Several thoughts:

 

First- Give me just one scriptural reference to the apostles or anyone else baptizing infants. It just isn't in the Bible.

 

Second- The responsibility for our Salvation falls on us, as free moral agents. Jesus bowed his head on the cross and said, "It is finished." Now, it is left up to us to believe, repent, confess, and be baptized. A baby can not do these things, because they are innocent, "Of such is the kingdom of Heaven". Think of your own children: Do you get any glory out of making them wash the dishes or take out the trash; possibly, even after arguing with you about it? No. But what about if you've had a horrible day at work and you are beat, and you come home and your kids have cleaned the house, made their beds, and have cooked supper for you. How does that make you feel? GREAT!!! It is the same way with salvation. God gives us the opportunity to obtain it, but doesn't force it on us, because there is no glory in making people do things.

What happens if someone is baptized at birth but never does a confirmation around age 13? Does the baptism expire?

 

 

No.

Another question for Catholics that find themselves voting for a pro-choice candidate.

 

If your faith says that baptism is the only way to save an infant from hades, does the abortions that we allow to be performed in this country doom those babies to Hades?

 

 

Addressed in a post above by me.

Several thoughts:

 

First- Give me just one scriptural reference to the apostles or anyone else baptizing infants. It just isn't in the Bible.

 

Second- The responsibility for our Salvation falls on us, as free moral agents. Jesus bowed his head on the cross and said, "It is finished." Now, it is left up to us to believe, repent, confess, and be baptized. A baby can not do these things, because they are innocent, "Of such is the kingdom of Heaven". Think of your own children: Do you get any glory out of making them wash the dishes or take out the trash; possibly, even after arguing with you about it? No. But what about if you've had a horrible day at work and you are beat, and you come home and your kids have cleaned the house, made their beds, and have cooked supper for you. How does that make you feel? GREAT!!! It is the same way with salvation. God gives us the opportunity to obtain it, but doesn't force it on us, because there is no glory in making people do things.

 

Again, I adressed that in posts above, and there is scriptural justification.

From Pope Leo I

 

 

 

 

From Catholic.com

 

 

Specific to baptizing infants:

 

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 belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such 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).

 

 

I'm curious Rockmom. One reason for the rise of infant baptism as norm in much of the church after the first centuries is theological shift as much as long held practice. (IMO) It seems to me that Augustine's extreme push for the original sin nature of all humanity is as much a rationale and reason for infant baptism as any. Augustine's theology shaped the church greatly and his emphasis on the notion that we are all born into sin by the very nature of being born (and conceived some would say) required a response from the church. In Augustine's world the infant mortality rate was very high and the need to protect our infant's from hell's torments was very strong. So it made logical/theological sense to baptize new borns as soon as possible into the kingdom and seek to teach and lead them to confirm that faith at a later date.

 

I'm not passing a judgement on this but am sharing what I think was a large factor in the practice both historically and theologically.

 

Before we Baptists get too high and mighty I'm not sure we are all that different as many choose to baptize some children as young as 4, 5 and 6 years of age who still believe in Santa Clause but now say they can make a lifelong/eternal commitment to following Christ as well.

 

Just some food for the table of discussion. :thumb:

Another question for Catholics that find themselves voting for a pro-choice candidate.

 

If your faith says that baptism is the only way to save an infant from hades, does the abortions that we allow to be performed in this country doom those babies to Hades?

See post #6

No.

I hope this doesn't come off as real dumb...so why the need for the confirmation?

I've always believed that baptism is an outward profession of an inward conversion.

 

For that reason, I've never understood the Protestant criticism of Catholic infant baptism. If the Catholic Church wants to sprinkle water on a baby's head (wonderful ceremony by the way), why should a Protestant care? We would simply call that a "christening," which has the same effect of binding that child to the commitment of the church body that we Baptists do when we have a baby dedication at our Mother's Day service every year.

 

From the Protestant viewpoint, that child will still have to grow to understanding and accept Christ after the age of understanding in order to achieve salvation. And since I don't believe that baptism itself is a prerequisite to salvation, it should not matter whether that person gets subsequently baptised or not.

 

My real bone of contention between Protestant and Catholic doctrinal discussion is not the sacrament of baptism but the dogmatic understanding of "age of understanding." The Catholic Church seems to belief in the practice of that en masse following the Rite of First Communion, whereas Protestants believe that understanding may be different for each person. There's really where a thread ought to be started.

I've always believed that baptism is an outward profession of an inward conversion.

 

For that reason, I've never understood the Protestant criticism of Catholic infant baptism. If the Catholic Church wants to sprinkle water on a baby's head (wonderful ceremony by the way), why should a Protestant care? We would simply call that a "christening," which has the same effect of binding that child to the commitment of the church body that we Baptists do when we have a baby dedication at our Mother's Day service every year.

 

From the Protestant viewpoint, that child will still have to grow to understanding and accept Christ after the age of understanding in order to achieve salvation. And since I don't believe that baptism itself is a prerequisite to salvation, it should not matter whether that person gets subsequently baptised or not.

 

My real bone of contention between Protestant and Catholic doctrinal discussion is not the sacrament of baptism but the dogmatic understanding of "age of understanding." The Catholic Church seems to belief in the practice of that en masse following the Rite of First Communion, whereas Protestants believe that understanding may be different for each person. There's really where a thread ought to be started.

:thumb::thumb::thumb:

Plato, "when they grow up". Right there you answered your question. I believe everyone is Saved ...until they have the opportunity to hear and REJECT the Gospel.

 

Trampler, nice analogy and post. Glad you have joined us.

Let me also throw this out there, and it may be a topic for another thread, but:

 

If Protestants (I am one) believe that 1) Christ is the only path to salvation; 2) That a child dies before the age of understanding and therefore has obviously not accepted Christ; 3) that that child still is saved by the grace of God (we'll call this the "Fairness Doctrine"); 4) how is it that adult Buddhists, Taoists, Muslims, etc. who have not been exposed to the Good News cannot also benefit from the "Fairness Doctrine?"

 

Furthermore, I submit question 5) if your response to #4 is that "they can," does that not defeat the purpose of "go ye thereforth into the world to spread the good news among all nations?" In other words, by spreading the gospel to those who have not heard, do you not potentially also doom them to hellfire?

Plato, "when they grow up". Right there you answered your question. I believe everyone is Saved ...until they have the opportunity to hear and REJECT the Gospel.

 

Trampler, nice analogy and post. Glad you have joined us.

 

I'm sorry, Larry, I believe that to be wrong. The gospel tells us that NONE are saved, not ALL. All of us are fallen and all of us are doomed until we ACCEPT the gospel, not the reverse. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, ever since the incident in the garden.

What happens if someone is baptized at birth but never does a confirmation around age 13? Does the baptism expire?

great question

I hope this doesn't come off as real dumb...so why the need for the confirmation?

I like how Hearsay put it- baptism is an "outward expression of an inward conversion." If there is no inward conversion, does the baptism really matter that much? The Catholic tradition of infant baptism was to erase the mark of original sin. I don't know if I'd say it "expires"- I would say that the original sin is removed- but baptism without living like Christ doesn't really count for much in the end, does it? Don't think that Catholics believe that baptism alone gets one to attain salvation. While we think it is necessary, by itself it doesn't count for much. The Confirmation is when you confirm that inward conversion.

Let me also throw this out there, and it may be a topic for another thread, but:

 

If Protestants (I am one) believe that 1) Christ is the only path to salvation; 2) That a child dies before the age of understanding and therefore has obviously not accepted Christ; 3) that that child still is saved by the grace of God (we'll call this the "Fairness Doctrine"); 4) how is it that adult Buddhists, Taoists, Muslims, etc. who have not been exposed to the Good News cannot also benefit from the "Fairness Doctrine?"

 

Furthermore, I submit question 5) if your response to #4 is that "they can," does that not defeat the purpose of "go ye thereforth into the world to spread the good news among all nations?" In other words, by spreading the gospel to those who have not heard, do you not potentially also doom them to hellfire?

Excellent post! It certainly is a moral dilemma among any evangelical religion (not Evangelical, but those which have a nature of spreading the Gospel, which should be all Christian (including Catholic) denominations). Tough to answer- maybe worth another thread?

I'm sorry, Larry, I believe that to be wrong. The gospel tells us that NONE are saved, not ALL. All of us are fallen and all of us are doomed until we ACCEPT the gospel, not the reverse. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, ever since the incident in the garden.

I agree that it is only by the grace of God are we saved. I believe that God doesn't punish us to Hell for failure, but he punishes us for not trying. But like it has been said before- does the peasant farmer in China who never heard of Jesus go to Hell? Nope. But if he hears the true gospel and rejects, sadly I believe he would.

Still waiting for scriptural call to baptize small children. I'm not talking about some religious organization's historical practice. I need to see it in the Bible. We are not to follow after the traditions of men; rather, what thus soever saeth the word of God.

 

John the Baptist rejected the Pharisees and Saducees and called them a generation of vipers and told them to go and bring forth fruits meet for repentance. Meaning- he would not baptize them until they repented. Of what does a newborn need to repent, when Jesus said the kingdom of heaven is likened unto them?