumes of writings specifically about infant baptism. What more do you want?

I haven't seen these writings. Earlier in the thread someone posted some examples to make this point but a lot of it was guesswork and the word 'likely' was used a lot. I mean it was more opinionated rather than factual.

[gtsecc]

I haven't seen these writings.

Ok, google "didache," "Ireneaus," and "Justin Martyr" for examples.

[Nice Dream]

I'll look these up later, i have to go now, but it has been interesting discussing it.

[Naomi4Christ]

I was reading "The History of Christianity" by Kenneth Scott Latourette. I got the impression that in the first few centuries of church history that the church leaders were pretty divided about this subject.

Nothing's changed then :D

[Naomi4Christ]

sorry to get carried away...

I'm glad you got carried away :)

[Fish and Bread]

See i don't believe baptism(with water) is essential for salvation. Look for example at the theif on the cross, did he recieve a water baptism? No, but he was saved through the grace of God, and when one recieves salvation from God they get baptized in the Holy Spirit. Look at John the baptist i'm sure he said to Jesus "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" Now why would he say this if baptism by water was the baptism required for salvation?

I suppose baptism isn't technically an absolute strict requirement for salvation. Based on scripture, though, it certain seems to be something Jesus wanted us to do and to have some relationship to salvation (The scripture says that those who believe and are baptised will be saved -- I assume baptised is there for a reason and not just a fun bonus word ;)). Either of those reason alone mean it's probably worth getting done and both of them together make it a no-brainer. Add to that the tradition of the Christian Church that it offers us the amazing grace of the forgiveness of sins and it becomes even more a desireable thing! :) A little water never heart anyone, so it's not like it's a big cross to carry or anything. :)

John

[erin74]

Erin and NiceDreams,



The Church upholds the faith and teachings. The Bible is one of those teachings. You can just have sacramental teachings or just take the Bible – they go together. You will never find the whole Bible from the sacraments, and likewise you may not get a full understanding of the sacraments from the Bible. In the reformation, people faced with a corrupt church found all of their authority in the bible. In addition, they became concerned with the absolutes, and the minimums of the faith. While infant baptism is possibly mentioned in the Bible when whole families are baptized, you can’t get the entire teaching from it. We can look to the undivided church’s teaching and gain knowledge. And, since Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox agree, we know it is not a corrupt teaching. Also, we have writings on Baptism from the Apostles, like the Didache, and thousands of writings predating the corrupt medieval Roman Catholic Church. We thankfully don’t have to do “Bible only.”

2 Tim 3:14-17
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it,15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

If the scritptures are able to make us wise for salavation - really we don't need anything else. So yes I can rely on the scriptures for this even by your definition - we are talking about a salvation issue.

[erin74]

I suppose baptism isn't technically an absolute strict requirement for salvation. Based on scripture, though, it certain seems to be something Jesus wanted us to do and to have some relationship to salvation (The scripture says that those who believe and are baptised will be saved -- I assume baptised is there for a reason and not just a fun bonus word ;)). Either of those reason alone mean it's probably worth getting done and both of them together make it a no-brainer. Add to that the tradition of the Christian Church that it offers us the amazing grace of the forgiveness of sins and it becomes even more a desireable thing! :) A little water never heart anyone, so it's not like it's a big cross to carry or anything. :)

John

Yes John, like I said. I think it is an obedience issue, but not a salvation one. However, I think the bible shows us that there is more to baptism than a symbol as some might say. I haven't quite nutted it all out yet, but there is definitely more to it. That is why I say obedience issue.

As to whether it should be infants, I am currently torn on this one.

While I can see whole families were baptised, there is nothing to suggest this did or didn't include children. Certainly it's not surprising that the vast majority of people baptised in Acts are adults - Christ had only just been ressurected - they couldn't possibly have been baptised as infants! The fact that so many jews were baptised by John the Baptist was a miracle in itself I think.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's wrong to have children baptised, but as the commands to baptise in teh bible are so frequently linked with statements of faith, it is kinda hard to know where to go on this one.

I actually think the role of godparents is such a helpful one that it alone was worth having my kids baptised for. DH had godparents who were actually christian, although his family did not continue in faith. They were such an encouragement to him growing up, and to us as a young married couple, that we want that for our kids. We want people who will look out for our kids faith no matter what happens to us or our faith.

DH and I have been talking about it a bit.... he's now inspired to look into it a bit further... A few interesting chats ahead of us I think. I looked into it early on in my time here at CF, but not recently. I keep coming back to it though.

[Naomi4Christ]

I've changed my views on infant baptism over the years (I think!), or perhaps just following the lead of some members of my church family. My first three have been baptised but the younger two haven't and will take themselves to baptism, DV, when they are teenagers. Phew - that's 6 GPs that I don't have to find!

[Simon_Templar]

This was a hot topic for me when I started considering Orthodox/Catholicism/Anglicanism...

My dad (who was also my pastor) became a christian as a Lutheran and he specificly left the Lutheran church over the issue of infant baptism and the issue of what occurs in baptism. Another friend of mine who I brought into our old church has luthern in laws who strongly pressured him to get his kids baptized when they were born. He came to me, my dad, and my brother to ask our thoughts on the issue and if he should give in (none of us believed in infant baptism at the time).
We decided to take a week and look through the scriptures and then come back together and discuss the issue. I, being me, took up the cause of infant baptism because none of us currently agreed with it and I knew that we all had plenty of reasons against it etc etc.
When we came back together I argued the side of infant baptism just to play the foil against the other point of view.. not maliciously but simply to make the discussion worth while and to make the anti infant baptism view be proven.

The first thing that this whole process accomplished for me was that in my study of scripture I was convinced that baptism is important and involved in the process of salvation. I had never believed this before, and I still don't believe that it is necessary in the sense that the unbaptized automaticly go to hell.. However I can not deny that scripture clearly undeniably and literaly links baptism to both the forgiveness of sins and the new birth experience. The conclusion I came to is that God has chosen, for whatever inscrutable reason to work through baptism as his normal means of giving salvation grace. Another aspect of this that was made plain in my study of scripture is that baptism was undeniably seen by the apostles as the method of joining the church. Baptism was what made a person part of the church in the new testament.

