Infant Baptism - "A Solemn Mockery before God"

[jonny]

So your answer to my earlier question is yes? Becky says that Mormons believe that there has never been such a thing as original sin...it seems like you're saying that there was, up until Christ. Which is it?

Does it matter? If the atonement was part of the plan of God from the beginning, whether or not original sin ever existed is a moot point. It obviously had to exist in order for it to be atoned for, but since it is done away with through the atonement, I don't see why it matters.

 

[jonny]

I want to know how YOU understand the atonement and the fall in YOUR words. I know what they are according to my beliefs. Can you explain them to me instead of directing me to a website?

 

[madhatter85]

I do. That doesn't mean that sin ceases to have consquences.

So your answer to my earlier question is yes? Becky says that Mormons believe that there has never been such a thing as original sin...it seems like you're saying that there was, up until Christ. Which is it?

In the New Covenant, we (Catholics and other paedo-baptists) believe that baptism has replaced circumcision, thus our administration of it on infants.

the concequece of the "original sin" was taken by christ. i thought that was self-evident.

i said what jews believe, not what mormons believe.

administration of circumsism or baptism?

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

I want to know how YOU understand the atonement and the fall in YOUR words. I know what they are according to my beliefs. Can you explain them to me instead of directing me to a website?

The website is the Catechism of the Catholic Church; I figured it would be most direct. Basically I believe that Christ paid for the sins of the world, in a nutshell. Of course, that payment has to be enacted in each one of us individually; we aren't all automatically on our way to heaven because of Christ's death. Thus, one of the ways that the grace of Christ is poured out on us and that propitiation is put into effect is through Baptism.

As for the Fall, I think it created a chasm between man and God that needed crossing. I think it fundamentally altered human nature, making it defective and in need of restoration. That restoration is made possible through the Cross, and enacted in ach of us individually through faith and the sacraments.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

the concequece of the "original sin" was taken by christ. i thought that was self-evident.

No, the removal of the consequence was made possible by Christ.

administration of circumsism or baptism?

Both were/are administered to infants. Baptism is the NT version of circumcision, basically.

 

[madhatter85]

No, the removal of the consequence was made possible by Christ.

wrong, Look up the word atonement.

Atonement - satisfaction or reparation for a wrong or injury; amends. Archaic. reconciliation; agreement.
Reconcile - Settle, Make amends.

Both were/are administered to infants. Baptism is the NT version of circumcision, basically

and if that is the case my point has been proven. if things changed drastically since christ's coming (no more burnt sacrifices - starting of the sacrement; no more circumcision - baptism by immersion; origininal sin atoned for - men acountable for own sins)
Matthew 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

That statement alone says a whole lot for the argument that little children are perfect and spotless and incapable of sin.

 

[athanasius]

Eh, why not, this is a religious debate forum, i'm just quoting scripture, i'm not attacking anyone. i'm curious what peopel have to say about it. we spend alot of time defending our religious practices like BFTD. and whatnot.

You do realize that we do not accept the book of Mormon as scripture?

 

[Bishka]

You do realize that we do not accept the book of Mormon as scripture?

I believe he was talking to me.

 

[Jacob]

oh boy, do I ever love this topic..... Infant Baptism... we need to ask ourselves these questions..
1) when was Jesus Baptized?
2)The

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

wrong, Look up the word atonement.

Atonement - satisfaction or reparation for a wrong or injury; amends. Archaic. reconciliation; agreement.
Reconcile - Settle, Make amends.

I'm aware of the meaning of the word. It doesn't mean that the effects of that atonement are enacted in all people...unles you think no one at all is going to end up in outer darkness?

and if that is the case my point has been proven. if things changed drastically since christ's coming (no more burnt sacrifices - starting of the sacrement; no more circumcision - baptism by immersion; origininal sin atoned for - men acountable for own sins)

Even with original sin, men are still accountable for their own sins, so you're constructed a false dichotomy there.

Matthew 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

That statement alone says a whole lot for the argument that little children are perfect and spotless and incapable of sin.

This verse does not exactly say what it means to become like little children. Most people I've heard say it means that we must have childlike (completely trusting and dependent) faith in our Father. This does not contradict the anthropology of original sin at all.

 

[Jacob]

Infant Baptism... one of my favorite subjects... One way that I like to think of this is by asking myself logical questions. the first of them would be
What is the origin of this Practise?
As most Christian religions do not follow this practise, it seems that the roots come down to the Catholic church.. this leads to another question.
Why does the Catholic Church implement this Practise?
this goes back to the Fall of Adam and the belief that the original sin was of a sexual nature and that we all come into this world under that sin....
ok, now that we know the basis of where infant baptism came into play we can analyze it a bit more...
was the original sin of a sexual nature?
are we responsible for the sins of our fathers?
If the virgin mary (or was she baptized as an infant too?) was void of original sin in order to be the mother of jesus, that would imply that her parents too were void of that... then their parents.. and so on.. all the way back to adam????
infant baptism to me seems like a doctrine related to a patch-work quilt... unless there was more solid backing behind it, i must refuse to accept it. it seems like a mis-interpretation of the scripturers or a mere doctrine of man implemented, then as time went on and faults found in the practise, more and more shaky doctrines were created to back it up... kindof a lie to cover up a lie. (no offense intended, simply a comparison)

 

[lunamoth]

It kills me how Catholics are always being accused of needing to do 'works' for salvation, yet infant baptism is one of the greatest and most elegant signs of God's unconditional love and grace.

