All About GOD - Growing Relationships with Jesus and Others
Infant baptism
Views: 1063
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by ScribeD on
-
Yael, that's a fair question, which I think has a very simple answer:
The Bible clearly speaks of divine personage in three characters (which is veiled in the OT and revealed in the NT):
* Father (no dispute among any Biblical scholars of Judeo/Christian communities)
* Son (no dispute among any Biblical scholars of Christian communion)
* Holy Spirit (no dispute among majority of Anglo, Roman, Reformed, Orthodox, Evangelical communion)
Scripture expressly and imperatively commands and demonstrates worship of these three “persons” as One God (Unity God), yet forbids worship of any other. Surely, you also know well that tri-union or tri-unity is demonstrated in the Old Testament, as revealing the attribute of God's nature. Even though it is not expressly stated.
While Nicea was definitely Post-Apostolic (by 190~ years, right?), yet my understanding is that there were three camps who were wrestling with what the Apostles taught, and this came as a result of thorough discussion of what constituted the “Canon of Scripture” where Gnostic texts were rejected based on the framework of what could be considered “inspired and accepted text”. The other two positions concluded that either:a) Christ is a created being, lower than God the Father – or -
b) Christ is a second God, not equal, but truly a God and yet distinct from the Father.
The very point that the council of Nicea came to was that the other two positions failed to meet Scripture's basis for the nature of God. If you want to say that one or the other of those two positions is valid, the leading proponents for them are the LDS Church and the Jehovah's witnesses. Each of them are the leading proponents for the optional alternate definitions of the nature of God. There was no fourth position presented, nor considered at that time, nor in history since that I know of. In fact, it is so easy to defeat those other two positions with Scripture, that most LDS or JW missionaries will steer clear of a truly informed Bible student – I have seen that happen.Thanks for that, it was a tangent, but illustrative in comparison.
Let's be clear: I am not disputing the doctrine of original sin. Nor am I disputing that we ought dedicate children to the Lord. By bringing those points up repeatedly, you are continuing to obfuscate the point that I have made.
So. sticking with the topic at hand: Baptism, as a doctrine, ought follow (submit to) the dictates of Scripture first, and to tradition a distant second. The point is – I respect many things that Augustine taught, I respect the writings of Origen. However, they are not the Apostles and they had less access to understanding the total comprehensive doctrine of the Apostles than we do today. We have the complete and detailed work of Holy Scripture, which has been studied and proven for two millenia.
As a result, I will trust in the Word of God first, and consider the counsel of men second. Where it is plain and clear, I will obey it as faithfully as I can. Where it is not, I will prayerfully consider the counsel of other spirit led believers.
This case is extremely clear to me. Baptism (immersion in water) is for the believer who consecrates their life to Christ, as a result of being Born Again, of the Holy Spirit. Failing to complete that first and primary sacrament as an act of obedience reveals an inability to trust God's word and obey Christ above men and tradition. Considering the Woes pronounced on the Pharisees and Sadduccees (by Jesus) for their trusting in man-made tradition above Scripture, I will lean entirely on the Bible first and foremost; and I exhort every other person to do the same.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Yael Levi-Bénédict on
-
Hi Scribe and sorry for my late reply.
Firstly, I am not sure why you think I am ofuscating your points, I simply put forth some of the reasons by which some Christians accept infant baptism. You then refuted those reasons saying that 'your standarts for building a doctrine must be direct imperatives'. To which I challenged you on the Holy Trinity doctrine. ( Not that I agree that the formulation of doctrines should be left to individual persons, but rather they pertain to the church, as tradition show us with the history of the councils).
Now, I am not very well read on Christian theology, since I am a new convert. But this much I know, The Holy Trinity doctrine was not elaborated until later in Christianity for a simple reason: Because it is NOT literally taught in the Scriptures. So this contradicts your point. Indeed the Bible speaks of three distinct persons, but it does not state that the three are One, as we understand the Holy Trinity.
This is true and confirmed by history given the number of heresies that emerged around this topic. Because the Holy Trinity was NOT clear explained in Scriptures, people tried to come up with all sorts of theories:
Trinitarianism contrasts with Nontrinitarian positions which include Binitarianism (one deity/two persons), Unitarianism (one deity/one person), the Oneness or Modalism belief, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' view of the Godhead as three separate beings who are one in purpose rather than essence.
Now, to stick to the topic of infant baptism, I think the scriptural evidence accepted by the catholic and orthodox churches are very much valid and, as shown in my previous comment, are fully supported by the early church fathers.
You might feel that you have to oppose infant baptism because it is not a doctrine widely accepted by your fellow bible christians, as opposed to the more conservative and orthodox currents.
On the other hand, you seem to have no problem accepting another doctrine ( the Holy Trinity one) inspite that fact that it was doctrine that was born of the early church fathers, rather than scriptures alone. In fact, the Holy Trinity doctrine developed from the biblical language used in New Testament passages such as the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 and took substantially its present form by the end of the 4th century as a result of controversies concerning the proper sense in which to apply to God and Christ terms such as "person", "nature", "essence", and "substance".[5][6][7][8] ( source wikpedia)
Infants are baptized because of the stain of the original sin, and at age 12 or more they are confirmed (the profession of faith) so that they can fully receive the Holy Spirit (same as the Apostles at Pentecost) and become soldiers of Christ. The catholic and the orthodox church call the profession of faith 'personal pentecost'. There we can clearly see that they element of faith is NOT merely of secondary importance, but an fundamental aspect of personal conversion.Blessings,
Yael -
-
-
Hi Amanda, don't worry about names and what people call things. What matters is what's in the heart. I say I've converted to christianity but you can say you are born again. I am sure the Lord knows both my and your heart. So he knows what I mean as well as what you mean.
Anyhow, the word 'convertion' means to turn to something. I have turned to Jesus, that describes well what I feel!
"They passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles" (Acts 15:3).
Cheers!
Yael -
-
-
Amanda, I would agree with Yael in this regard: it's the substance behind the term that counts, and not the term itself. If by "converted" you mean that you turned to Christ in Biblical repentance, then I am confident that Christ knows and the term is not an issue.
If, however, the person is simply changing to a new doctrine, by means of organizational identification rather than by truly having a birth of the Spirit, then it is as meaningless as when the Pharisees made converts.
The challenge for Roman Catholic apologists is that their church has labeled things as being "born of the spirit" which are not the same thing Jesus meant when he spoke of it in John 3:3.
-
-
-
Amanda, I am definitely in agreement with your statements and quotes here. What I am saying is that many times people apply terms, based on the teaching they have received, which may not align with the terms you and I understand; that does not necessarily mean that they are not having a true Holy Spirit experience of being born again.
Since I cannot know whether the person is truly experiencing a Holy Spirit born again experience, I accept their lingo openly and let the fruit of it be proven by the discussion, whatever that fruit may be.
You are absolutely right about that real relationship with the Living Christ being vital.
-
-
-
Yael, first let me just rejoice with you - Thank you for sharing of your recent conversion to Christ. It would be easy to get caught up in the discussion and miss what you have said here.
I have much that I can respond with, but like yourself I am very busy at the moment. I will get back to you with my thoughts.
However, let me just summarize with one thought: I do not oppose Infant Baptism on the ground that it is not accepted among some group. Please understand: I have chosen not to identify with any group above the fact that I choose to follow Christ, according to His Word.
I believe that the tendency to identify according to "Group-Think" is exactly what Jesus rebuked Pharisees and Sadduccees for so sternly.
I choose to identify with those who belong to the faith once and for all time delivered unto the saints (see Jude), that is anyone who chooses to follow him in the same manner - according to the Word of God. I welcome everyone as a brother who chooses to follow Jesus, so long as they are not redefining Jesus in their own image (such as Cultists do).
Blessings, and again thank you for sharing and allowing us to rejoice in your conversion to Christ. My heart was filled with joy at reading this.
-
-
-
Yael: i want to take a step backward in this discussion for a second, because in some ways you have stated truth that I absolutely agree with; and I don't want you to see me as an antagonist against the truth.
You said:
Psalm 51:5 – we are conceived in the iniquity of sin.
Job 14:1-4 – man that is born of woman is full of trouble and unclean.
I agree that this is God's point of view. All of us have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. We need a Savior, a redeemer, a "Goel"; that is a universal fact - clearly stated in both Old and New Testaments.
The majority of the population here, including the moderators, is in agreement with that statement.
But, what you are being taught, that somehow sprinkling kids in a ritual ceremony as a solution cannot be proven by scripture. If it were true, then every priest ought to go to every park in their city and splash kids with "holy water". The fact is that the only reason this ever has impact on people is that they are taught repeatedly by their priests that it's true.
The point of what you quote later is that it's about a personal choice. A person's individual decision to obey Christ. Notice that you quote Acts 2:38 >>“If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized”." But you neglect the prefacing conditional statement: "...if you repent..." (and yes it means the same in Greek). However, an infant is incapable of this. That is a moral decision that must be made by a person who has had the rational thought processes to understand the first two scriptures you have quoted. They must be able to make that rational conclusion that they are a sinner in need of a Savior. Until a person makes that decision, they are clueless as to the entire concept you are conveying there.