This of course has sparked a few real "in depth" conversations with my family :) (we're all irish blooded).

Now, through out this process I've been wavering on whether infant baptism is the right way of doing things or waiting for baptism until the person choses it for themselves. Right now I basicly allow for either one as acceptable.. but I am leaning towards infant baptism as preferable for the following reasons...

First, Paul clearly states that baptism in the church is connected conceptually to circumcision under the old covenant. In making this statement, Paul is saying that baptism, in part, fulfills the same role that circumcision did in the old covenant.
The role of circumcision was to mark a child (or a convert) as part of the nation of Israel and specificly as a descendant and part of Abraham's covenant with God. Circumcision was an outward sign of membership in the covenant (not the mosaic covenant but the abrahamic covenant). Paul says that baptism fulfills this same role.

That brings in two other points.
#1 Jesus was born under the old covenant (both mosaic and abrahamic) and as such he fulfilled the obligations and laws of those two covenants.. he was circumcised, dedicated etc. Those were things that marked him as part of the covenant promises God had made to Israel.
The "new covenant" had not begun yet, and would not begin until Jesus Ministry began. Remember that Jesus' ministry was entirely about proclaiming the coming Kingdom.. he was proclaiming the new covenant.. this is why his ministry began with what? with baptism. Jesus had no need of baptism, as John clearly recognized.. Jesus underwent baptism to institute baptism as the sign of entrance into the new covenant, and to inagurate his ministry of proclaiming the arrival of the kingdom of heaven.. the arrival of the new covenant.

#2 Jesus said let the children come to me (the word children used by Jesus does include infants in its meaning). Everything in scripture makes it clear that children are part of the covenant. Both in the old testament and in the new testament, children are always regarded as part of the covenant wether or not they themselves are capable of chosing to be a member... so what makes them members? Their parents do, in both old and new testament. Paul tells us that children are sanctified by the faith of their parents. Children are set apart to be members of the covenant by the faith of their parents. In the Old covenant this membership was marked by circumcision and dedication... Paul tells us that in the new covenant membership is marked by baptism.

The chief argument against infant baptism is that baptism is only effective when mixed with faith (very true) thus the person must be capable of faith in order to be baptized.. infants are not capable of faith, thus infants should not be baptized...

There are two large problems with this argument. First of all, the argument assumes implicitly that faith is dependant on mental capacity. People believe infants are not capable of faith ONLY because infants are not capable of understanding or comprehending the gospel. This makes faith simply a factor of the human intellect. It also creates huge problems for severly mentally handicapped people.

The second problem with this argument is that Paul has already told us that children are sanctified by the faith of their believing parents. The indication is that children are marked and are able to be marked as members of the covenant, and members of the faith based on the faith of their parents.

A third problem is at least one case in scripture in which a man was born again/saved and filled with the Holy Spirit before he was even born.. both of which according to the arguments against infant baptism depend upon the ability of the person to understand and "believe" the gospel.


Another problem for the anti infant baptism view is that it usualy depends upon the idea of an "age of accountability" which is itself very lacking in scriptural support. This age of accountability is largely assumed and has very little solid support from scripture that I've ever seen (and I grew up believing in it). The idea of the age of accountability again becomes tied up with mental capacity to understand (thus it can be stretched out to include the mentally handicapped as well).. but again there is nothing in scripture that indicates such an exemption exists.

[karen freeinchristman]

that was a really good argument for infant baptism, Simon! :thumbsup:

[higgs2]

I simply don't agree with infant baptism. From what i understand an infant is baptised and washed clean of all original sin from this baptism, then if later in life that same child wants to make the personal decision to accept Christ they have confirmation which is a sort of outward show of an inner change. I have one question though... probably a touchy one... what about the infants that don't recieve baptism, do they go to hell? Personally i believe in an age of accountability, and that all infants under that age go to heaven, i think in most baptist churches that would be around the age of 13.
An infant is baptised and becomes a member of the Body of Christ. It is an inclusive practice. My children are my brothers and sisters in Christ. It's not about "hell".

[Mysterium_Fidei]

A non-Baptized infant does not go to hell upon death. They are, as of yet, incapable of reason.

However, that infant is not yet a member of the Body of Christ and must be made so by Christ Himself. Much like John the Baptist in the womb, when Christ called him from Mary's.

[gtsecc]

When the heck did all this Bible only crap come into the Anglican faith?

From the BCP 1979

Q. How do we understand the meaning of the Bible?

A. We understand the meaning of the Bible by the help of

the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church in the true
interpretation of the Scriptures.

[leia]

I know the whole, "If we don't seek that we won't find" argument and I enjoy discovery as well. Debate and the road to getting there has to be half the fun because, lets face it, we are all just rearrainging chairs on a ship that is going down. Often just making people comfortable while it sinks is hearthealthy. This is not saying that we don't go and get others on the boat, I am speaking as though we are in a discussion Christian to Christian.

My question is, though, does it matter in the end, really? There have been members of my church who were baptised as a youth in vacation bible school and have been working for the church for thirty years and it finally dawns on them, "I'm not really saved!" Now whether they are getting baptised for the "first time" or whether "it took" the first time and they are simply reaching a hightened awareness of God .....does it matter?

I have to tell the Catholics here the cutest thing....my children...we have an above ground pool and they witnessed a baptism when they were very young and asked me to explain. We never once went into the pool without them both wanting to "be baptised" and more than once a day. It was ever so darling....does that make them over and over baptised? It is water, for heavens sake. Oh, I really ment each one, too. I was looking at it with the adult position of "God keep my children, really" and they knew it ment acceptance of a Lord they loved, at even such a tender age. Who was I NOT to?

leia

[erin74]

Thanks for that Simon - it is really good food for thought....

I think the covenant stuff is spot on. I had read that earlier in the year, so as I read your post it all came flooding back to me. It does make for a very convincing argument.

