Replies

So what good is actually accomplished at baptism vis-a-vis the fallen nature if it is only good until the first (mortal) sin? If a baby dies before his first sin he is "covered", right? So, what is the difference between two babies who die, with one having been baptized and the other not? In the salvational sense, if the same two do not die, then are they both not in the same spot upon their first sin?

I am the last person on this earth who can explain Baptism to someone who sees it as a nominalist act. I can say, however, that your thinking mirrors that of errors that existed in the mid 4th century A.D. when some Christians delayed Baptism until their dying moment for fear of the "post-baptismal sin."

I confess not just my ignorance but my doubts (intentionally or not) every time I post something, because I can actually understand such nominalism, by clinging to rationalism.

Nevertheless, I am not a rebel. I believe that the Church speaks the truth even if I don't understand or even personally see the truth the same way at this moment as the Church did from the beginning.

Here are some of my nominalist reasons for that belief even as I lack spiritual understanding:

(1) There is Scriptural evidence that suggests that whole families were baptized.(1 Cor 1:16, Acts 11:14, or 16:15, 18:8, etc.). I am pretty sure that in those days the term "family" (familia) included the children.

(2) St. Justin Martyr, a first-century Saint, himself having been baptized as an infant/child¹ (born in 69 AD), writes in Apologia 1:15 "men and women who have been Christ's disciples since childhood remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy..." It was the same Saint who taught that Baptism is Christian circumcision (and Jews perform circumcision on the 8th day after birth).

¹Polycarp said "Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ" as he was being martyred in 155 AD.

(3) Irenaeus (2nd century AD) stated that all who are born through Him are born again to God — infants and children..."

(4) Others, such as Origen (who says "Infants are ot be baptized for the remission of sins..." Homily on Luke 4:1) or St. Cyprian (who specifically says that Christians should not wait until the eight day to baptize their children as the Jews do for circumcision, but "as soon as [the child] is born" 1:2) expressed similar understanding.

(5) The bishops at the Council of Carthage (254 AD) specifically state that no one should hinder another person from receiving God's grace" adding "especially infants..."

(6) St. Augustine made it clear that the custom of baptizing infants was a "tradition of the apostles" De Genesi ad Literam X:39. He was adamant that "infants who die before baptism" cannot obtain remission of the original sin."

(7) Early Christian grave sites bear witness of dead infants and children who were "servants of God" or words to that effect. In the Laterna Museum an inscription dated around 200 AD says that a certain Zosimus "a believer from believers lies here having lived 2 years, 1 month 25 days."

(8) Baptism is adoption of man by Christ (St John of Damascus, Book IV, VIII:5). What he is saying basically is: there is no age limit when God may adopt us.

[There are numerous other samples from historical records that show that the Church, the clergy and the people of God, practiced and believed in infant baptism in an unbroken tradition instituted by the Apostles and carried on to this day by Apostolic Churches (Roman Catholic, Orthodox) and some Lutheran and Calvinist denominations.]

(9) There is a preponderance fathers, throughout centuries, with one sole exception (Tertullian, 2nd c. AD), who believed and defended what the Church always believed regarding infant baptism. Infant baptism was not rejected until the 16th century by Anabaptists who were condemned by the Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Lutherans alike.

(10) Let's not forget that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother's womb (Luke 1:15).

(11) The 4th century Symbol of Faith (aka known as the Nicene Creed), in its finalized version states "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins" ( because we are all born in iniquity, i.e. fallen from God's grace).

(12) Surely, you must agree that God is not limited by our age of reason or, as Tertullian would say, our "spiritual puberty," for us to have our sins remitted by His Grace. The Church understood that from the beginning, and still does, even I.

On this whole infant baptism issue, it's kind of funny because I think now I need to be a little more careful how I talk about it since recently finding out that my view is in the minority on my own side :) (obviously for different reasons). Apparently, the believer's baptism is much more of a Baptist thing than a Reformed view. Luther, it appears, was all in favor of infant baptism.

Here are some of my nominalist reasons for [supporting] that belief [Church's belief on infant baptism]:

(2) St. Justin Martyr, a first-century Saint, ... taught that Baptism is Christian circumcision (and Jews perform circumcision on the 8th day after birth).

Even though I think I've heard of that before, I always think that is an interesting comparison. What do you think of this passage? :

Rom. 2:25-29 : "25 Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26 If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27 The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker."

"28 A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God."

If the comparison that St. Justin Martyr makes is correct, then this would seem to confirm that baptism is only good until the first sin. It also seems to imply that anyone who is not baptized, but yet believes, is still fine in the eyes of God. I would agree with that. Finally, from my POV, this "could" also be seen as favoring a believer's baptism, since how could any man receive praise from God unless he is a believer?

(6) St. Augustine made it clear that the custom of baptizing infants was a "tradition of the apostles" De Genesi ad Literam X:39. He was adamant that "infants who die before baptism" cannot obtain remission of the original sin."

It's interesting because I have my own little "situation" concerning this kind of thing. I say that God picked His elect for certain from before the foundation of the world. So, I can't say that God throws out "free passes" as time goes by. This leaves open the possibility that some innocent children, or aborted babies, etc. are not on the list. Of course, they could all be on the list. There's no way for me to know. So if I understand the Reformed view on this, and if I am to be consistent, then I have to leave open the possibility.

(8) Baptism is adoption of man by Christ (St John of Damascus, Book IV, VIII:5). What he is saying basically is: there is no age limit when God may adopt us.

Yes, this ties in with above, and I agree that there is no age limit. I would say the elect are the elect whether or not they have been baptized or even said the sinner's prayer.

10) Let's not forget that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother's womb (Luke 1:15).

That is a fair point for those who believe that the Spirit indwells at Baptism. (I just don't happen to be one of those people. :)

Yes, I agree with you in principle, that no one is barred from heaven based on age, even in the womb. -- And on this whole subject, as I have said to Joe before, and others I'm sure, infant baptism has never been a matter of serious controversy for me. Even while holding my current beliefs, I sanctioned both of my [then] infant children being baptized in other churches for family reasons. It was no problem. They have both since been baptized as believers. So, my main disagreements would be much less over the fact of infant baptism, and much more over the meaning behind it.

BTW, for anyone who doesn't already know, and would be interested in knowing where I'm coming from in a believer's baptism, here are some scriptures I would use in support:

1. Mark 16:15-16 : 15 He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

"Believe" comes first, just as in Matthew, plus notice the clear implication that not being baptized does not equal condemnation, only unbelief does, even though baptism was just mentioned in the same sentence.

2. Acts 2:41 : Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Unbelievers, such as infants, were not baptized.

3. Acts 8:12 : But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Only when they believed were they baptized.

4. Acts 18:8 : Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized.