• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Infant Baptism

J

Joseph_Botwinick

<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
Ed,

Well then, what do you beleive is the purpose of infant baptism? Is it something to do to make the parents feel all tingly inside or is it as the Catholics say for salvation regeneration?

Joseph

[ June 30, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]
 
J

Joseph_Botwinick

<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
Ed,

Is salvation through Christ alone? Or is it through Christ and baptism and good works for the adult and baptism and good works for the infant?

Joseph
 
C

CatholicConvert

New Member
Brother Joseph -- To sum it up, yes, Christ ALONE is the only Savior because only He, the perfect and righteous "Last Adam" could redeem the broken covenant with God which Adam destroyed by his sin. Anyone who refuses to acknowledge this and attempts to make his own covenant is denying the work of Christ and trying to cut his own covenant. It won't work.

A picture of this would be the Indian who every year goes to Ganges River and "baptizes" himself for the remission of his sins. That is trying to make one's own covenant with God. That is doomed to failure.

But to be "saved" from the condemnation we have by being in Adam an in the condemnation of unity with him in the curse of that broken first covenant, we must enter into the New Covenant of Christ, made between Christ and God for all mankind. Baptism accomplishes this, so yes, baptizm saves. But as I explained above, being saved from that wrath only makes us family members, not eternal beings. That will be done at the Great Judgement when the faithful receive the inheritance.

Not all Catholics fully understand this, but that does not take away from its truth.

Hope this has given you a different perspective to consider. Everything I look at, I do so through the lens of the covenant of God and the covenantal family to see if it fits.

Brother Ed

[ July 01, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]
 
J

Joseph_Botwinick

<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JBotwinick:
Ed,

If it doesn't assure salvation, then why do catholics baptize infants?

Joseph<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

CatholicConvert,

So the answer to this question is because Catholics do believe in Baptismal regeneration, correct? Please just yes or no.

Joseph
 
J

Joseph_Botwinick

<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
CatholicConvert,

Your mistake is by saying that it takes more than faith alone in Christ to save a person. Baptists believe that salvation is through Christ alone and that salvation regenerates the person's life and bears spiritual fruit therefore leading to good works (James 2:14-18, 1 John 1:5-7, 1 John 2:3-6, 1 John 2:15-17, 1 John 4:1-6, 1 John 5:1-5).

Joseph
 
C

CatholicConvert

New Member
Brother Joseph --

I must say I find it rather unsporting to take my post and delete it down to a smaller size. In doing so, much of my point was simply lost.

Yes, the Church has always understood baptism as regenerative. Read the Early Fathers. We baptize infants because it "saves" them from the condemnation of being found in Adam (Rom. 5:12). As I answered in my longer post, it does not guarentee eternal life. That is a non-Catholic concept.

Our salvation does not come from "knowing about Christ" (having "right doctrine") but by being "in Christ." It is our union with Christ which saves us, and, if we continue faithful in that relationship, leads us to eternal life. Right doctrine is merely a result of our submission to the mind of Christ. The closer we come to Him, the more Catholic we become. :D

Brother Ed
 
C

CatholicConvert

New Member
Brother Joseph --

Regarding freewill, the short answer is yes, however, there is a proviso to this:

The Catholic Catechism recognizes that the Fall so damaged the image of God in man that unless God calls to man, man will not seek God of his own initiative (John 6: 65). I was quite surprised to find this in the catechism.

The proviso is that unlike the double predestination idea of Calvinism, we believe that the Father, in deepest love for all his sons and daughters, calls to them repeatedly and through many various ways, such as the call of the witness of God's handiwork in creation as found in Romans 1. Unlike the monster god of Calvinism, our Father has sent Christ to redeem the whole world to Himself, placing mankind in the position which it would have been had there been no Fall, i.e., each man responsible to seek the Father, obey Him, and grow in the righteousness of faith in God. In order to do this, man's will must be unshackled.

The Calvinist idea of man having no free will makes the call of God to men to repent look quite foolish:

De 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live

Why would God to make such a command and call men to choose if none of these people were the "elect" and were therefore unable to respond to God at all because of lacking free will.

My brother Joseph, I think we will find that God's mercy is more amazing than we can even begin to imagine.

Brother Ed

[ July 02, 2001: Message edited by: CatholicConvert ]
 
S

Sir Ed

New Member
The official ELCA position is that infants and children may be communed for the first time during the service at which they are baptized. They may begin to commune regularly at a time determined by conversations including the child, parents, pastor and sponsors. Ordinarily this will occur only when children can eat and drink. The only ground we have for communion admission is baptism into Christ. The Lutheran position is to emphasize, on one side, that the sacrament is always offered to faith, and on the other, that the sacrament is total gift.

However, I am a bit unsure of this myself and am still studying the issue. It appears that there is a clear requirement of self-examination and remembrance of Christ required for admission to the Lord's Table.

11:28

But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

Still, I can think of no time when a child should be forced to wait until confirmation to share in the Lord's Supper.
 
R

rlvaughn

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sir Ed: "This is an assumption on your part. However, it would be interesting to get a Greek linguist to talk with us about this."
I surrender! I give up! I raise the white flag! Your accusation of my assuming and your threat to get a Greek linguist so utterly terrifies me that I repent in sackcloth and ashes!
NOT!

Seriously, I suspect we could find Greek scholars who would give opposite opinions on this just as we have. But I think you will probably agree that there are only two possible antecedents for 'them' - either all nations or those discipled of all nations. Now with the next subject, communion, we will see that only one antecedent is not contradictory.

Sir Ed: "The official ELCA position is that infants and children may be communed for the first time during the service at which they are baptized. They may begin to commune regularly at a time determined by conversations including the child, parents, pastor and sponsors. Ordinarily this will occur only when children can eat and drink. The only ground we have for communion admission is baptism into Christ...However, I am a bit unsure of this myself and am still studying the issue. It appears that there is a clear requirement of self-examination and remembrance of Christ required for admission to the Lord's Table." This is, as you state, the position of the ELCA. Unless I am seriously mistaken, many paedobaptist churches do not give communion until confirmation. Be that as it may, it is still a fact that neither you nor they can teach infants TO OBSERVE (not about, but to observe) all things that Christ has commanded, including communion. I see no way that paedobaptists can accomplish a consistent infant communion practice - they will either break Matthew 28:20 (not teach them to observe) or I Corinthians 11:28 (ignore self-examination).
 
C

CatholicConvert

New Member
Sir Ed --

Paedocommunion is the position of the Orthodox Church also, and until about 100 years ago, was also the Roman rite position. Only recently did they start with holding Christ from the children, which seems odd in that Jesus said to suffer the children to come unto Him.

When I left the PCA three years ago there was a raging controversy over this very thing. A group of pastors were making considerable noise in favor of communing the children, but the General Assembly was not budging, stating that it "is not our tradition".

Very humorous, coming from those who accuse the Catholics of putting tradition over Scripture.
 
S

Sir Ed

New Member
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Seriously, I suspect we could find Greek scholars who would give opposite opinions on this just as we have. But I think you will probably agree that there are only two possible antecedents for 'them' - either all nations or those discipled of all nations. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No doubt, those are the only two possible.

As for observing all things that Christ has commanded, my children will be taught that from day one. I find it frightening that you wouldn't teach your children to observe all things Christ has commanded.
 
R

rlvaughn

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
"I find it frightening that you wouldn't teach your children to observe all things Christ has commanded."

Ed, you either misunderstand or misrepresent what I say. As you know, Baptists begin as early as possible teaching their children about God and the Bible. But we do not teach them, for example, TO OBSERVE the Lord's supper. They can be taught about it, the meaning of it, etc. Matthew's record says to teach the discipled and baptized ones 'TO OBSERVE all things whatsoever I have commanded you'. This means to actually DO them, not just be taught about them. In fact, you cannot teach a nursing infant (day one) TO OBSERVE ALL THINGS that Jesus has commanded. They have to grow up a few years in order that we may even begin to teach them about those things. To argue otherwise would indicate a blindness brought on by your views on the covenant and infant baptism. Even the ECLA's attempt to soften this objection to infant baptism by modifying infant communion still says, "They may begin to commune regularly at a time determined by conversations including the child, PARENTS, PASTOR and SPONSORS (Caps mine)." And what is this - "infants...may be communed for the first time during the service at which they are baptized." What do you do, put the wine in a nippled bottle and shove the wafer down their throat? :confused:
 
S

Sir Ed

New Member
Traditionally, a dab of wine may be placed on the child's tongue. I believe it would be physically impossible for an infant to partake of the bread.

There are many things that Scripture tells us to do that may be physically or mentally impossible due to age, mental capacity, or health.

God does not withhold his Grace from us because we can't do works evidenced by examples from the Bible. Don't you agree?

As for your argument that <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In fact, you cannot teach a nursing infant (day one) TO OBSERVE ALL THINGS that Jesus has commanded. They have to grow up a few years in order that we may even begin to teach them about those things, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> we disagree.

I just bought a CD that contains hymns for children, my child will be taken for Baptism as soon as possible,he will be brought to the Lord's house regularly, and he will be brought to the Lord's table regularly too. I will begin teaching my child to observe all things that Christ has commanded immediately, for in my house we shall worship the Lord.
 
R

rlvaughn

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Ed: "God does not withhold his Grace from us because we can't do works evidenced by examples from the Bible." Obviously, he does not, but your arguments for infant baptism seems to assume that in some way He does withhold grace from those who are not baptized, even those to young to know that they need to be. If a infant's parents do not have him baptized, does God withhold His grace?
As for your argument that

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, you cannot teach a nursing infant (day one) TO OBSERVE ALL THINGS that Jesus has commanded. They have to grow up a few years in order that we may even begin to teach them about those things,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

we disagree.
"I just bought a CD that contains hymns for children,..." So is he/she singing them yet? "...my child will be taken for Baptism as soon as possible,..." Yes, but you are observing it for him/her, not teaching him/her to observe it. "...he will be brought to the Lord's house regularly, and he will be brought to the Lord's table regularly too..." Yes, and again you are doing it for them.
 
S

Sir Ed

New Member
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Obviously, he does not, but your arguments for infant baptism seems to assume that in some way He does withhold grace from those who are not baptized, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have never said that. In fact, your assumption is incorrect. Yes, baptism is a means of recieving God's Grace, but it is clearly not the only way.

As for this ridiculous argument on "teaching to observe," I give up. I will continue to teach by example and you can can continue to not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top