The age of accountability thing seems to come up whether you infant baptise or not though. I don't believe that infant baptism saves the child as such. Would I be right in assuming your thinking is the same? I think it is more about the parent sanctifying role. But again this leads to an age of accountability issue. When does the childs own faith come into play..... Are they saved simply til they reject otherwise..... I still have a lot to think through.

[Simon_Templar]

Thanks for that Simon - it is really good food for thought....

I think the covenant stuff is spot on. I had read that earlier in the year, so as I read your post it all came flooding back to me. It does make for a very convincing argument.

The age of accountability thing seems to come up whether you infant baptise or not though. I don't believe that infant baptism saves the child as such. Would I be right in assuming your thinking is the same? I think it is more about the parent sanctifying role. But again this leads to an age of accountability issue. When does the childs own faith come into play..... Are they saved simply til they reject otherwise..... I still have a lot to think through.


The explanation, as I understand it now, requires bringing in a couple of different issues, mainly the differing aspects of what our fallen state is and what we are being saved from. There are sins that we are guilty of because we have committed them, actions we have taken that have broken God's law.
Then on top of that there is what might be called a state of sin.. the general human condition of being other than God.. being outside or seperated from the life and goodness of God. We are not born guilty of committing sins, but we are born in a state of sin.
Children are not guilty of sin because they up until a certain age do not have the faculties required to break God's law. It is often said that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but there is argument in scripure, from Paul that before the law came, sin was not imputed.. before people knew the law, they did not have sin imputed to them. Yet they were clearly still fallen and evil. Thus the argument can easily be made from scripture that children do not have sin imputed to them until they have the faculties necessary to be aware of the law.
That, however, is only half of the picture. Even before the law came and convicted man of his own individual sins.. men were still fallen and seperated from God and still in need of a savior. Why? Because they existed in that state of being seperate from God. That is what we have all inherited through Adam, the fact that it is inherited because of our humanity and our descent from Adam, strongly implies that it applies to people of every age. From birth.

Children thus do not have committed sins, they have not individually, personally broken the law because they are not capable of doing so. BUT they do have what has often been called "the sin nature" what Paul refers to as "the old man"

It is also this "sin nature" that is what the bible talks about being cleansed by baptism. Paul tells us that in baptism the Old man dies and the new creation takes his place. That is what most people refer to as being "born again".

So, I do tend to believe that infants are born again in infant baptism... however, there is more to the story.

Paul speaks very clearly about the struggle he experienced and we all experience between "walking by the spirit" and "walking by the flesh". What this is talking about is, I think, revealed by Titus 3:5. This verse tells us that the work of God through baptism is "regeneration" the word means literaly to be created again. This refers to the new creation, new birth spirit within us. The verse then says the "renewal" of the Holy Spirit. This word renewal means literaly renovation.. taking the old and renovating it.. not starting over from scratch but fixing what was already there. This is speaking of the work the Holy Spirit does with the soul of the believer.

When understood sacrementally the two ideas corespond perfectly to baptism (which is mentioned in titus 3:5 as "the washing of regeneration") and confirmation.
To explain this more fully look at the origins of the sacrement of confirmation. In the eastern church this sacrement is still called "chrismation" or annointing. This is based on the practice in the new testament that when a person became a believer the bishop/apostle would lay hands upon that person and impart to them the indwelling Holy Spirit. This confirmed the person as a believer, and annointed them with the Holy Spirit (thus the two names for the sacrement that we use today).

Now, we've already looked at baptism as the new birth, ie born again experience for the evangelical among us. Confirmation, or the infilling of the Holy Spirit is what begins the process of renovation of the believer's soul. Baptism regenerates, The infilling of the Holy Spirit renovates.

When an adult becomes a believer they are baptised and confirmed in short order so the two things are nearly simultaneous. In evangelical terms these would be phrased as born again and converted. Because of the evangelical protestant view that both must happen as an adult (or at least an adolescent) the two have become one idea in most people's minds.

In infant baptism the person is born again.. and then when they are capable of comprehending they themselves must make the choice to be converted. It is the natural tendancy, even in children for the soul to rule over the spirit.. for our flesh to rule us.. it requires an act of will for us to submit our soul/flesh to our spirit.. thus the person, in order to be converted must be capable of comprehending that situation and exercising their will to believe. For the born again experience, however, no such act of will is needed because the work is all done by God, not by man.

there are instances in scripture where the two are actually reversed and conversion is followed by new birth, indicating that this is possible, but not the normal way. One such instance is the house of cornelius... in my own life the same was true.

[erin74]

Ok - can I throw something else into the equation. what about baptising unbelievers children. Is this the same thing, or just a mindless ritual. I guess partly what I am asking is does it rely upon the faith of the parents or is it just the act itself.

I would assume it is a covenant relationship thing... so based upon the sanctifying belief of the parents. If this is the case... .is this sanctifying belief still 'working' if they don't choose to baptise? Is the childs salvation under threat for the parents 'disobedience'.

If it is the act itself - why not, as stated before, just hire a bushfire helicopter and spray the local primary schools?

sorry - I am not trying to be argumentative. I am actually trying to settle this into my mind, and there are a few parts where I feel unsettled at the moment.

I hadn't though into baptism in terms of sin v sinful nature before... very interesting.

Oh - and when we think in terms of death of a child. Is this to say that an unbaptised child goes to hell? Or is it that only believers children are saved? It's just that there is a big gap between baptism and confirmation, and quite a bit of time between understanding faith for some and confirmation. Plus the notion of what constitutes a child varies in history and culture. What one culture/time counts as a child another counts as marriagable age. See now I keep coming back to the age of accountability stuff.

sorry I'm all over the place. Please feel free to not address parts that are obviously incomprehensible blabber.

[Simon_Templar]

Ok - can I throw something else into the equation. what about baptising unbelievers children. Is this the same thing, or just a mindless ritual. I guess partly what I am asking is does it rely upon the faith of the parents or is it just the act itself.

I would assume it is a covenant relationship thing... so based upon the sanctifying belief of the parents. If this is the case... .is this sanctifying belief still 'working' if they don't choose to baptise? Is the childs salvation under threat for the parents 'disobedience'.

