That makes absolutely no sense. What better way of identifying baptism as grace, as a free gift, than Baptism given to an infant - who can do absolutely nothing to deserve or earn it, unlike the adult who must first "achieve" a certain amount of faith...?
That makes absolutely no sense. :) You are making my point. You have told me a hundred times that a free gift cannot be forced, it must be freely accepted. This cannot happen with an infant. By definition, Baptism IS 100% FORCED on an infant. The idea of proxy is a cop-out. Lay-parents cannot bestow salvific effects, even in Catholicism, unless you have a new lesson for me. :) This grace that you have God ramming down the throats of infants sounds exactly like what you accuse us of all the time. :)
It is not Catholic teaching that babies are condemned to hell for not being baptized. St. Augustine's theory was never accepted as Catholic doctrine. We do not believe such are reprobate - since one must actively sin to "earn" hell.
OK, perhaps this is a difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy that I didn't know about.
Kosta, I thought you have said that in Orthodoxy, an unbaptized baby who dies is not free of the fallen nature and would be technically lost forever. Of course, God makes the final call, and can save whoever He wants. But "by the book", an unbaptized baby who dies has a serious problem. :) Is this fair?
This is contrasted to Joe's above, which says that any baby cannot go to hell before he reaches the age of reason and is capable, for the first time, to sin. Is that fair?
If I have been fair with all of this, then is it just a difference of opinion, like mine with other Reformers about infant Baptism, or is this a matter of doctrinal difference?
So every Jew up until the time of Christ - to include Christ - was "FORCED" into the community of God by circumcision? If it is a cop-out, then go to the Scriptures and blame them - they tell us that an infant should be circumcised to become part of God's people. So is God "coping-out"? In both Baptism and Circumcision, Jews nor Catholics consider this as the final means of entering Heaven. It is just the entry into the Church. We are now God's children as a result. We can certainly give up our inheritance later. If Christianity is a fulfillment of Judaism, it should be plain that there is a precedent being set for infant baptism by the fact that for 2000 years, people were already bringing their children into the Church by circumcision (Church defined as God's community of people)
You have said that unwritten traditions are fine as long as they have apostolic basis. Really, are you defending Sola Scriptura for the sake of an idea? Isn't 4000 years enough precedent for you?
Kosta, I thought you have said that in Orthodoxy, an unbaptized baby who dies is not free of the fallen nature and would be technically lost forever. Of course, God makes the final call, and can save whoever He wants. But "by the book", an unbaptized baby who dies has a serious problem. :) Is this fair?
I think on this, Latins and Greeks agree that something different is in store for unbaptized babies - but it is not hell. I think some would call it paradise but without God's abiding presence.
Regards
This is not what the Orthodox believe and I don't believe I would have said it that way. We simply do not speculate, knowing that God is not limited in any way to save by His grace whomever He wishes. We take the "Thy will be done" very seriously and literally. We can say that because we believe that God is merciful and just and that whatever happens to the unbaptized babies is merciful and just even if we can't see it that way.