St. Augustine may have been unusually fixated on sex, but original sin is not sexual in nature. Original sin is our brokenness, a propensity toward sin that is part and parcel of being thinking humans. Baptism is not for the forgiveness of sins inherited, nor for the forgiveness of sins committed by a baby, but to open the door to forgiveness of sins that they will commit over the course of their life. Frankly I think our sins are forgiven even without baptsim, but like other sacraments, these are outward signs/symbols of inward reality.

 

[Smoke]

That is the 8th Chapter of Moroni. Which is why Mormons do not baptise infants. Debates are welcome. Please provide solid rebuttles if any. Thanks

Now, that's a convincing argument. Every Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox Christian, and Anglican in the world would be so embarrassed if they realized their practices were contrary to the Book of Mormon!

 

[madhatter85]

You do realize that we do not accept the book of Mormon as scripture?

Do you realise we don't accept your "oral apostolic traditions" as scripture?

 

[Smoke]

Do you realise we don't accept your "oral apostolic traditions" as scripture?

That's the point, isn't it? In the context of some systems of belief, infant baptism makes perfect sense; in the context of other systems of belief, it doesn't. You're asking people to justify their practices in the context of your system of belief, which is absurd. You might as well shake them by the lapels, screaming "Why aren't you Mormon?!"

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Infant Baptism... one of my favorite subjects... One way that I like to think of this is by asking myself logical questions. the first of them would be
What is the origin of this Practise?
As most Christian religions do not follow this practise,

Have you visited any Presbyterian, Episcopalian, or Orthodox churches lately?

it seems that the roots come down to the Catholic church.. this leads to another question.
Why does the Catholic Church implement this Practise?

Most obviously, because the early Church did:

"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

"If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid., 64:5).

"Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!" (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

"‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated" (ibid., 40:28).

"You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members" (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

this goes back to the Fall of Adam and the belief that the original sin was of a sexual nature and that we all come into this world under that sin....

I've never heard original sin explained or defended in a sexual context. Where did you hear that from?

was the original sin of a sexual nature?

Not that I'm aware of.

are we responsible for the sins of our fathers?

No, we're responsible for our own sins. However, we inherit our propensity to sin from our fathers.

If the virgin mary was void of original sin in order to be the mother of jesus, that would imply that her parents too were void of that... then their parents.. and so on.. all the way back to adam????

Incorrect. The Immaculate Conception of Mary was a unique miracle that allowed her to be born without original sin so that she would be the perfect vessel to bring Christ into the world

infant baptism to me seems like a doctrine related to a patch-work quilt... unless there was more solid backing behind it, i must refuse to accept it. it seems like a mis-interpretation of the scripturers or a mere doctrine of man implemented, then as time went on and faults found in the practise, more and more shaky doctrines were created to back it up... kindof a lie to cover up a lie. (no offense intended, simply a comparison)

Needless to say I don't really agree. The practice has been around since the very early Church. It is at least hinted at a couple of times in Scripture, and if one accepts that baptism has replaced circumcision in the New Covenant, the administration of it on infants becomes even more justified.

 

[madhatter85]

No, we're responsible for our own sins. However, we inherit our propensity to sin from our fathers.

propensity - noun, plural - Tendency. predisposition

Dude, seriously, you need to look up your definitions properly, or say what you really mean. because you take words completely out of context.

yes, we have the ability to sin, of course, but little children cant, they don't know anything, they can't have tendency to sin because of that.

also, the act of circumsision didn't happen untill the age of 12, prepubecent to ward off masturbation (it was used similar to the practice of cutting off a woman's clitorus in some african tribes to ward of the tendency to recieve gratification from sex), then as time went on men changed the practice to younger and younger ages.
circumcsising babies was not done, nor baptism on babies. it was changed by man, not by god (effectively perverting the doctrine by man).

which also proves my point that even in the old days they knew infants had NO propensity to sin.


As for the adam and eve thing being a sin of a sexual nature, I will say that it is possible because of the cryptic nature of the bible. sex was a very sore subject back then and the onyl way to present it was in a euphamising fashion. So, it COULD BE the case, but we don't actually know.

 

[madhatter85]

That's the point, isn't it? In the context of some systems of belief, infant baptism makes perfect sense; in the context of other systems of belief, it doesn't. You're asking people to justify their practices in the context of your system of belief, which is absurd. You might as well shake them by the lapels, screaming "Why aren't you Mormon?!"

Why aren't they?
Studies have shown.
Active Mormons live an average of 8-11 years longer than the average american.
Active Mormons tend to live wealthier lives than the average american
Active Mormons have bigger families than the average american
Active Mormons provide more service to the world than any other non-priofit organization.
The LDS church has the worlds largest independent welfare system.

 

[Bishka]

Active Mormons have bigger families than the average american

That is not a selling point to most people. :areyoucra Besides, those reasons are nice, but not one person is going to join a church because of them. They will join a church because they believe in the teachings.

 

[madhatter85]

That is not a selling point to most people. :areyoucra Besides, those reasons are nice, but not one person is going to join a church because of them. They will join a church because they believe in the teachings.

i know, i was only being a smartass.