If it is the act itself - why not, as stated before, just hire a bushfire helicopter and spray the local primary schools?

sorry - I am not trying to be argumentative. I am actually trying to settle this into my mind, and there are a few parts where I feel unsettled at the moment.

I hadn't though into baptism in terms of sin v sinful nature before... very interesting.

Oh - and when we think in terms of death of a child. Is this to say that an unbaptised child goes to hell? Or is it that only believers children are saved? It's just that there is a big gap between baptism and confirmation, and quite a bit of time between understanding faith for some and confirmation. Plus the notion of what constitutes a child varies in history and culture. What one culture/time counts as a child another counts as marriagable age. See now I keep coming back to the age of accountability stuff.

sorry I'm all over the place. Please feel free to not address parts that are obviously incomprehensible blabber.

Very good questions :) When I'm really thinking hard about something I usualy feel that I'm "all over the place" as well because your mind is working over time to hit all the possabilities.. and these are complex issues with lots of possabilities.

Baptism without faith is meaningless. I don't know of anyone seriously believes that simply the act of baptism, without corresponding faith involved somewhere, has any real effect. As with all sacraments, baptism is a work of Grace, thus a work of God... the bible tells us that grace comes through faith.. without faith it is impossible to please God, and whatsoever (even baptism) is not of faith, is sin. Thus infant baptism would rely upon the faith of the parents. There is another possability here that I will come back to with the later question about when children die.

The next question, is the sanctifying faith of the parents still working if they don't baptize their kids. I think that there will always be a certain level of santification for the children of believers. However, whether it will have the same effect either way I really don't know. My guess is that God will have mercy on those who are genuinely mistaken but faithful.. and perhaps somehwat less so on those who should know better but are willfull.

Now, when it comes to dying unbaptized. I'm not a strict 'legalist' on this issue. I don't believe that all people must be baptized or go straight to hell. God does the work of baptism through the faith of the person or people involved and God can do that work and use those people's faith with or without water.. its just that water is the normal way he has instituted to do it.
For instance, when Paul says in Romans that no one in the world has any excuse before God because God has revealed to everyone in nature itself the truths required for them to know him.. that, to my mind, requires that everyone, regardless of exposure to the gospel had a legitimate chance at salvation...
In the early church many of the fathers recognized three forms of baptism as well... the baptism with water.. the normal way.. the baptism of blood, which was how they described an unbaptized believer who died a martyr before they could be baptized (their own blood shed for the testimony of christ became their baptism) and the baptism of desire.. this was what they recognized when a person became a believer and desired to be baptized but somehow died before baptism was possible.
There are also those among the church fathers who recognized the teaching of Romans and believed that many unevangelized people could be saved by the revelation of God in nature.

Those are all instances of God's mercy and his willingness to work around our ignorance, or circumstance, etc to save us. It would be unwise to think that just because God is willing to be merciful in cases where baptism was not possible that baptism then becomes unnecessary in those cases where it is possible. At that point we're in danger of disobedience and deception.

the other instance I wanted to bring up going back to the issue of faith joined with baptism is the question of how do we really know that the heart of an infant is not capable of faith? Is faith really connected so much to the mind? The instance that I'm thinking of here is the infant son of Ahab in the OT. God caused the child to die before he could be raised in the house of Ahab. The scripture specificly states that God took the child because he saw good in the child and he knew that if the child were raised in the house of Ahab, he would have been corrupted. There are of course different ways you can look at this. For me, however, it shows the profound truth that even as an infant God knows the hearts of men and is capable of judging who has faith and who does not.
Further, again looking at this instance, God's sovereign ability to apply the salvation grace of Jesus Christ across time and space, without the aid of human assistance is evident. The obvious implication is that God took the child to save him. The child never made a choice, never was baptized etc etc.. God saved him simply because God saw good in his heart.
Now, this does not mean that the child was saved by his own virtue at all.. it means that God saved the child by Grace, and through Christ, because there was something particular about that child that God saw as good and desirable.

[gtsecc]

The undivided church has pretty well consistantly held that the baptism has more to do with the faith of the community than the one baptised. The form and words of the ritual are important. The belief of the infant is not. Adult believers baptism is something made up by John Smyth in the 16th century. It was rejected by all but a small part of the Church. So, if you believe in adult believes baptism, you have to also believe the entire church got it wrong for 1500 years, and then after John figured it out, most of them still go it wrong.

[erin74]

Very good questions :) When I'm really thinking hard about something I usualy feel that I'm "all over the place" as well because your mind is working over time to hit all the possabilities.. and these are complex issues with lots of possabilities.

Baptism without faith is meaningless. I don't know of anyone seriously believes that simply the act of baptism, without corresponding faith involved somewhere, has any real effect. As with all sacraments, baptism is a work of Grace, thus a work of God... the bible tells us that grace comes through faith.. without faith it is impossible to please God, and whatsoever (even baptism) is not of faith, is sin. Thus infant baptism would rely upon the faith of the parents. There is another possability here that I will come back to with the later question about when children die.

The next question, is the sanctifying faith of the parents still working if they don't baptize their kids. I think that there will always be a certain level of santification for the children of believers. However, whether it will have the same effect either way I really don't know. My guess is that God will have mercy on those who are genuinely mistaken but faithful.. and perhaps somehwat less so on those who should know better but are willfull.

Now, when it comes to dying unbaptized. I'm not a strict 'legalist' on this issue. I don't believe that all people must be baptized or go straight to hell. God does the work of baptism through the faith of the person or people involved and God can do that work and use those people's faith with or without water.. its just that water is the normal way he has instituted to do it.
For instance, when Paul says in Romans that no one in the world has any excuse before God because God has revealed to everyone in nature itself the truths required for them to know him.. that, to my mind, requires that everyone, regardless of exposure to the gospel had a legitimate chance at salvation...
In the early church many of the fathers recognized three forms of baptism as well... the baptism with water.. the normal way.. the baptism of blood, which was how they described an unbaptized believer who died a martyr before they could be baptized (their own blood shed for the testimony of christ became their baptism) and the baptism of desire.. this was what they recognized when a person became a believer and desired to be baptized but somehow died before baptism was possible.
There are also those among the church fathers who recognized the teaching of Romans and believed that many unevangelized people could be saved by the revelation of God in nature.

Those are all instances of God's mercy and his willingness to work around our ignorance, or circumstance, etc to save us. It would be unwise to think that just because God is willing to be merciful in cases where baptism was not possible that baptism then becomes unnecessary in those cases where it is possible. At that point we're in danger of disobedience and deception.

the other instance I wanted to bring up going back to the issue of faith joined with baptism is the question of how do we really know that the heart of an infant is not capable of faith? Is faith really connected so much to the mind? The instance that I'm thinking of here is the infant son of Ahab in the OT. God caused the child to die before he could be raised in the house of Ahab. The scripture specificly states that God took the child because he saw good in the child and he knew that if the child were raised in the house of Ahab, he would have been corrupted. There are of course different ways you can look at this. For me, however, it shows the profound truth that even as an infant God knows the hearts of men and is capable of judging who has faith and who does not.
Further, again looking at this instance, God's sovereign ability to apply the salvation grace of Jesus Christ across time and space, without the aid of human assistance is evident. The obvious implication is that God took the child to save him. The child never made a choice, never was baptized etc etc.. God saved him simply because God saw good in his heart.
Now, this does not mean that the child was saved by his own virtue at all.. it means that God saved the child by Grace, and through Christ, because there was something particular about that child that God saw as good and desirable.

Yes - I am studying Romans at the moment with a group of women, or was this in Hebrews (another bible study). I love the concept that the faith of the forefathers was in Christ, the very hope of him.

Now this conversation is leading me to the next issue which is predestination. I have no problems with a child having faith. Faith is a gift given to us by God. And he has predestined us since before creation. It should come as no surprise that a child can have faith. But that also leads us to children that are baptised but then 'fall away'. Have they truly fallen away, or are they just away for a time. Are all believers children predestined to be part of the family of God? That is - if you are a child of a believer and so are covered by the sanctification of your parents - how long does this last? Is this a mark of your faith forever? If so, can believers children fall away? Can anyone (don't answer that)? Does that mean that all believers children are automatically 'chosen'? Or are some believers children not predestined, in which case they won't be saved in teh long term? Are they saved when they're kids then though - ie is the baptism effective for them? Does that mean it's better to kill our kids early in case they stop believing?

Sorry - my mind is in a million places at once. Again - I don't actually expect you to answer all this. My mind tends to unravel as I type - I am also a think out loud type of person.

[DarthDigger]

I think that because in say the medieval times, children were often dying and they believed that if they were baptized they would go to heaven. That is why they started to baptize children so young - and this tradition carried on and still comes today!

DD

[gtsecc]

erin74, I don't think you read my post.

[Simon_Templar]

When the heck did all this Bible only crap come into the Anglican faith?

From the BCP 1979

Q. How do we understand the meaning of the Bible?

A. We understand the meaning of the Bible by the help of

the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church in the true
interpretation of the Scriptures.

The answer about all this bible only crap is that it came in virtually immediately upon the break with Rome during the reformation era. The anglican tradition took centuries to evolve into what it is today. After the original break with Rome the english church was tied to the government. There were two extreme religious parties in england and the vast majority of the people were in the middle. whichever of the extreme religious parties held political power enforced its view upon the church (one of the extreme groups was the extreme protestant view which was avowedly "sola scriptura").

Despite this harnessing of the church by the state as political power shifted back and forth... the mass of the english people always remained solidly in the middle, between the two groups. Eventually as political power began to be transfered to the people.. the church began to reflect the "via media" beliefs of the majority of the people.


There are alot of problems with "sola scriptura" as it is applied today. I agree.
However, not every appeal to scripture is sola scriptura. The Anglican tradition recognizes the bible as the highest authority.. thus if the bible speaks on an issue it is only logical that what the bible says should be considered first and most strongly. In order to ensure that we are looking at things in the correct way we use tradition and reason to guide us in our interpetation of scripture.
This situation correlates very nicely to the idea of the constitution in the american system of government.. the constitution is the final and supreme authority.. but it doesn't speak on every issue that could ever arise, and even when it does speak it requires that we refrence the context (things like the common law, the political theory, which form the legal tradition out of which the constitution arose.) Yet on any issue that the constitution speaks we always go first and formost to the constitution.

It is the same with the bible. The anglican church recognizes that the traditions of the church can, and have been added to in certain circumstacnes, thus the scripture is the only source which is entirely reliable. We rely upon tradition to give us the correct view point for interpeting scripture, but tradition itself must also be subject to scripture.

[Simon_Templar]

Yes - I am studying Romans at the moment with a group of women, or was this in Hebrews (another bible study). I love the concept that the faith of the forefathers was in Christ, the very hope of him.

Now this conversation is leading me to the next issue which is predestination. I have no problems with a child having faith. Faith is a gift given to us by God. And he has predestined us since before creation. It should come as no surprise that a child can have faith. But that also leads us to children that are baptised but then 'fall away'. Have they truly fallen away, or are they just away for a time. Are all believers children predestined to be part of the family of God? That is - if you are a child of a believer and so are covered by the sanctification of your parents - how long does this last? Is this a mark of your faith forever? If so, can believers children fall away? Can anyone (don't answer that)? Does that mean that all believers children are automatically 'chosen'? Or are some believers children not predestined, in which case they won't be saved in teh long term? Are they saved when they're kids then though - ie is the baptism effective for them? Does that mean it's better to kill our kids early in case they stop believing?

Sorry - my mind is in a million places at once. Again - I don't actually expect you to answer all this. My mind tends to unravel as I type - I am also a think out loud type of person.

One of the ways of understanding the sanctification of children by their parent's belief also relates to the idea of "generational curses". Our tendancy is always to focus on the supernatural mystical side of such ideas.. thus sanctification becomes a spiritual matter only where God holds apart the children of believers and sets a fate for them.. predestination. On the other hand those who are stricken with "generational curses" (a common charismatic topic) have placed upon them a supernatural fate binding them into failure no matter what they do.
Especially in the case of sanctification there is certainly truth to the "mystical side".. I have no doubt that God does specially watch over the children of the righteous.
BUT... as much as these things are mystical.. they are also practical. The sanctification of children by parents of faith is as much a result of the fact that believing parents teach their children truth, teach them righteous living, teach them to honor and fear God... we see those things as somehow not supernatural, but infact they are blessings of sanctification.
Likewise, the generational curse that affects most people is not a supernatural fate, hindering everything they do, but rather the fact that they were taught the opposite things from the believers. They were taught selfishness, greed, lust etc.

Take those things together with the statement of God "raise up a child in the way that they should go, and when they are old they will not depart from it."
This immediately brings to mind the idea of the nature vs. nurture arguments of human conditioning. This is not saying that people's fate is determined by their environment and upbringing.. it is merely saying that such things have a significant impact on people's lives. Many people do allow those things to determine their future because of the fact that they never become aware of them. In order to change yourself you must be aware of what makes you do the things you do, feel the way you feel etc.
This is one of the reasons, I think, that the first step to conversion is the conviction of the Holy Spirit.. the Spirit showing us ourselves in the mirror of scripture.
The sad truth of reality, recognized long ago by socrates is that the majority of people, for whatever reason do not see themselves for what they are, and when they are given the chance, the tendancy of most is to reject it.

When it comes to people "falling away" it is a very tough issue to judge from experience simply because even in experience, we have no way to accurately assess the real condition of their heart, all that is going on in their heart etc.
I have a good friend who was raised in a "christian family" his grandfather was a pastor... but his mother had some severe emotional problems, was divorced and remarried a man who beat my friend, and then eventually divorced again. His mother was extremely hypocritical in her life (as was a good portion of the rest of the family). Eventually the terrible experiences of his family life lead him to reject God and he spent probably 10 years or so living in sin and denying God.
When I got to know him he was very cynical about religion etc, through a series of events God called this man back and he responded and is now a devoted believer.

I think the question is very complex because it involves a number of things... it involves the idea that parents must teach their children properly and "raise them up in the way that they should go" thus imparting to them true faith. It also involves the fact that God does specially watch for his people (including the children), and that God will undoubtedly have mercy wherever he can and long suffering in pursuing his chosen.

Now, that brings up the question of predestination. To be honest, I think the issue of predestination is largely beyond complete human understanding... much like the trinity. We can comprehend some of the basics, but as to how it completely works.. we can only believe. What the scriptures say, combined with the various ideas put forth in tradition leads me to believe that there is truth in both predestination and freewill... and that the two work together in a way that is a paradox to the human mind. To me it is a mystery best summed up in the parable of the wedding feast where Jesus says "many are called, but few are chosen." I don't buy at all the argument of predestination that God "calls" everyone but gives them no grace to enable them to respond. The scriptures say that God desires the salvation of all men and that he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked but would prefer them to come to righteousness. Thus I do not believe that God has predestined anyone to hell. Neither can I deny, however, that there are some people in scripture who appear to be specially chosen and nearly compelled to come to faith.

[erin74]

Simon,

Thank you so much for the time you have put into answering me on this. It has given me a lot to dwell on.

I agree with you I think on the matter of free will and predestination. I have long believed there is mystery to this that we cannot understand. I don't mind not being able to understand all of God - I would be sincerely worried if I could. If this were meant to be clear it would have been made so.

I heard an interesting theory on falling away. Well two actually. The first is the idea that we cannot fall away, and that the warning that we can is true as a warning, but cannot actually happen. I was happy with this til I heard the next.

Picture a road with a cliff down each side. On each side of the road there is a sign to stop you from falling and keep you in the centre. I think maybe the warnings that you can fall away, and the promises that you cannot are those signs. They are on either side of the road because some have a tendency to stray one way and some the other - both sides are dangerous, so we need to stick to the middle. I found this kinda helpful - I don't know that it stands up to rigorous study, but I am happy in it for the moment, and wonder if it might not apply to a few other things - eg predestination and free will....

Thanks again for the food for though. I think I'm going to have to study and dwell a bit longer, but I am certainly leaning toward the infant baptism thing at the moment.

erin

[erin74]

erin74, I don't think you read my post.

sorry gtsecc - which post in particular were you referring to. I might have missed it in my haste to read through what I had been discussing with simon.

[karen freeinchristman]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Simon_Templar again."

Great post, Simon! :thumbsup:

[gtsecc]

sorry gtsecc - which post in particular were you referring to. I might have missed it in my haste to read through what I had been discussing with simon.
#65
Simon has some really good things to say.

[karen freeinchristman]

From Acts 2
38Peter 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. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

These two verses are the whole thing, IMO. First, Peter says repent and be baptised. The word 'repent' comes before the word 'baptised'. This is the case in other scriptural passages, and probably causes people to not want to affirm infant baptism (how can an infant repent?). But verse 39 explains the meaning of baptism, and hence, the reason why infant baptism is right.

I often wonder about these things after church as I go out of the building and see the people coming in for a baptism. Most often, it is an infant baptism, and quite often, the infants parents are not regular church-goers, if at all (apart from Christmastime). But we are not to judge Gods methods of calling people. God has put it into those parents hearts to have their child baptised (and those parents most likely are also baptised). It is not for us to judge motives or to judge other peoples faith. Nor are we to know how God will work in that infants life as he or she gets older.

[gtsecc]

Karen,
I think you have hit upon what I said in post 65.

[karen freeinchristman]

Karen,
I think you have hit upon what I said in post 65.:thumbsup:

[higgs2]

I often wonder about these things after church as I go out of the building and see the people coming in for a baptism. Most often, it is an infant baptism, and quite often, the infants parents are not regular church-goers, if at all (apart from Christmastime). But we are not to judge Gods methods of calling people. God has put it into those parents hearts to have their child baptised (and those parents most likely are also baptised). It is not for us to judge motives or to judge other peoples faith. Nor are we to know how God will work in that infants life as he or she gets older.


This is a great post, karen, and exactly spot on if you ask me.

[DarthDigger]

i agree!

[erin74]

The undivided church has pretty well consistantly held that the baptism has more to do with the faith of the community than the one baptised. The form and words of the ritual are important. The belief of the infant is not. Adult believers baptism is something made up by John Smyth in the 16th century. It was rejected by all but a small part of the Church. So, if you believe in adult believes baptism, you have to also believe the entire church got it wrong for 1500 years, and then after John figured it out, most of them still go it wrong.

sorry - i didn't realise this was directed at me - or that it required an answer.

I am still researching this at the moment. If it helps I have had both my boys baptised as infants, so I do lean in that direction.

Not really sure if there is anything to add....

[Polycarp1]

For me, the bottom-line question is, Is Baptism something you do for God (fulfilling His commandment) or something God does for you (through the agency of His ministers)? And as a Sacramentalist, I believe the latter. God washes away the taint of sin, gives new life in Christ, and incorporates the newly baptized into His Mystical Body the Church. That's what the Sacrament is for.

That promises are made, by the baptized or in his/her behalf by adults who will act to influence his/her growth in Christ, is secondary to the sacramental function. The promises serve to commit the baptized to the life that has been given him/her. They are not the form; they are merely the response to grace.

[Simon_Templar]

The undivided church has pretty well consistantly held that the baptism has more to do with the faith of the community than the one baptised. The form and words of the ritual are important. The belief of the infant is not. Adult believers baptism is something made up by John Smyth in the 16th century. It was rejected by all but a small part of the Church. So, if you believe in adult believes baptism, you have to also believe the entire church got it wrong for 1500 years, and then after John figured it out, most of them still go it wrong.

Actually this isn't entirely accurate. Infant baptism was not universaly agreed upon by the early church until around the time of Augustine. For the first 400 years there was debate over the issue of wether children should be baptized or adults only.
Granted the chief, at least most famous, opponent of infant baptism was Tertullian who was also a heretic later in life...


I had never considered before the idea of baptism as a factor of community faith rather than individual faith.. perhaps you could provide some more info on this?

[leia]

I think that because in say the medieval times, children were often dying and they believed that if they were baptized they would go to heaven. That is why they started to baptize children so young - and this tradition carried on and still comes today!

DD

Four hundred years it took to decide to infant baptise after the formation of the church. Why. Same scripture, "repent and be baptised". I thought the above was worth repeating since it is the reason they used to start doing it. There is alot of belief that if one is not baptised at death, one does not go to heaven. It was insurance because so many infants were dieing. Simple history.

leia

[DarthDigger]

thankyou for explaining in detial leia! :thumbsup:

[gtsecc]

Four hundred years it took to decide to infant baptise after the formation of the church. Why. Same scripture, "repent and be baptised". I thought the above was worth repeating since it is the reason they used to start doing it. There is alot of belief that if one is not baptised at death, one does not go to heaven. It was insurance because so many infants were dieing. Simple history.

leia
No.
They were doing it from the beggining.
He simply said, "For the first 400 years there was debate over the issue " which for that matter, since it is still an issue in some places, we could say it is still debated.

There was also debate over Christ's divinity for 400 years, and really there still is today. People still question some things.
However:
Did the Church ever reject Christ's Divinity? - NO.
Did the Church ever reject infant Baptism? - NO.

[DarthDigger]

oh right!

[Simon_Templar]

gtsecc is correct that merely because there was debate or disagreement, doesn't mean the church didn't have an accepted position on an issue.

From what I have seen in the early church writings there was debate over the issue till around the time of augustine.. but it wasn't the case that the church had no opinion.. it was more the case that the church allowed variation until that time. My impression is that prior to Augustine the church practiced infant baptism but those who disagreed were not considered heretics or even terribly heterodox, but that after Augustine when the practice became completely entrenched the church allowed no variation and began to consider any disagreement on the issue to be heretical.

I could be wrong in that impression though. What do you think Gtsecc?

[DarthDigger]

ok thanks guys

[gtsecc]

I could be wrong in that impression though. What do you think Gtsecc?
I think that is fair.

[DarthDigger]

i understand all this now :D :)

[Fish and Bread]

For me, the bottom-line question is, Is Baptism something you do for God (fulfilling His commandment) or something God does for you (through the agency of His ministers)?

Couldn't it be both?

John

[karen freeinchristman]

Couldn't it be both?

John
Yes, John, it could be both! :)

[Simon_Templar]

Couldn't it be both?

John


The way I understand it at this point is that the act of being baptized is something we do out of obedience to God

The work that happens during baptism is something God does in us through his mercy.. and act of grace through faith.

[Fish and Bread]

The way I understand it at this point is that the act of being baptized is something we do out of obedience to God

The work that happens during baptism is something God does in us through his mercy.. and act of grace through faith.

Perhaps the Eucharist is similar in those respects. :)

John

[DarthDigger]

The way I understand it at this point is that the act of being baptized is something we do out of obedience to God

The work that happens during baptism is something God does in us through his mercy.. and act of grace through faith.

I agree with that!

[diggerman]

me too

[gtsecc]

The way I understand it at this point is that the act of being baptized is something we do out of obedience to God

The work that happens during baptism is something God does in us through his mercy.. and act of grace through faith.
I completely understand and am somewhat sympathetic to this view.
I think this is basically Calvins view - that the faith of the people is important in the consecration.
However, I don't think that is a traditional teaching.

[Simon_Templar]

I completely understand and am somewhat sympathetic to this view.
I think this is basically Calvins view - that the faith of the people is important in the consecration.
However, I don't think that is a traditional teaching. ]


I'm not sure I understand. How can someone receive grace of any sort without faith?

[gtsecc]

]


I'm not sure I understand. How can someone receive grace of any sort without faith?
Infant baptism.
The faith is there in the community, not in the individual.

