What is Baptism.

JimiTime

This arose from a debate on the countmeout.ie thread.


Ocainain decribed it as a sign of the new covenant, like circumcision was for the old, or the rainbow was for Noah.

Now if we view it as such, then infant baptism is fine isn't it? However, Christ talked about being baptised by the holy spirit? Is this what happens in an infant baptism?

I would like to ask what you view baptism as, and its importance to the Christian?

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

This arose from a debate on the countmeout.ie thread.


Ocainain decribed it as a sign of the new covenant, like circumcision was for the old, or the rainbow was for Noah.

Now if we view it as such, then infant baptism is fine isn't it? However, Christ talked about being baptised by the holy spirit? Is this what happens in an infant baptism?

I would like to ask what you view baptism as, and its importance to the Christian?

I agree that baptism is a sign of the new covenant, but I disagree that makes infant baptism OK. The new covenant is something that we enter into by faith, therefore those who exercise faith are the ones who should be baptised.

The old covenant was with a race of people, therefore circumcision was applicable for children since you are born into a race. The new covenant is with the church - you cannot be born into the church (unless you count being born again by faith).

The baptism of (or with) the Holy Spirit is distinct from water baptism. In Acts 8 we read about those in Samaria who were baptised in water but then received the Holy Spirit at a later time.

prinz

PDN wrote: »

I agree that baptism is a sign of the new covenant, but I disagree that makes infant baptism OK. The new covenant is something that we enter into by faith, therefore those who exercise faith are the ones who should be baptised.

Is Baptism not a symbol of the covenant, and a stepping stone towards it? I thought Baptism was the first step, and Confirmation was the actual confirming that you want to accept the covenant in it's entirety? And you agree to confirmation in the knowledge and understanding of the undertaking at a later stage in life.

It was my understanding that Catholic baptism was a welcoming of the child to the congregation and Catholic community but that it was upon Confirmation that a mature decision was taken whether or not to accept the Holy Spirit?

Mark Hamill

Ocianain wrote:

You can't be un-Baptized, you can believe anything you want. You can be agnostic, an atheist, a Christian of any persuasion, whatever, but you are still Baptized.

But what effect does baptism have on you if you can stop believing in god after you have been baptised? (assuming you believed before you were baptised in the first place)

Mark Hamill

ocianain wrote:

Again, baptism is how one entered into a covental relationship with God, rather than ask, "Why early baptism?" I would ask, "Why wait to start a relationship with God?"

Shouldn't people be allowed to choice to enter that relationship though? Why would you want to force that on someone?

ocianain

From the previous thread, some info on Baptism:

Infant Baptism
Early Teachings of Infant Baptism (Fathers*)
Baptism Immersion Only
Baptismal Grace (Fathers*)
Born Again in Baptism (Fathers*)
Trinitarian_Baptism (Fathers*)
Necessity of Baptism (Fathers*)

ocianain

JimiTime wrote: »

This arose from a debate on the countmeout.ie thread.


Ocainain decribed it as a sign of the new covenant, like circumcision was for the old, or the rainbow was for Noah.

Now if we view it as such, then infant baptism is fine isn't it? However, Christ talked about being baptised by the holy spirit? Is this what happens in an infant baptism?

I would like to ask what you view baptism as, and its importance to the Christian?

Yes that's what happens in infant baptism, I don't like to cut and paste, I believe it generally ends discussion and does not advance it, but here's a quote from the first citation listed above

Catholics From the First


The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly with early Christian practices. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that "according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants" (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
citation (on infant baptism):

Infant baptism was practiced from the beginning. As an aside, notice the articles are affixed an imprimatur, this means they do not violate Church teaching.

Mark Hamill

ocianain wrote: »

From the previous thread, some info on Baptism:

Infant Baptism
Early Teachings of Infant Baptism (Fathers*)
Baptism Immersion Only
Baptismal Grace (Fathers*)
Born Again in Baptism (Fathers*)
Trinitarian_Baptism (Fathers*)
Necessity of Baptism (Fathers*)

Is this your response to my questions? I'm not interested in links, I want your answers. To reiterate:
1) But what effect does baptism have on you if you can stop believing in god after you have been baptised? (assuming you believed before you were baptised in the first place)
2) Shouldn't people be allowed to choice to enter that relationship though? Why would you want to force that on someone?

ocianain

No Mark that was not my response to your question. As mentioned by others, you had no choice in original sin, yet you were born with it. Baptism washes away this sin as well as brings you under the new covenant.

Regarding point 1, Christianity is predicated on a loving/familial relationship with God. God will always love you, but He won't compel you to love Him. What kind of relationship would that be other than master/slave? You may chose as you will, but choice has consequences.

Regarding point 2, We are called as a people by God to love Him. We all have relationships we didn't choose, father/mother, co-workers, who we're working out with at the gym. The idea of a fully informed moral free agent has no precedent in Christianity. Ditto Judaism. As mentioned earlier boys were circumcised before the 8th day (still are) so as to be covered by the OC. Baptism has been called "the circumcision of the heart." (Peter?)

Mark Hamill

ocianain wrote: »

No Mark that was not my response to your question. As mentioned by others, you had no choice in original sin, yet you were born with it. Baptism washes away this sin as well as brings you under the new covenant.

Regarding point 1, Christianity is predicated on a loving/familial relationship with God. God will always love you, but He won't compel you to love Him. What kind of relationship would that be other than master/slave? You may chose as you will, but choice has consequences.

Why cant you leave the new covenant after being baptised? How do you square a loving, just god with one that requires a ritual of pouring water over your head to remove a sin that you had no hand in commiting? How do you square a loving god that requires that ritual more than morality?

ocianain wrote: »

Regarding point 2, We are called as a people by God to love Him. We all have relationships we didn't choose, father/mother, co-workers, who we're working out with at the gym. The idea of a fully informed moral free agent has no precedent in Christianity. Ditto Judaism. As mentioned earlier boys were circumcised before the 8th day (still are) so as to be covered by the OC. Baptism has been called "the circumcision of the heart." (Peter?)

I'm not actually sure what this has to do with what i said. I have relationships which I didn't choose to enter, but I also have relationships I did choose to enter. Surely a relationship with god is one you are supposeed to chose to enter of your own free will (in as much as it is free), otherwise what is the point?

Also you said in the first bit that "God will always love you, but He won't compel you to love Him.", but in the second bit you say "We are called as a people by God to love Him". Isn't this a contradiction? Isn't god calling you to love him, be it by simply announcing his love for you or simply by threatening you with an eternity in the torturous pit of hell for not loving you, a type of complusion?

ocianain

You can leave the covenant, you can't undo the changes Baptism has done to your soul. Plenty of people have gone apostate through history. He knows the Graces necessary for us to have a personal relationship with Him.

We all have a relationship with God, some on His terms, others on our own. We can not define our relationship with Him on our own terms without there being a consequence (negative). Most parents want their children to have a positive relationship with God. Baptism is how that relationship starts.

Ever see "Dash Board Jesus?" It's a little statue of Jesus with arms wide open. He's calling, not compelling you, to a relationship. There is no coercion.

BrianCalgary

Faith in Christ comes as a decision by an adult. No one can make that decision for you.

I was baptized a as a baby in the Anglican church and then confirmed, more as a family pressure. It wasn't until I was baptised as an adult that the ministry I was doing seemed to take off. I had accepted Christ as an adult around 21.

My take is that when baptism occurs as you outward sign of an private decision that the Holy Spirit descends upon you and you receive you spiritual gifts.

I would love some Christian responses to 'my take'.
Thanks

ocianain

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Faith in Christ comes as a decision by an adult. No one can make that decision for you.

I was baptized a as a baby in the Anglican church and then confirmed, more as a family pressure. It wasn't until I was baptised as an adult that the ministry I was doing seemed to take off. I had accepted Christ as an adult around 21.

My take is that when baptism occurs as you outward sign of an private decision that the Holy Spirit descends upon you and you receive you spiritual gifts.

I would love some Christian responses to 'my take'.
Thanks

Your confirmation took place at 21. You were baptized as a child, your soul was immutably changed then, it can't be mmutably changed once again. You had a legitimate conversion experience outside of the C of E, I wish it would of happened within the C of E, but at least it happened and you found God. Keep working on your relationship and maybe I'll meet you in Church!

homer911

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Faith in Christ comes as a decision by an adult. No one can make that decision for you.

I was baptized a as a baby in the Anglican church and then confirmed, more as a family pressure. It wasn't until I was baptised as an adult that the ministry I was doing seemed to take off. I had accepted Christ as an adult around 21.

My take is that when baptism occurs as you outward sign of an private decision that the Holy Spirit descends upon you and you receive you spiritual gifts.

I would love some Christian responses to 'my take'.
Thanks

I would have had a similar experience, baptised and brought up in the Church of Ireland. I actually became a Christian at the age of 11. I was confirmed at 14, but found the experience very empty and "production line". When I was 18 I started going to an independent evangelical church and became convinced of the need to be baptised as an adult - my decision, not anyone elses. Not an easy decision to make as none of my family are committed christians. I did feel very blessed by the act of baptism, but as to whether I received spiritual gifts by this act? I wouldnt be so sure - I would say I was spiritually blessed, but that gifts of the spirit came later. I dont see why it cant be different for different people though..

PDN

BrianCalgary wrote: »

My take is that when baptism occurs as you outward sign of an private decision that the Holy Spirit descends upon you and you receive you spiritual gifts.

I would love some Christian responses to 'my take'.
Thanks

I would see baptism as an act of obedience to Jesus Christ. We are commanded to be baptised following our placing our faith in Jesus Christ.

Jesus said that if you are faithful in little then you will be given much. Therefore it seems reasonable that faithfulness and obedience in a straightforward act like baptism can open the door to God moving in your life in so many other ways.

Mark Hamill

ocianain wrote: »

You can leave the covenant, you can't undo the changes Baptism has done to your soul. Plenty of people have gone apostate through history. He knows the Graces necessary for us to have a personal relationship with Him.

What changes do having water poured over your head and some latin spoke have over your soul? Why would god create people in such a way that they need this arbitrary ritual to be done so they can get into heaven, regardless of good and christian-like they are otherwise? Whats the implication for children who die before they are baptised?

ocianain wrote: »

We all have a relationship with God, some on His terms, others on our own. We can not define our relationship with Him on our own terms without there being a consequence (negative). Most parents want their children to have a positive relationship with God. Baptism is how that relationship starts.

But shouldn't people be allowed to choose to enter that relationship? Forget about defining the relationship, its just about choosing to start it. Isn't that the point, that god wants you to freely choose to be in a relationship with him? If either him or other people are forcing it on you, then baptism is as meaningless an action as those prisoners of war who are forced to convert to their captivors religion.

ocianain wrote: »

Ever see "Dash Board Jesus?" It's a little statue of Jesus with arms wide open. He's calling, not compelling you, to a relationship. There is no coercion.

This is god your talking about, you know the magical entity you believe that created the universe and everything in it. A being like that "calling" to someone is going to have a major effect on them.

Soul Winner

Baptism is a free act on the part of an individual who has come to accept Jesus Christ as his/her personal savior. They normally come to this decision because they heard the good news that Jesus Christ died for them and rose again, that they do not have to pay for their sins because He paid for them all Himself, and that they also have the hope of life eternal and glory with Him when this life ends. This is good news to those who know what it means. Those who don’t accept it simply don’t accept it, end of, it doesn’t do a thing to make what Jesus did invalid.

On the subject of infant baptism. I believe that infant baptism should be available to those who want to have their babies baptized. The problem with this though is that for some reason many of those who get their kids baptized feel that their kids have more of an in with God than those babies who didn’t get baptized, and will proceed to judge parents of kids who don’t get their babies baptized for not doing so, and would go so far as to judge even the kids themselves, the kids Jesus warns not to offend, for it would be better to have a mill stone hung around your head and cast into the sea if you do. It is dangerous because now the baptism of their babies has become a vehicle of judgment, and judging is one of the sins that Jesus condemned most in the New Testament. Only God can judge. I was accused several times in my life by Catholics for not getting my kids baptized. They would usually suggest that I’m not giving my kids a choice. Eh hello??? That is exactly what I’m doing.

There is no scriptural support whatsoever for infant baptism despite what the early church fathers might have said about it. The people who came to John in the wilderness were adults who felt a need to repent of their sins and to symbolize that turning from self to God by being baptized, same thing when people came to the disciples. God commanded the Israelites in the Old Testament to circumcise their babies on the eight day; He did not command the baptism of infants in the New Testament on any day. If it was a requirement from God then we would know about it, and I would definitely do it. The only people who got baptized in the New Testament were adults. So in the absence of a divine command for infant baptism why should anyone feel compelled to do it?

In any case the word baptism means to be submerged in water. It is not the sprinkling or pouring of water on the head. So unless you have been submerged in water then you have not been baptized. And when you do get submerged it has to be done in Jesus’ name, and a knowing of what is being done to you in the doing of the act is vital.

I’m sorry but babies don’t know what is happening to them when they are being Christened, and if they did, they would say that it is been done incorrectly anyway. When one is being submerged in the water in Jesus’ name one is identifying oneself with His death, when one emerges from the water one is identifying one’s self with His resurrection. It is a symbolic act of identifying yourself fully with the work of Christ and in order to that you must first be told what that work means. Babies lack the faculty to absorb such a message let alone have the free will ability to act on that information.

JimiTime

BrianCalgary wrote: »

My take is that when baptism occurs as you outward sign of an private decision that the Holy Spirit descends upon you and you receive you spiritual gifts.

.

What spiritual gifts did you recieve?

Also, I recall a difference between water baptism and holy spirit baptism, would that be correct?

Would I be right in saying that a person can decide to be baptised, and be submerged etc, but not be baptised with the holy spirit?

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

Also, I recall a difference between water baptism and holy spirit baptism, would that be correct?

AFAIK in the RCC the that's the difference is between infant baptism and confirmation. Baptism is done with water and at Confirmation you are baptised in the Holy Spirit. Could be wrong but that's what I thought it was.

BrianCalgary

Thanks for the responses.

JimiTime wrote: »

What spiritual gifts did you recieve?

Also, I recall a difference between water baptism and holy spirit baptism, would that be correct?

Would I be right in saying that a person can decide to be baptised, and be submerged etc, but not be baptised with the holy spirit?

Teaching, Faith and Evangelism. I think those gifts were probably there, but they seemed to get stronger. What PDN said made perfect sense, about obedience.

As for your other two questions, I think that when you do water as an adult, you are baptised by the Holy Spirit at that time.

For the last question, if someone is being baptised, God knows their heart. If heir heart is seeking the Lord, then the Holy Spirit will be there.

peakpilgrim

Soul Winner wrote: »

Baptism is a free act on the part of an individual who has come to accept Jesus Christ as his/her personal savior. They normally come to this decision because they heard the good news that Jesus Christ died for them and rose again, that they do not have to pay for their sins because He paid for them all Himself, and that they also have the hope of life eternal and glory with Him when this life ends. This is good news to those who know what it means. Those who don’t accept it simply don’t accept it, end of, it doesn’t do a thing to make what Jesus did invalid.

On the subject of infant baptism. I believe that infant baptism should be available to those who want to have their babies baptized. The problem with this though is that for some reason many of those who get their kids baptized feel that their kids have more of an in with God than those babies who didn’t get baptized, and will proceed to judge parents of kids who don’t get their babies baptized for not doing so, and would go so far as to judge even the kids themselves, the kids Jesus warns not to offend, for it would be better to have a mill stone hung around your head and cast into the sea if you do. It is dangerous because now the baptism of their babies has become a vehicle of judgment, and judging is one of the sins that Jesus condemned most in the New Testament. Only God can judge. I was accused several times in my life by Catholics for not getting my kids baptized. They would usually suggest that I’m not giving my kids a choice. Eh hello??? That is exactly what I’m doing.

There is no scriptural support whatsoever for infant baptism despite what the early church fathers might have said about it. The people who came to John in the wilderness were adults who felt a need to repent of their sins and to symbolize that turning from self to God by being baptized, same thing when people came to the disciples. God commanded the Israelites in the Old Testament to circumcise their babies on the eight day; He did not command the baptism of infants in the New Testament on any day. If it was a requirement from God then we would know about it, and I would definitely do it. The only people who got baptized in the New Testament were adults. So in the absence of a divine command for infant baptism why should anyone feel compelled to do it?

In any case the word baptism means to be submerged in water. It is not the sprinkling or pouring of water on the head. So unless you have been submerged in water then you have not been baptized. And when you do get submerged it has to be done in Jesus’ name, and a knowing of what is being done to you in the doing of the act is vital.

I’m sorry but babies don’t know what is happening to them when they are being Christened, and if they did, they would say that it is been done incorrectly anyway. When one is being submerged in the water in Jesus’ name one is identifying oneself with His death, when one emerges from the water one is identifying one’s self with His resurrection. It is a symbolic act of identifying yourself fully with the work of Christ and in order to that you must first be told what that work means. Babies lack the faculty to absorb such a message let alone have the free will ability to act on that information.

ACTS 2:38-39 : ‘...Peter said unto them, repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of The Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you AND TO YOUR CHILDREN and to all that are afar off ...’

There is nothing wrong with parents having their children baptised as those children can make their own commitment later in the Sacrament of ‘Confirmation’ when they are on the fringe of adulthood.

Soul Winner

peakpilgrim wrote: »

ACTS 2:38-39 : ‘...Peter said unto them, repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of The Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you AND TO YOUR CHILDREN and to all that are afar off ...’

Not sure how you were able to include babies into that verse but there you go. Looks to me like Peter was talking to his immediate audience in front of him, most of whom were mocking the them as they spoke.

There is no command anywhere in the New Testament that specifically says that infants be baptized. If you find one then I will obey it.

peakpilgrim wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with parents having their children baptised as those children can make their own commitment later in the Sacrament of ‘Confirmation’ when they are on the fringe of adulthood.

How does what I said contradict that??

peakpilgrim

Soul Winner wrote: »

Not sure how you were able to include babies into that verse but there you go. Looks to me like Peter was talking to his immediate audience in front of him, most of whom were mocking the them as they spoke.

There is no command anywhere in the New Testament that specifically says that infants be baptized. If you find one then I will obey it.



How does what I said contradict that??

Luke 18:15-16 ‘... Now they were bringing even INFANTS to him that He might touch them and when the disciples saw it they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him saying: ‘ ...Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the Kingdom of God...’

You were saying that there is no Scriptural Justification for Baptism of Infants; I maintain that there is.

Parents have a responsibility to their children until they are old enough to make their own decisions.

You will probably disagree with this which is your right; which I respect.

peakpilgrim

One factor that I find hard to understand with Atheists is this concept of DEBAPTISM.

If Baptism and God means nothing to you then thats exactly what it means : NOTHING

So why bother with DEBAPTISM if you are an Atheist?

dvpower

peakpilgrim wrote: »

One factor that I find hard to understand with Atheists is this concept of DEBAPTISM.

If Baptism and God means nothing to you then thats exactly what it means : NOTHING

So why bother with DEBAPTISM if you are an Atheist?

I think its simply a matter of setting the record straight. If baptism is an official entry into the church, debaptism is like an official leaving.

Some people do it as a protest against the church; some feel that the churches use the baptism numbers to reflect their actual influence and don't want to be counted.

I guess that if the church was to receive large numbers of letters from people 'leaving' it, it would send a strong political signal (Of course, its not just atheists that might want to leave the church).

ocianain

From the first link I posted:

Christ Calls All to Baptism


"Although Fundamentalists are the most recent critics of infant baptism, opposition to infant baptism is not a new phenomenon. In the Middle Ages, some groups developed that rejected infant baptism, e.g., the Waldenses and Catharists. Later, the Anabaptists ("re-baptizers") echoed them, claiming that infants are incapable of being baptized validly. But the historic Christian Church has always held that Christ’s law applies to infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14).

More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads: "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16).

Now Fundamentalists say this event does not apply to young children or infants since it implies the children to which Christ was referring were able to approach him on their own. (Older translations have, "Suffer the little children to come unto me," which seems to suggest they could do so under their own power.) Fundamentalists conclude the passage refers only to children old enough to walk, and, presumably, capable of sinning. But the text in Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him" (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means "infants"—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious
decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior." And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: "to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven." The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said "let them come unto me," who are we to say "no," and withhold baptism from them? "

There is plenty of evidence for infant baptism, I posted 5 links full of information, if you choose not to read them that's your prerogative, I can't compel you to read them, or, upon your reading them, compel your belief. Regardless, the evidence is overwhelming.

Soul Winner

To Ocianain and Peakpilgrim. Since when does 'children were brought to Jesus so that He could touch them' translate into 'everyone must get their kids baptized?'

ocianain

Soul Winner wrote: »

To Ocianain and Peakpilgrim. Since when does 'children were brought to Jesus so that He could touch them' translate into 'everyone must get their kids baptized?'

From my above post:

the text in Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him" (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means "infants"—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious
decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior." And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: "to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven." The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom.

PDN

ocianain wrote: »

From my above post:

the text in Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him" (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means "infants"—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious
decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior." And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: "to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven." The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom.

Obviously I mustn't be a fundamentalist since I have never argued nor indeed ever heard anyone else argue, anything about the ages of these children.

Maybe, instead of cutting and pasting answers to these 'fundamentalists', you could answer the questions other Christians ask of you in this forum?

Since when does 'children were brought to Jesus so that He could touch them' translate into 'everyone must get their kids baptized?'

The issue is not the age of the kids. The issue is that the passage you quote has nothing whatsoever to do with baptism. It is about mothers asking Jesus to bless their children.

ocianain

Since it says so quite explicitly in Luke. Since, people demanded a Biblical exegesis for supporting Baptism I cited material supplied earlier by links. My argument regarding Baptism following in the covenental tradition of circumcision has gone little remarked upon, talking about the meaning of covenants and covenant signs only talks around the assertion I made, infants routinely entered into covenants with God (in this case via circumcision), informed consent did not play apart.

I didn't want to cut and past, hence the links. It's pretty obvious though few are reading the links. With all due respect the whole argument is about age, if it wasn't why wouldn't an infant be baptized? It's too young to make a decision is the only logical objection. Your interpretation of that passage of Luke is also out of step with near 2000 years of understanding of it and is not logical, as indicated by the historical citations provided (Church Fathers). Why would people object to a blessing (as indicated in the earlier quote) after all?

Also, the idea that only the Bible determines the legitimacy of all practices is also without merit. Where in the Bible does it say that? The "Show me that in the Bible" is also not very logical and is not consistent with the Bible. By that standard (Show me that in the Bible) where is the overturning of infant circumcision, that is, the idea that infants can enter into covenants without informed consent? There is no arguement the Jews did so, that the Christians did so from the earlest time can not be doubted (see the Church Father links). Where then did this idea come from, the Reformation, it's only about 500 years old. Most people in the English speaking world grow up in Protestant cultures, of the English speaking cultures only Ireland is Catholic and holds to the ancient faith. All the others, USA, Canada, England, Scotland etc... are Protestant. These cultures reflect post Reformation English assumptions and beliefs, beliefs largely incongruent with preceding historical beliefs.

JimiTime

ocianain wrote: »

My argument regarding Baptism following in the covenental tradition of circumcision has gone little remarked upon, talking about the meaning of covenants and covenant signs only talks around the assertion I made, infants routinely entered into covenants with God (in this case via circumcision), informed consent did not play apart.

That was answered already though. The Abrahmic covenant was with a nation. The new covenant is for Jew and Gentile alike through faith. Specifically, what is being said, is that the new covenant being a covenant through faith, seems meaningless if it is a baby being baptised. Like SW, I am not saying 'you musn't have a baby baptised'. I don't see what good it does, but hey ho. This idellible mark on the soul etc means nothing to me. The issue I suppose, is that certain groups like the RCC, see it as this magical act. Not sure if its still the doctrine, but it was a worry if a baby died before baptism etc. Again, treating God as some kind of bearaucrat. The RCC made the doctrine of baptism into a 'washing away of original sin'. Jesus done that with his sacrifice already, so that those expressing 'faith' in him would be washed clean in the blood of the lamb. Again, I don't see an issue with a father getting their child baptised, however, its the magical connotation and indellible mark on the soul stuff that I take exception to.

With all due respect the whole argument is about age, if it wasn't why wouldn't an infant be baptized?

Because it doesn't have the faculties to have faith. Again, the Abrahamic covenant was with a nation, so the circumcision was a sign that you were part of this covenant made to a nation. The new covenant is entered into through faith, so thats why age becomes an issue.

It's too young to make a decision is the only logical objection. Your interpretation of that passage of Luke is also out of step with near 2000 years of understanding of it and is not logical, as indicated by the historical citations provided (Church Fathers). Why would people object to a blessing (as indicated in the earlier quote) after all?

A blessing is not baptism. Someone asking for their child to be blessed is fine. Baptism however, is the sign of the covenant of faith.

Also, the idea that only the Bible determines the legitimacy of all practices is also without merit. Where in the Bible does it say that? The "Show me that in the Bible" is also not very logical and is not consistent with the Bible. By that standard (Show me that in the Bible) where is the overturning of infant circumcision, that is, the idea that infants can enter into covenants without informed consent? There is no arguement the Jews did so, that the Christians did so from the earlest time can not be doubted (see the Church Father links). Where then did this idea come from, the Reformation, it's only about 500 years old. Most people in the English speaking world grow up in Protestant cultures, of the English speaking cultures only Ireland is Catholic and holds to the ancient faith. All the others, USA, Canada, England, Scotland etc... are Protestant. These cultures reflect post Reformation English assumptions and beliefs, beliefs largely incongruent with preceding historical beliefs.

A farmer has many hectres of land. He employs men to tend to his flocks to which he gives instruction and guide. As time goes on, one of the employee's says to the others, 'Why is it we use these different feeds and dewormers etc. We would be more efficient if we unite and decide on which of our feed is better. What method of shearing is best etc.' So they unite, and decide on such things. They then decide that it best to appoint an administrator over what feed, dewormers etc are to be used, and to make sure all are using the agreed upon products and methods. One day one of the employed farmers notices that a certain type of sheep are becoming ill, and discovers that there is an element in the latest batch of food that is affecting the sheep like this. He goes to the elected administrator and tells him. The adminstrator rebukes him and tells him he is in error. Worried about his employers flock, he tells others that there is an issue with the feed. Those loyal to the system, and the administrative role rebuke him, seize his flock and strike him down. This happens with other employees then also who discover a problem with the feed. One day, one employee discovers an issue with the dewormer and goes to the administrator who gives the same reaction as he did to the feed issue. This employee returns to his flock, and discovers that the previous employees were correct about the feed also. He then reopens the guide and instructions given to them by the Farmer who employed them and discovers that the feed and dewormer were indeed given against their employers instruction.

So what should this employee do? The will of his employer? or the will of his administrator?

Let he who has ears listen;)

ocianain

When God made covenants he made them with the Jews at different times in their development as a nation, if I remember right it goes like this:

Noah - Family

Abraham - Tribe

Moses - Nation

Christ - Kingdom

Christ when He formed the Church formed a Kingdom on earth. His people are those in the Church. Sott Hahn covers this in, A Father Who Keeps His Promises. Good book, if a little enthusiastic, but hey, he's a convert and some enthusiasm is enjoyable, even for me! There are no Jews and Gentiles under the New Covenant. As evidenced from my ctations, original sin and it's washing away are ancient beliefs, read the Church Fathers if you dare. Be warned though, as Newman said, "To be immersed in history is to be no longer Protestant." History supports the Church position on any doctrine.

peakpilgrim

Soul Winner wrote: »

To Ocianain and Peakpilgrim. Since when does 'children were brought to Jesus so that He could touch them' translate into 'everyone must get their kids baptized?'

If you read the two passages above together ( Acts 2:38-39 & Luke 18:15-16 ) Peter regards Baptism for families including children. We also have Acts 16:33 ‘... and he took them the same hour... and was baptised, HE AND ALL HIS, straightaway...’

In case there is any doubt about that, in the passage from Luke, Jesus includes INFANTS when he considers children. No more than in Baptism, the infants would not understand what was happening to them when they were brought to Jesus but HE, SPECIFICALLY, DOES NOT EXCLUDE THEM.

Conversely, of course, no-where in the Bible are infants excluded from Baptism and there is ample evidence of this procedure involving infants in The Church from earliest times.

Baptism is, also, the Christian equivalent of circumcision. This would not be used as a Christian parallel if infants were to be excluded Col 2:11-12 ‘... In whom also ye are circumcised... with the ‘circumcision of Christ’ ...’ St. Paul writes that Baptism has replaced circumcision, which was, traditionally carried out on infants on the eight day.

PDN

peakpilgrim wrote: »

If you read the two passages above together ( Acts 2:38-39 & Luke 18:15-16 ) Peter regards Baptism for families including children. We also have Acts 16:33 ‘... and he took them the same hour... and was baptised, HE AND ALL HIS, straightaway...’

If you cobble together two unconnected passages you can make them mean just about anything. Acts 2:38-39 says that those who believed and repented (obviously not babies) were baptised. Acts 16 states that those who were baptised also believed (again, obviously not babies).

In case there is any doubt about that, in the passage from Luke, Jesus includes infants when he considers children. No more than in Baptism, the infants would not understand what was happening to them when they were brought to Jesus but HE, SPECIFICALLY, DOES NOT EXCLUDE THEM.

None of which has anything to do with baptism. I agree wholeheartedly with prayiing blessing over babies.

Conversely, of course, no-where in the Bible are infants excluded from Baptism

They are excluded in that baptism is referred to as being for believers - which excludes those who are too young to be able to believe. You might as well base a doctrine for baptising pets on the basis that nowhere in the Bible are cats and dogs excluded from baptism.

and there is ample evidence of this procedure involving infants in The Church from earliest times.

No, 'the earliest times' are the apostolic times as in the Book of Acts or while the epistles were being written. The evidence of infant baptism in this period is zero, zilch, nada etc.

peakpilgrim

Baptism is, also, the Christian equivalent of circumcision. This would not be used as a Christian parallel if infants were to be excluded Col 2:11-12 ‘... In whom also ye are circumcised... with the ‘circumcision of Christ’ ...’ St. Paul writes that Baptism has replaced circumcision, which was, traditionally carried out on infants on the eight day.

Leaving aside the concept of Original Sin you, also, have to consider infant mortality which, in years past, was extremely high; you have to understand the desire of parents to do everything that they can for their children; so Baptism soon after birth has to be understood in that context.

The passage from Luke, let me quote it again: Luke 18:15-16 ‘... Now they were bringing even INFANTS to him that He might touch them and when the disciples saw it they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him saying: ‘ ...Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the Kingdom of God...’

JESUS SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED INFANTS WHO WOULD NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS HAPPENING TO THEM

Nowhere in the Bible do we read of children raised in believing households, reaching the age of reason and then being baptised. The only related accounts involve converts; does that mean that those children are not to be baptised?

The reason is obvious to any impartial observer that if a family is to be baptised that would include children and infants as well, whether you mention them or not; and that includes new members of a family.

I, personally, would not advocate the baptism of cats and dogs, as has been suggested, though, just because it is not mentioned in the Bible; there has to be some common sense here.