Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Infant Baptism, and a Few Oddments Message-ID: Date: 27 Nov 90 09:00:40 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 128 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) writes: >In article kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes: > >To be precise, this is what Melancthon wrote in the Augsburg confession, >which enjoyed very widespread support from many opposed to the papacy, >on the subject of Baptism. > > "Our churches teach that Baptism is necessary for salvation, that the >grace of God is offered through Baptism, and that children should be baptized, >for being offered to God through Baptism they are received into grace. > "Our churches condemn the Anabaptists who reject the Baptism of children >and declare that children are saved without Baptism." > David, how do you come to the conclusion that based on the above quote it was not believed that baptism was not a requirement for salvation. The quote you have provided exactly says that baptism is required for salvation. I believe that what you are doing is what is called rationalization. The theological view point that baptism for infants are not required for salvation is a late development which was not held in the days of Luther. Your quote in fact supports my statement. However, it is clear from the many postings that many still believe that infant baptism is still a reguirement. This is the reason why many talks about "emergency" baptisms. We need to stop and think how our theology reflects back on the character of God. One may ask, what kind of God is it which would condemn an infant because the negligence of perents or because of where the baby was born. Even if we believe that an infant which received no baptism can be saved, doesn't resolve the problem, because it was clearly indicated that baptism will provide an advantage to the infant. Meaning, that if there is two infants, one which received baptism and the other didn't, the one which did would be better off. A god which would set such laws would be no God at all. Infants can't sin and they are not responsible for their actions. They have no control over what their parents are, or what their parents will do or not do. We have no recorded child baptism in the Bible at all. This is for a very good reason. For baptism is unto repentance, and infants have nothing to repent of. Matt 3:8 ======== "Bring forth therefore fruit meet for repentance:" Matt 3:11 ========= "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance..." Infant baptism is one of the many teachings of man. > I do not think that Melancthon intended to say that those who believe >but die without the opportunity of Baptism, are not saved. That would >contradict the words of Christ, who told the believing thief on the >cross next to him: "Today, you will be with me in paradise". > I believe that there is a lot of confusion about the requirement of baptism. One must be of an age of accountability before baptism becomes a requirement. Baptism for the thief is in fact a requirement for his salvation. The idea that the thief went to heaven is false. The scripture tells us that Jesus didn't go to "heaven". This is what Jesus said following the resurrection: John 20:16 ========== "Jesus answered her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my bretheren and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." I believe that you would expect to find the thief where Jesus went "today". Peter tells us where Jesus went following his death and before his resurrection: I Peter 3:18-19 =============== "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:" "By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;" I Peter 4:6 ----------- "For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." The thief went into the spirit world to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ. The question is, what about the requiremnt to be baptized? The record tells us that baptism for the dead was practiced in the early church. Paul says the following: I Corint 15:29 -------------- "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" > >David H. Wagner University of Houston. With brotherly love, Frank [Again, let me point out that for many who practice infant baptism, the issue is not that baptism has some sort of mystical effect on a person, but that it is a sign commanded by God to mark their entrance into the Christian community. In most Protestant churches emergency baptism is specifically prohibited in order to make it clear what is going on. The question of whether baptisms of the whole family in the NT included children is one that I think will never be settled (in this life). I suspect that God will accept both those who believe they are honoring his commandment by baptizing infants and those who believe they are doing so by baptizing only adults. By the way, it seems a failure of Christian charity to use the inflammatory label "teachings of men" for practices that have a reasonable argument for being Biblical -- even if you don't agree with the argument. Since rites such as baptism do not seem to be essentials for salvation, perhaps we should practice the sort of tolerance suggested in Rom 14: 1-6 towards those who believe they are called to do things differently than we do. --clh]