Now, there are similarities and differences in the two covenants. Surely, you had some exposure to the Old Covenant teachings; under which there were two rituals specifically prescribed for children. Males were to be circumcised (on the 8th day) and all children were to be dedicated with a sacrificial offering to the Lord. So, under the Old Covenant, they were taught to dedicate them and then to raise the children up with teaching and instruction, as they go "in the fear and admonition of the Lord (Yahweh). Until the point when the child is mature enough to make a decision of their own to follow and obey. At that time (maturity), different ceremonies were employed and the child was considered an adult disciple or follower of Yahweh, who had to make their own decision to be consecrated to the Lord God.
Under the New Covenant, it is clear that we do not have the requirements of circumcision nor of sacrificial offerings of animals. These were symbols that pointed to Christ and they are no longer valid under the New Covenant.
However, we are still under the constraints to raise children with teaching and instructions to become disciples, until they are able to do so on their own. The command still remains for that young person to turn to Christ themselves, to obey his commands of their own volition; Which includes being baptized.
The entire problem with the infant baptism groups is entirely that they neglect to raise children up to obey the simple command of making that decision to obey and be baptized as a disciple. They rob that person of the sense of obedience, of making a volitional choice to stand up and be publicly obedient to Christ. This is a travesty. There is nothing magical about being sprinkled by a man in shiny robes. But there is something very powerful about choosing, as a rational adult, to be identified with Christ in the waters of Baptism.
So, yes, you are right: we are all sinners, born with that stain. However, you are being taught a remedy that Scripture does not endorse.
In the past 25 years, I have witnessed many Baptisms. Every time I see a person choose this, it is a powerful experience for me. The presence of the Holy Spirit is often tangible. The person is usually very serious and very moved by their own decision. Most of them tremble. Rarely have I ever seen anyone do it in a cavalier fashion. The congregation is always impacted. I have seen many people make a conscious decision to follow Christ as a result of witnessing someone else's Baptism. This is what it's meant to be: a sign of personal consecration to God.
Yael, I'm glad for you that you are looking into this and seeking. Please, I plead with you, look at what Scripture actually says. Choose to obey Him. If you have a heart for truth, as you say you do, then choose to heed Scripture. Do not let anyone defraud you of that.
Take time to re-read this entire discussion from the beginning, and I think you will see that there is a clear line from Scripture that has been presented and there is a different one - a muddy and murky line of tradition that is being presented which seeks to apply twisted logic, borrowing from scripture when convenient, but neglecting it entirely when Scripture is not convenient.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Richard L. Broch, Sr. on
-
Greetings to all in Christ,
Here are a couple of verses that I think might pertain to "the age of reason" =
Deuteronomy 1:39, "Moreover, your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good and evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them, and they shall possess it." (According to this statement from God, it appears that a child who does not know right from wrong, has not yet attained "the age of reason".).
Isaiah 7:15, "He will eat curds and honey at the time he knows enough to refuse evil and choose good." (So, evidently the child has been weaned, and again, knows the difference between good and evil.).
Grace and Peace.
-
-
-
Dear Richard,
No one is refuting that there is an age of reason. I ve been around kids of 2, they cant lie either...only later they learn to do so...
These verses you posted are of no relevance to the discussion of infant baptism because those who baptize infants DO NOT believe that the chid is required to make a choise or an act of faith to receive the graces of baptism. Just like they were not required to be aware of circumcision at 8 days old in the OT.
Jesus came to fulfill the OT. Now, is it correct to believe that God would make a new Covenant that is narrower ( less inclusive) than the previous one? If that was the case gentiles would still be excluded of His plan of salvation!!Peace
-
-
Permalink Reply by Sharon Theresa Theil on
-
Yael,
Awesome! Where did Jesus even mention an age of reason? He simply commanded us to
Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Mark 16:15 Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
-
-
-
Sharon, please read the entire command of Jesus in Matt 28:18-20
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Notice the progression of thought in that verse:
1. Go make disciples
2. Baptize
3. (the part you omitted) teach them everything I have commanded you.
It's a tri-union of thought: Make disciples, then baptize and then teach them what Jesus taught.
It's really clear, when you think about it. You can't make a disciple of an infant, can you?
What it does NOT say:
1. Baptize
2. Make disciples in your own image, to follow your own teachings.
You are making the point for me here Sharon.
-
-
-
You can't make a disciple of an infant, can you?
Why not?
-
Welcome to
All About GOD
The Good News
Meet Face-to-Face & Collaborate
© 2024 Created by AllAboutGOD.com.
Powered by
