Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!psuvax1!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Infant Baptism, and a Few Oddments Message-ID: Date: 20 Nov 90 04:37:06 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 52 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu As I see the issue of Baptism, much of what has been discussed here seems, well, needless theologising. I see no clear statement that Jesus intended for us to baptise those who are too young to understand repentance. There are a few "and his household" passages here and there, but I find arguments built upon those mostly irrelevant time-wasters: we have no information on the age of the youngest child, and so the arguments are not very convincing. Additionally, I cannot squish my brain into the shape needed for things like `emergency baptism' to make any sense. I read the articles and think "It's water. You get it out of the faucet and dunk people in it. It's no different than the water you get in the church kitchen to make tea." I cannot make myself think of the water as magical, or special, or anything else. It just makes no sense to me. If Jesus intended for us to baptise infants, or intended to suggest that there was some special property about dunking people with the correct words, it seems he could have said so. But there is no clear statement to baptise infants, and no clear statement that the dunking is anything other than a symbol. As such, I see no particular reason to go back and produce reams of theologising from a few scattered texts. Anyway, two other things appeared in these threads, both of which are pseudo-related and so will get a reply in this article (instead of in other ones). First, David Wagner said something like "Luther and the RCs were agreed in condemning the errors of those opposed to infant baptism." While I suppose I ought to be flattered that His Holiness Mr Luther felt I was worth a word or two, I'd like to point out that I think Mr Wagner is the one who errs on this issue; but I do not speak as if it were a foregone conclusion. I respectfully request similar courtesy from those who feel I am in error. Secondly, Steve (somebody) posted an article saying that infant baptism was not the practice in the first-century church, and therefore we should not baptise infants. I am curious to know if he applies this principle to the writings he considers Scriptural; specifically, whether he uses the New Testament as Scripture, and if so why?% ------ % - I am familiar with 2 Peter 3:16, and with 1 Timothy 5:18, but I find the claim that these passages intend to call portions of the NT `Scripture' in the same class as the arguments about `households' being baptised. The position is not unambiguously stated, and therefore the speculations are of little interest. The first _clear_ reference to any of Paul's writings as Scripture is not until ~117 AD, and the first clear reference to one of the Gospels as Scripture is in ~130 AD. ------ kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu Darren F. Provine ...njin!gboro!kilroy "Schism is the oldest of Christian traditions." -- Michael L. Siemon