[Simon_Templar]

Infant baptism.
The faith is there in the community, not in the individual.

In the case of infant baptism the parents and the community act on behalf of, or in the place of the child because the infant is not capable of communicating its will in the matter. Thus it is the faith of the parents and community that is being manifested.
Also as previously discussed we are told that the faith of parents sanctifies their children.
So in infant baptism there is faith. Its just that the confession of faith is made by the parents and community because the infant is not capable of making confession of faith.

With an adult capable of making their own confession, they can't rely on the faith of others or confession of others.

[gtsecc]

In the case of infant baptism the parents and the community act on behalf of, or in the place of the child because the infant is not capable of communicating its will in the matter. Thus it is the faith of the parents and community that is being manifested.
Also as previously discussed we are told that the faith of parents sanctifies their children.
So in infant baptism there is faith. Its just that the confession of faith is made by the parents and community because the infant is not capable of making confession of faith.

With an adult capable of making their own confession, they can't rely on the faith of others or confession of others.

I think it goes beyond infant baptism.
Often adults in housholds were baptised because of the faith of the community.

[karen freeinchristman]

I think it goes beyond infant baptism.
Often adults in housholds were baptised because of the faith of the community.
It's not that I disagree with this statement, gtsecc, but it is a bold one to make without any references giving us an idea where you might have picked up this information.

[gtsecc]

It's not that I disagree with this statement, gtsecc, but it is a bold one to make without any references giving us an idea where you might have picked up this information.

When before John Smyth was it understood any differently?

The burden of proof actually lies with those who put forth the non sacramental or "believers baptism" doctrine.


Ac 16:15 -


And when she was baptized, with her household, she besought us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us.



Ac 16:31 -

And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."



Ac 16:34 -

Then he brought them up into his house, and set food before them; and he rejoiced with all his household that he had believed in God.



Ac 18:8 -

Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with all his household; and many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.



1Co 1:16 -

(I did baptize also the household of Steph'anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)

[karen freeinchristman]

Thanks, gtsecc! These two are the most compelling, IMO:
Ac 16:31 -

And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."


Ac 18:8 -

Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with all his household; and many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.


And I just love the verses when Paul displays his human failings in not being able to remember who he has or hasn't baptised!
1Co 1:16 -

(I did baptize also the household of Steph'anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)

[Simon_Templar]

Just because a person believes that individual faith is necessary for baptism to be effective doesn't mean that they have a none sacremental view. Sacremental is defined by two things, the idea that the event is a mystery/miracle and that grace is transmitted through it.

I don't think the household refrences are any different than the understanding of infant baptism. The faith of the head of the household has a sanctifying effect upon the household. Further, in some of the refrences it makes it clear that the entire household believed.

Also, you tell me this is the traditional view but your the only person I've ever heard it from. I did quite a bit of reading and talking with both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox before I came to the Anglican fold and I never encountered this view from any of them. By "this view" I mean the idea that an adult person can have effective baptism without individual faith.

[gtsecc]

Also, you tell me this is the traditional view but your the only person I've ever heard it from. I did quite a bit of reading and talking with both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox before I came to the Anglican fold and I never encountered this view from any of them. By "this view" I mean the idea that an adult person can have effective baptism without individual faith.
Just as there is a wide breath of knowledge in the AC, so is there diversity of knowledge in the RCC and EO. If you have any doubt about the historic view of baptism, ask on OBOB or TAW.

[higgs2]

Just because a person believes that individual faith is necessary for baptism to be effective doesn't mean that they have a none sacremental view. Sacremental is defined by two things, the idea that the event is a mystery/miracle and that grace is transmitted through it.

I don't think the household refrences are any different than the understanding of infant baptism. The faith of the head of the household has a sanctifying effect upon the household. Further, in some of the refrences it makes it clear that the entire household believed.

Also, you tell me this is the traditional view but your the only person I've ever heard it from. I did quite a bit of reading and talking with both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox before I came to the Anglican fold and I never encountered this view from any of them. By "this view" I mean the idea that an adult person can have effective baptism without individual faith.
We acknowledge *one* baptism for the forgiveness of sins. So that means no "do-overs", right? There is no way that someone's baptism could be "ineffective" in some way. THis does not make sense.

The corporate aspect of faith is evident in the very rite of baptism itself, it is done in community. And if someone is being baptised, no matter how skeptical they may be, doesn't the fact that they are doing it indicate at least a mustard seed's worth of faith? And you know what Jesus said about that. Faith isn't on or off, it's a continuum.

[DarthDigger]

correct!

[Simon_Templar]

We acknowledge *one* baptism for the forgiveness of sins. So that means no "do-overs", right? There is no way that someone's baptism could be "ineffective" in some way. THis does not make sense.

The corporate aspect of faith is evident in the very rite of baptism itself, it is done in community. And if someone is being baptised, no matter how skeptical they may be, doesn't the fact that they are doing it indicate at least a mustard seed's worth of faith? And you know what Jesus said about that. Faith isn't on or off, it's a continuum.

So, we should just baptise everyone and then we're set.. because hey... church has faith, for them, so they don't need any..!! whoo hoo.. that makes evangelism soo much easier :)

[higgs2]

So, we should just baptise everyone and then we're set.. because hey... church has faith, for them, so they don't need any..!! whoo hoo.. that makes evangelism soo much easier :)

Yeah, right, and let's do it long distance too -- or, or -- with squirt guns! Yes, that's the ticket! Mass baptisms with garden hoses...


Of course not, that's not what I was saying. My son does the same thing, take something and extrapolate it out and exaggerate it to something dramatic and outlandish. Now step back, breathe, and think about it. What do you really think my point was?

[erin74]

So, we should just baptise everyone and then we're set.. because hey... church has faith, for them, so they don't need any..!! whoo hoo.. that makes evangelism soo much easier :)

Like I've been saying - let's pull out those bushfire helicopters - if we fly over a couple of really large events - like football grandfinals and the olympics that'd make it really easy. Then we'll hit the schools... there'll be not stopping us!

[DarthDigger]

i like your idea!