Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: MarkBsnr
Let me elaborate a little. Infant baptism is for us a two part deal.

I understand, but it is not the Scriptural model. It is the invention of men with very elaborate reasoning behind it.

3,652 posted on 03/08/2008 10:38:26 AM PST by wmfights (Believe - THE GOSPEL - and be saved)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3646 | View Replies ]


To: wmfights

The Scriptural model is not explicit when referring to infant baptism. In the NT, whole households were baptized - not whole households minus the infants - and so therefore there is precedence.

It is the development of the Church that the infant model needed to be taken to the point where the necessity of baptism be given to all as soon as is practicable, and yet have that requirement that belief be in place. Thus, the split in the Church between the moment of baptism and the acknowledgement of those mature enough to be able to confirm that they are willing to be baptized.

You must remember that Jesus left us His Church; that Church is the teaching institution and there is no other outside of private revelation of the Holy Spirit. We examine the proofs of private revelation in order to determine their accuracy or even origin, but we are subordinate to the Holy Spirit. We have not made God in our own image, as is the apparent practice of many Protestants, especially the Calvinists.


3,653 posted on 03/08/2008 10:51:19 AM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3652 | View Replies ]

To: wmfights

***It is the invention of men with very elaborate reasoning behind it.***

We must also differentiate between the doings of individual or groups of men and the Church.

That by itself should be the deciding factor between choosing the words of Calvin (or Luther or Mary Baker Eddy or Joseph Smith or Jimmy Swaggart) and those of the Church.


3,654 posted on 03/08/2008 10:56:48 AM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3652 | View Replies ]

To: wmfights; MarkBsnr
Infant baptism was practiced by the earliest Christians. It is a Sacrament and it does not require "age of reason" any more than the Eucharist does. Eastern Churches administer the Eucharist to children as well as adults.

Orthodox baptism involves immersing three times (baptiso means repeatedly and affecting permanent change, as opposed to bapto which means once) for obvious reasons (Father, Son, Hoy Spirit), immediately followed by the seal (chrism).

Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. One is not brought into the Church unless he or she is baptized. As Christians, we are commanded to baptize (please tell St. Paul!), no ifs and buts about it.

If God wants to save unbaptized people that's His prerogative. Not ours.

Besides, Presbyterians also baptize their infants.

The oldest Christian graves show that many of the deceased were infants. The inscriptions found on their tombstones leave little doubt that they were "servants of God."

3,703 posted on 03/08/2008 9:33:31 PM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3652 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson