Trying Initial Conversion Again

[the lumberjack]

and THANK THE LORD FOR THAT!

I mean, I hardly even KNOW THE GUY!


hahahaha....


THAT, and I don't think MY WIFE would like it too much....

[Mrs. Bro. Adam]

[quote] By KennC

Hi Br Adam;

I'm not sure if your post was refering to mine but, don't go away I'm really asking here??
btw, good to see ya, say hi to Mrs Br
Ken [/quote]



:wavey:

[Mrs. Bro. Adam]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Mar 19 2004, 12:42 PM'] first off, as much love as I got for Bro Adam...we're not married.

[/quote]
Nope...


That's me!!!

[Aloysius]

[mulls]

so if a baby is baptized on the faith of his parents, or denied baptism because of the lack of faith of his parents, isn't that basically saying that the parents are COMPLETELY responsible for the soul of that child,

especially if it dies without being baptized?

since everyone here agrees that they don't know what happens to unbaptized children, with hell being a possibility?

[Aloysius]

they are completely responsible for bringing them into the faith, and thus the state of their soul, since they are the first teachers of the faith. of course the child when he reaches the age where he takes responsibility for his own actions then becomes responsible for the salvation of his soul.

anyway, we hope that God will save all unbaptized babies from Hell through extra-ordinary means simply because they themselves commited no sin they are culpable for, Christ's compassion for children would cause Him to go to any lengths to bring those babies back to Himself and clear away the stain of original sin.

[Dave]

[quote name='mulls' date='Mar 19 2004, 05:01 PM'] so if a baby is baptized on the faith of his parents, or denied baptism because of the lack of faith of his parents, isn't that basically saying that the parents are COMPLETELY responsible for the soul of that child,

especially if it dies without being baptized?

since everyone here agrees that they don't know what happens to unbaptized children, with hell being a possibility? [/quote]
You could say that. Catholic parents have a grave obligation to have their kids baptized and raised Catholic. It's a mortal sin for them to deliberately fail in that regard, as they're doing their kids a really bad disservice.

But I don't know that anyone here believes that unbaptized babies are hell-bound.

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote]Infant Baptism


Fundamentalists often criticize the Catholic Church’s practice of baptizing infants. According to them, baptism is for adults and older children, because it is to be administered only after one has undergone a "born again" experience—that is, after one has "accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior." At the instant of acceptance, when he is "born again," the adult becomes a Christian, one of the elect, and his salvation is assured forever. Baptism follows, though it has no actual salvific value. In fact, one who dies before being baptized, but after "being saved," goes to heaven anyway.

As Fundamentalists see it, baptism is not a sacrament (in the true sense of the word), but an ordinance. It does not in any way convey the grace it symbolizes; rather, it is merely a public manifestation of the person’s conversion. Since only an adult or older child can be converted, baptism is inappropriate for infants or for children who have not yet reached the age of reason (generally considered to be age seven). Most Fundamentalists say that during the years before they reach the age of reason infants and young children are automatically saved. Only once a person reaches the age of reason does he need to "accept Jesus" in order to reach heaven.

Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a
connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

 
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 having a right to his kingdom. He asserted such a right 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, Proseferon de auto kai ta brephe). The Greek word brephe 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?

 
In Place of Circumcision



Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ"—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.

 
Were Only Adults Baptized?



Fundamentalists are reluctant to admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults, but when pressed, they will. They just conclude that is what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text does not explicitly support such a view. Naturally enough, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture (and few are individually identified) are adults, because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just beginning—there were no "cradle Christians," people brought up from childhood in Christian homes.

Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ." Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.

 
Specific Biblical References?



But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).

In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.

Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.

 
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]).

 
No Cry of "Invention!"



None of the Fathers or councils of the Church was claiming that the practice was contrary to Scripture or tradition. They agreed that the practice of baptizing infants was the customary and appropriate practice since the days of the early Church; the only uncertainty seemed to be when—exactly—an infant should be baptized. Further evidence that infant baptism was the accepted practice in the early Church is the fact that if infant baptism had been opposed to the religious practices of the first believers, why do we have no record of early Christian writers condemning it?

But Fundamentalists try to ignore the historical writings from the early Church which clearly indicate the legitimacy of infant baptism. They attempt to sidestep appeals to history by saying baptism requires faith and, since children are incapable of having faith, they cannot be baptized. It is true that Christ prescribed instruction and actual faith for adult converts (Matt. 28:19–20), but his general law on the necessity of baptism (John 3:5) puts no restriction on the subjects of baptism. Although infants are included in the law he establishes, requirements of that law that are impossible to meet because of their age are not applicable to them. They cannot be expected to be instructed and have faith when they are incapable of receiving instruction or manifesting faith. The same was true of circumcision; faith in the Lord was necessary for an adult convert to receive it, but it was not necessary for the children of believers.

Furthermore, the Bible never says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation except for infants"; it simply says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation." Yet Fundamentalists must admit there is an exception for infants unless they wish to condemn instantaneously all infants to hell. Therefore, the Fundamentalist himself makes an exception for infants regarding the necessity of faith for salvation. He can thus scarcely criticize the Catholic for making the exact same exception for baptism, especially if, as Catholics believe, baptism is an instrument of salvation.

It becomes apparent, then, that the Fundamentalist position on infant baptism is not really a consequence of the Bible’s strictures, but of the demands of Fundamentalism’s idea of salvation. In reality, the Bible indicates that infants are to be baptized, that they too are meant to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Further, the witness of the earliest Christian practices and writings must once and for all silence those who criticize the Catholic Church’s teaching on infant baptism. The Catholic Church is merely continuing the tradition established by the first Christians, who heeded the words of Christ: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:16). [/quote]

[mulls]

sweet, more articles

[Aloysius]

hehehe... Jason seems to be full of articles

[mulls]

[quote name='mulls' date='Mar 19 2004, 05:01 PM'] so if a baby is baptized on the faith of his parents, or denied baptism because of the lack of faith of his parents, isn't that basically saying that the parents are COMPLETELY responsible for the soul of that child,

especially if it dies without being baptized?

since everyone here agrees that they don't know what happens to unbaptized children, with hell being a possibility? [/quote]
actually, now that i think about it, would the PRIEST be most responsible, since he judges whether the parents are worthy enough to have their child baptized?



being totally speculative here, but if in fact unbaptized babies did go to hell, wouldn't the burden of their souls fall on the priest? if the act of baptism, of which only a priest could perform, was the formula for the child escaping hell, how could this not be the case?

[the lumberjack]

[quote name='mulls' date='Mar 19 2004, 04:44 PM'] sweet, more articles [/quote]
yeah...

[quote]hehehe... Jason seems to be full of articles  [/quote]

you ain't lyin....

[Aloysius]

[quote name='mulls' date='Mar 19 2004, 04:55 PM'] actually, now that i think about it, would the PRIEST be most responsible, since he judges whether the parents are worthy enough to have their child baptized?



being totally speculative here, but if in fact unbaptized babies did go to hell, wouldn't the burden of their souls fall on the priest? if the act of baptism, of which only a priest could perform, was the formula for the child escaping hell, how could this not be the case? [/quote]
no, it's the parents burden to get them to the priest, it's the parent's job to be the first teachers of the Christian faith to their children. if the parent does not intend on doing this, it's the parent's fault the baby died while still within original sin. we hope for them to be brought to heaven and whiped clean of that original sin by extra-ordinary means, but the culpability for letting that baby die without having original sin cleared off his soul is the parent's. the parent must bring him to a priest. anyway, any Christian can baptize if there's a grave danger present, so if the baby was dying in the hospital and there was no way he would make it, the parent could baptize him. basically, you bring a life into this world it's your responsibility to baptize him and bring Him up as a son of God.

[Dave]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Mar 19 2004, 06:46 PM'] anyway, any Christian can baptize if there's a grave danger present, so if the baby was dying in the hospital and there was no way he would make it, the parent could baptize him. [/quote]
A small correction ... in an emergency ANYONE may baptize -- the person doesn't even have to be Christian -- just so long as they intend to do what the Church does.

[Aloysius]

hmm... i GUESS i stand corrected..


the person must have faith, though, correct?