• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What Is The Purpose Of Baptism?

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
1 Peter 3:20-22 New International Version (NIV)
Meaningful difference of infant and adult baptism:
Mark 16:16 New International Version (NIV)
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.....
Please keep in mind that ' Mark's gospel account Ends at Mark 16:8 '
KJV added on those spurious verses, and so does NIV add on the verses after verse 8
The style of writing changes after verse 8
After verse 8, there are No cross-reference corresponding verses as there is with the rest of Mark.
Jerome and Eusebius believed Mark 16 ended at verse 8
Ancient manuscripts such as the Vatican 1209 and the Sinaitic do Not have verses after verse 8.

There are No instructions for infant baptism in Scripture because an infant can't repent or dedicate oneself.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
So they're quite different. And, I assume then that any baby not baptized is not acceptable to god, and if it dies it will end up in hell(?).
So, because an infant and young child are incapable of believing, then they're condemned (to hell I imagine).
.

Since the dead people are in biblical hell ( sheol/ hades ) then dead babies since Adam are also in biblical hell.
So, then we need to know just what is biblical hell, or the Bible's hell.
No one was baptized before baptism was instructed, so before Jesus there was No Christian baptism.
Christ's death covers those people who died before Jesus lived - 1 John 1:7 B
Most teach ' hell ' is for the wicked, yet can anyone think of anyone righteous who went to hell _________
In Scripture, the day righteous Jesus died he went to hell according to Acts of the Apostles 2:27.
The hell fire teaching comes from the word Gehenna which is Not sheol / hades ( the grave ).
Gehenna was a garbage pit where things were destroyed forever and Not kept burning forever.
Thus, ' Gehenna ' is a fitting word for: destruction. Or, as Psalms 92:7 says the wicked will be destroyed forever.
So, the religious-myth of burning after death is a false religious teaching just taught as being Scripture.
The dead know nothing. Nothing but sleep according to Jesus at John 11:11-14.
Jesus learned that know-nothing condition from the OT such as Psalms 115:17; 146:4; Isaiah 38:18; Ecclesiastes 9:5
So, the Bible's hell is simply mankind's temporary stone-cold grave for the unconscious sleeping dead.
The grave until Resurrection Day meaning Jesus' coming millennium-long day of governing over Earth.
 

Niblo

Active Member
Premium Member
It is a teaching of the Church then when God created Adam and Eve they received, as part of their human nature, sanctifying grace; being that which: ‘Gives us acceptance into the kinship of God.’ (Council of Trent: Enchiridion; article 796).

As you know, the Bible teaches that Adam and Eve disobeyed God, and in so doing committed a personal sin. This sin, according to the Church, affected human nature itself, depriving it of its original and natural sanctifying grace. This deprivation of sanctifying grace is called ‘original sin’.

It is important to realise that original sin is called ‘sin’ in an analogical, rather than literal sense. We are not born with sin in the normal sense of the word; rather, we are born without our original holiness; without sanctifying grace. In other words, we are born with a ‘fallen human nature’. The remedy, according to the Church, is baptism:

‘There is no other way to come to the aid (of little children) than the sacrament of Baptism by which they are snatched from the power of the devil and adopted as children of God’ (Decree for the Jacobites at the Council of Florence: Denzinger 1349); and again: ‘If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only razed, or not imputed; let him be anathema.’ (The Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and Oecumenical Council of Trent: Trans. J. Waterworth).

According to the Catholic Catechism the doctrine of original sin is an essential truth of the faith: ‘With the progress of Revelation, the reality of sin is also illuminated. Although to some extent the People of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand the pathos of the human condition in the light of the history of the fall narrated in Genesis, they could not grasp this story's ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.’ (Part One; Section Two; Paragraph 7).

This is a very interesting statement. What is being admitted is that the Tanakh contains no reference whatsoever to the concept of original sin. Indeed, this concept is alien to Judaism to this very day.

The Church teaches that those who die in a state of original sin are excluded from the ‘Beatific Vision’. This doctrine was declared by both the 2nd General Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence (1438-1445).

The Catholic Encyclopaedia defines the Beatific Vision as: ‘The immediate knowledge of God which the angelic spirits and the souls of the just enjoy in Heaven. It is called "vision" to distinguish it from the mediate knowledge of God which the human mind may attain in the present life. And since in beholding God face to face the created intelligence finds perfect happiness, the vision is termed "beatific".’

In 2007 - alarmed by the number of infants dying unbaptised (including those dying by abortion) the Church set up an International Theological Commission. This Commission published a study paper entitled: ‘The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised.’

The conclusion of this study was that: ‘There are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation. However, none of the considerations proposed in this text to motivate a new approach to the question may be used to negate the necessity of baptism, nor to delay the conferral of the sacrament. Rather, there are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible to do for them that what would have been most desirable - to baptize them in the faith of the Church and incorporate them visibly into the Body of Christ.’

The authors of the report state that: ‘When reflecting theologically on the salvation of infants who die without Baptism, the Church respects the hierarchy of truths.’

Let me remind you of one particular ‘truth’: ‘Those who die in a state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision.’

There is a disconnect between the Magisterium of the Church and the views of many - perhaps most - Catholics, especially the laity. The Second Vatican Council was asked to rule on this matter - to overturn the official doctrines and canons of past Councils - but this was declined.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
That's question number one.

Secondly, is there any meaningful difference between infant baptism and adult baptism; that is, does one confer something the other doesn't?

.

Well, I suppose it makes for a good alibi when one wants to eliminate one's enemies.

 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
That's question number one.

