Infant Baptism

That is absolutely untrue. Children and the mentally retarded do not go to hell, but it is not water baptism that keeps them from going; it is the love, mercy, and justice of God.

This idea of water as some magical potion is extremely harmful. If water baptism does what you claim, why not go hose down the neighborhood and save their souls.

 

In your opinion Celtic1, what is the reason to baptize an infant?

 

The idea that an outward ritual is necessary to salvation is false doctrine. It is non-scriptural, and only one party in Anglicanism holds to it.

 

I have for years had a problem with infant baptism, as I don't believe it is scriptural.

However, to be objective and answer your question, I can see a few ways to possibly justify it: 1. As a dedication/consecration of the infant, 2. As a sign of prevenient grace. 3. As a sign of covenant promises

Originally infant baptism was done by state churches as a means of maintaining the state religion. The free churches did away with the practice because they could see no scriptural justification for it.

 

I like all of those!

 

First we are foreknown, then we are predestined. When we are born we are engrafted into the Mystical Body of Christ, which marks us out as Christ's, on the surety of faith that we will later display. If we don't display the later faith, God in his foreknowledge would deny us that grace at baptism, so upon that future faith, God knows whether to impart that grace to us or not, which opens our Mind and Heart to Him. We accede in faith through the Preaching of the Word, and become justified thereby. That faith displays itself through works, without which we never had faith to begin with.Our faith, our Christianity, our unity, are constantly supported and reinforced by the Spiritual Food of Our Lord, at Holy Communion. And upon death, having lived a baptised life of faith that expresses itself through works, we die into the arms of the Lord.

Respectfully, it is not a question about parties but the Anglican Church itself, in its doctrines and its whole unbroken history. It has enshrined this in its Doctrines, in contempt of all 'parties':

"when the Minister dipping the Infant in Water, or laying Water upon the Face of it (as the manner also is) hath pronounced these Words, I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the Infant is fully and perfectly Baptized"

What do you think we claim it does?

 

Wow, that's several steps more than even Wesley's formula. I wonder how this statement...

can be reconciled with this statement...

 

Spiritually regenerates and saves. But only one party claims that, thank God.

It neither regenerates nor saves.

 

Do you see the sacrament of baptism as imparting any kind of spiritual grace?

 

You cannot equate regeneration to salvation, Celtic1. Having been "born again" is not the same as having been "saved" because, most simply, we're still alive on this Earth when we are regenerate. Salvation is brought to the full when the Lord comes to reign again. We're still groaning & travailing with the rest of the creation, regenerate or not.

This reminds me of the old problem of equating justification with salvation. Maybe that's the "communication problem" we're having here. People with a "high view" of Baptism say it regenerates, not that it saves a man. You'd have every right to condemn me if I said that the work itself saves a man.

Also, the Lord Himself never spoke of the holy Baptism with such irreverence as to call it a "hosing down", or a "getting wet". Whatever you think Baptism is or does, could you please not employ the mockery of the atheists? Those are the sorts of terms the World uses to jest about Christianity. Why employ them? Your point is made without the need for such hyperbole.

 

That's right Celtic, being born again is only step 3b on Stalwart's 14 steps to salvation.

 

Consular, the apostles speak of salvation often in past tense...speaking not only of Christ's redeeming work on the cross as well as the moment of regeneration. If they refer to regeneration as being saved, then I think its altogether appropriate for Celtic to do so.

 

Yes. I am between the extremes -- of baptismal regeneration on one end and symbolic only on the other.

 

Very well. Then water baptism does not regenerate. And I still think my example is relevant -- minus the hyperbole -- in the case of those who think it regenerates. If it does this, then we should water baptize as many as we can in order that they may be regenerated.

 

I agree, but I was able to concede him his point and still make mine.

But thanks for pointing out that salvation is a present reality based on our coming to faith in the past, and it is also a future fulfillment.

 

My theology is generally middle-of-the-road; I tend to avoid extremes.

 

Yes, in that the adult parents, sponsors, and parish (read pg. 303) promise to bring the child up in the Christian faith and life, and promise to pray and witness to the child so they may grow into the full stature of Christ. To some it seems more convenient to apply mystical magical powers to the baptismal waters, rather than to devote their life to raising a faith filled child for God.:think:

Jeff

 

Excellent!

 

While his example may be extreme, never forget that the Roman Church in the early 1500's felt they could use the baptismal waters to cure paralytics, and even were known to immerse dead bodies, hoping to bring them back to life.