Baptism

Call_Me,Stan

I'm getting baptised tomorrow. I'm just wondering how you guys feel about baptism.


For my views, check the link in my signature.

smidgy

Have been looking at this thread for a few weeks wondering when someone might show some interest in it and actually make a post. Well looks like I'll have to do for 'em!

Just a thought, but you'd wonder how important it is at the end of the day whether you are baptised or not? I know many lapsed christians who have been baptised at birth 'without their consent' and I wonder whether this be a saving grace on judgement day?

For those of us who are baptised and value and live by the teachings of Christ then I think it may be an added grace that we have been baptised.

Altheus

smidgy wrote:

Have been looking at this thread for a few weeks wondering when someone might show some interest in it and actually make a post. Well looks like I'll have to do for 'em!

Just a thought, but you'd wonder how important it is at the end of the day whether you are baptised or not? I know many lapsed christians who have been baptised at birth 'without their consent' and I wonder whether this be a saving grace on judgement day?

For those of us who are baptised and value and live by the teachings of Christ then I think it may be an added grace that we have been baptised.

I think a baptism is significant in two regards.

First of all it's an admission in the eyes of the parish and in the eyes of God that you will raise your child in within your faith.

Secondly it a blessing and I think that while important would never guarantee any 'saving grace' on a Judgement day.

The idea of repentance being a key to heaven is true, but ultimately it is in the convictions of remorse and repentance that any grace would be granted, not in the eyes of a act of a priest or a church or a parish.

Call_Me,Stan

Altheus, when I started this thread I mean conscious baptism, I was baptised as a Children but I'd consider that meaningless. I think it's a good idea to dedicate your child to God in thankgiving and prayer for his guidance in parethood, but I think it has no meaning for the child.

My baptism was long after I accepted Jesus as the leading force in my life and to me, it was a commitment, like that of a marriage ceremony.

smidgy

Call_Me,Stan wrote:

I was baptised as a Children but I'd consider that meaningless.

I dont think I would agree on you with this. If a child dies at birth, I then think that baptism will be very important for this child. I am not quite sure but I think a child goes to limbo if he dies without baptism?

Phil_321

smidgy wrote:

I dont think I would agree on you with this. If a child dies at birth, I then think that baptism will be very important for this child. I am not quite sure but I think a child goes to limbo if he dies without baptism?

So what happens to all the children of non-Christian parents?

Manach

Firstly, as far as I can ascertain, Limbo does not have canoical status so it may or may not exist.
As for Phil_321's query, I have no specific answer, but I'd say Mt.19:14, "... the Kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these". If anyone has a better explanation, please post away.

smidgy

Phil_321 wrote:

So what happens to all the children of non-Christian parents?

What happens to people who are not christians? I believe that they are judged on their actions, by whether they have chosen good or anti-good in their lives.

A child can not be judged like this however. If a child is not baptised then original sin not wiped from that childs soul. If this sin is not cleaned from their soul then how can they enter heaven? I believe that if limbo exists then the distance between limbo and heaven is not far.

Call_Me,Stan

Manach wrote:

Firstly, as far as I can ascertain, Limbo does not have canoical status so it may or may not exist.

Whether it has conoical status doesn't determine whether it exists.

Go by the bible. I believe it doesn't.

Also, a event such has baptism does nothing to a babie's soul. How can it, when he doesn't decide.

Excelsior

First of all, Call_Me,Stan, when Manach says canonical he doesn't mean capable of firing balls of metal at opponents but rather that teachings come from the Canon, the accepted texts, as oppossed to the texts considered but rejected.

These accepted texts are commonly referred to as the Bible.

If you look at any of the New Testament conversions, like the many test cases in the Acts of the Apostles, you will see people being baptised after becoming Christians. This is based on the ministry of John the Baptiser, on Jesus' own baptism at his hands and the interaction Jesus has with Nicodemus in the garden in John 3.

Look closely though and you see that the pattern of New Testament conversion shows us clearly that not just the individuals but their households (where appropriate and possible) were baptised. That means the prison guard in Phillipi became a Christian and was baptised and he had his whole family and his servants (if he had them) baptised too. Even those children who may not have been capable themselves of comprehending the Gospel.

Infant baptism, therefore, is not only biblically valid, but I would argue biblically mandated.

neuro-praxis

I approach baptism from the covenantal position.

In the Old Testament, believers (Jews) were marked from birth through circumcision. This physical mark was a mark of God's promise (or covenant) to the Jewish people.

When Christ came, the practise of cicrumcision was abolished in the new church, and was replaced with baptism. Similarly, being baptised is a mark *of what God has done for us* rather than what we believe.

I was baptised as a baby, but I only came to faith around the age of thirteen or fourteen (it was a journey - I don't remember a particular moment). When I asked my pastor about being baptised (because I felt my original baptism had been meaningless) he responded with the following answer:

As a child, I was marked through baptism as a child under God's promises. At my decision to become a Christian, I stepped into the role that God had marked for me. As such, I was a covenant child, and that is what baptised children are.

If I ever have children, I will baptise them as infants as a mark that my entire household is under God's covenant (as is demonstrated in the bible itself). Their baptism will be about what Christ has done - not about what my children believe.

I hope that this makes sense.

Call_Me,Stan

Still gotta say I disagree. I don't think that above is a mandate for infant baptism.

However, my fear was simple that infant baptism would replace baptism as an important statement about ur death and ressurection with Christ.

Baptism is a symbol of dying to your earthly self and being risen in a new life with Christ. I don't see how a baby can die to itself (meaning leaving behind a inherently sinful nature and accepting an inherently righteous nature) when babies are innocent.

OY

I thought that the Bible thought us that in the eyes of God all children are innocent. I kind of agree with Call_Me,Stan here. A child cannot possibly make that choice to devote their life and their thoughts to God, nor can they accept God inot their hearts.
I think adult baptism has much more meaning than child baptism in the sense that it is the person making the decision for his or her self and accepting the responsibility/consequences of accepting God in their life.
I am not saying that i think infant baptisms are a bad thing at all! I just think that they pale in comparison to the implications of an adult baptism.

I am editing but i will keep the remarks above as it is what i thought. I have done some research and found the following comments online:

I John 3:4 says, "Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness: and sin is lawlessness."

We do not inherit sin; we commit sin; and we commit sin when we commit lawlessness. An infant has not broken any law of God and thus has not committed any sin.

Ezekiel 28:15, "You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you."

So we see that an infant is born perfect and without sin until he becomes of an accountable age and then begins to sin.

James 4:17 says, "Therefore to him who knows to do good, and does not do it, to him it is sin."

This is the sin of omission. An infant does not know to do good and thus cannot sin. There are only two ways that man sins: by committing sin or we sin by omission. An infant cannot sin in either way and has no sin.

Matthew 18:3, "Unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

Little children are not lost, but are safe until they become accountable.

However there seems to be a lot of debate online about this and some sites that post the opposite so who knows!

smidgy

We do not inherit sin; we commit sin; and we commit sin when we commit lawlessness. An infant has not broken any law of God and thus has not committed any sin.

I don't see how a baby can die to itself (meaning leaving behind a inherently sinful nature and accepting an inherently righteous nature) when babies are innocent.

The doctrine of the catholic church is that we are all born with original sin. (I am sure this position was bourne out of much theoligical and biblical discusion by learned theologins) To counteract this, it was seen that baptism of infants was the solution to clense the soul at the first possible chance.

"You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you."

Is this the day each of us was born ?? I think this would more correctly refer to the fall of man - the day iniquity was found in man.

Matthew 18:3, "Unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

It is my opinion on this statement that it refers to us believing in something that we cannot see, something that little children are capable of.

I really think baptism of infants is as valid as baptising adults.