Secondly, is there any meaningful difference between infant baptism and adult baptism; that is, does one confer something the other doesn't?
.
Baptism is an initiation ritual by which the subject enters into and is accepted by a community.

Baptism is officially for the 'washing away of sin' but these days we know not all sin is soluble, so it's just symbolic.

The difference between infant and adult baptism is consent.
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
Purpose of baptism [spoiler alert!]
View attachment 27994

1 Peter 3:20-22 New International Version (NIV)
to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

Meaningful difference of infant and adult baptism:

Mark 16:16 New International Version (NIV)
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

An infant should not be baptized because the infant is incapable of believing.
This is the wrong practice.


Finally, what makes baptism meaningful is it should be done in the church established by Christ and not established by some fart.


LOL, Oh my goodness... And I just finished my first cup of coffee. I know what I must do...
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
Infant baptism is meaningless because it takes the act as being significant rather than the intent. No one can make a decision to serve God as a baby. It requites vows and educated decisions to fully accept the Christian way of life for yourself. Infant baptism is a proxy arrangement that finds no support whatsoever in the Bible. One has to be of an age where they can make that choice for themselves. There is no age limit but the one undergoing baptism must fully understand what it means.

So if Baptism is all about intentions and choices, then the water part is just an old worthless tradition then. Right?
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
The wind breathes where it will, and thou canst hear the sound of it, but knowest nothing of the way it came or the way it goes; so it is, when a man is born by the breath of the Spirit.

Jesus answered, Believe me, no man can enter into the kingdom of God unless birth comes to him from water, and from the Holy Spirit.

..."No man" means no man.
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
Which is made up of numerous communities, all with finding their place within the 'entire human race'. But you're right and until humanity comes to realize that there will be no unity.

True. There can be communities within communities.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
That's question number one.

Secondly, is there any meaningful difference between infant baptism and adult baptism; that is, does one confer something the other doesn't?

.

1) Baptism is identification--a convert to Judaism, if they're quite serious and dedicated, is baptized to complete their conversion, after renouncing all gods other than Yahweh.

1a) Baptism in Judaism is identification with the monotheist God of Judaism.

1b) Other ritual Jewish baths/immersions are for purity, identifying with the Law of the God of Judaism.

2) John's baptism identified a person with repentance/contrition.

3) Christian baptism "in the Name of..." identifies the saved with the triune Savior.

4) Infants do not have the ability to discern the Savior or declare publicly, via voluntary baptism, their salvation. Adults who get baptized do so to identify to at least one other person (their baptized) their salvation and faith. Infant baptism is heretical to the scriptures, therefore all Protestants and evangelicals emphasize adult or young adult baptism.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
That's question number one.

Secondly, is there any meaningful difference between infant baptism and adult baptism; that is, does one confer something the other doesn't?

.

In Bible the meaning is to make person a disciple of Jesus. There is no age limit for that.

Therefore go, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you. Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
Mat. 28:19-20

But, if one is a disciples of Jesus, it would be important to learn what Jesus taught, because:

Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, "If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
John 8:31-32
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
Infant baptism is heretical to the scriptures

Actually, it is heretical to denounce infant baptism because Infant baptism is equivalent to giving to God what belongs to God.

We should be baptizing as many people as we possibly can and just let God sort out the rest.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Baptism is a carry-over of the mikveh in Judaism, both of which involve a symbolic cleansing and also an introductory rite into the faith. In many denominations, it is believed to also involve forgiveness of "original sin".

In some denominations, baptism may be done to an infant but then to be followed up much later if so desired in the rite of "confirmation" whereas some words of the baptismal rite are repeated and renewed.

The early Church mainly did baptism of young or older adults, but in Acts in mentions an entire family being baptized, although we don't know the ages of the kids. In the 2nd century, infant baptism was done but still not that common. But when the plagues hit that decimated Europe in later centuries, one of them killing an estimated 1/3 of all the children in Europe, the Church decided to split baptism into the two parts, "baptism' and "confirmation", and infant baptism became increasingly more common. The driving force in large part due to the words in Mark's gospel that one needed to believe and be baptized in order to be saved, and even though belief is not possible with an infant, baptism as a rite can be.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
So if Baptism is all about intentions and choices, then the water part is just an old worthless tradition then. Right?

Why would you say that? The water is an integral part of baptism. It is the full immersion, not just a sprinkling or making the sign of the cross on an infants forehead. That is meaningless ritual. The scriptures make it clear that a believing parent has their young children covered by their own faith, making an often insincere ritual unnecessary. It is a church tradition (like many others) that finds no basis in the Bible.

Jesus' baptism, like all who volunteered to be publicly baptised, was by full immersion.....it was a symbolic 'death' to a former lifecourse and a 'resurrection' to a new life of dedication to God. This was to affect every aspect of a Christian's life. In all things, God's will was to take precedence over our own.

No one can dedicate our life to God but us. And we do this of our own free will in full knowledge of what it means from that day forward. It isn't simply a 'spiritual insurance policy'. If you don't pay the premium, (i.e. to put in the effort to live a Christ-like life every day) you are not covered.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
That's question number one.

Secondly, is there any meaningful difference between infant baptism and adult baptism; that is, does one confer something the other doesn't?

.
Christian baptism is the public declaration of faith and acceptance, and the symbolic representation first of the cleansing of sin, and second the symbolic representation of the baptized one entering death, the grave, as Christ did and coming out of the grave, resurrected, as Christ did.

Infant baptism is a total conflict of terms.

Christianity is all about free will, one chooses Christ, one chooses baptism.

Infants can do neither.

There is no mystical magic in baptism, it is a declaration and representation, nothing more.
 
Top