Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:Baptism is to show Outwardly that which has already taken place in the person Inwardly. When a person believes in his heart and confesses with his mouth -- salvation then takes place. Then comes the outward act of.

When our pastor has a baptisimal service as part of the regular church service -- he shares with the congregation that the baptismal water is simply Taylor city water. It's not holy or blessed or anything special.

On these points, you and I share a common theology.

If a church baptizes infants to safeguard them until later on. It's more for the parents than for the infant. Because only an older individual can understand right from wrong / as they are taught that. And can make a decision for themselves.

It puts more responsibility on the parents to teach their children.

But this isn't really a fair representation of the beliefs of those who baptize their children. For them, it's not merely "safeguard[ing] them until later" and still less is it "more for the parents." Their theology is that it is very much for the infant, that baptism itself (by the grace of God, of course) is what washes away original sin. Thus, if a child dies unbaptized, then they still die with the stain of original sin on their soul. That's the basis for the belief in Limbo. Now, the Catholic church allows the opinion that Limbo isn't where such children go after all, but it doesn't allow one to say that they know such children are in heaven. Catholicism permits one to say that they have hope that God has provided a way for unbaptized children to be forgiven of original sin even without baptism, but it quickly notes that if that is the case, such a way has not been revealed to the Church.

To be clear, I'm not saying the Catholic church is right or that you should accept that. I am saying that we need to be fair in understanding what their position is. They would object if we said that infant baptism is more for the parents than the children. And having said all that, since any Christian may baptize anyone else, it may very well be that you, personally, could be in a situation in which you were asked to baptize a dying child. And you may very well do so, given your beliefs, more for the parents than for the child. In fact, you might do that whether the child is dying or not, still believing it was more for the kid that for the adults. But even in that case, within the context of paedobaptistic theology, the act is sacramental, not merely symbolic, and itself works to effect a particular grace (the forgiveness of sin) in the life of the child.

And understanding does Not mean 'agreeing With'. About half of the family I married into are RCC. The subject of infant baptism/ sprinkling Did come up years ago when we were all having small children. My husband had shared - in a very polite manner-- why we would not be having Debs sprinkled or baptized. They were as strong in Their beliefs as we were in Ours. So - none of them would even consider asking either of us to intercede in a situation like that.

So -- if a small child dies or is badly injured in an accident -- does the RCC church say that the child Might die if there is Any kind of sin present in their life? But what if the situation takes place in a setting with no water available -- Maybe my question IS Why does the RCC church teach the importance Of sprinkling with a child who's too young to know what 'sin' IS.
Wouldn't That be a 'work'? towards a person's salvation? And Ephesians 2:8-9 says 'Not of works, that salvation is by grace through faith.'

Will continue for a moment -- a person does Not find children being baptized in Scripture. He Does encourage little children to come to Him for such is the kingdom of heaven. Child-like faith. And, yes, God Does know the heart condition of every person. Young and old. A rebellious inner-person and a person with a clear heart / conscience.

I was asking my husband about a scenario with a car wreck and a small child gravely injured -- even if there Was bottled water available and usable -- would he put a few drops of water on the child's forehead and he said what I thought he would. NO. Because -- That would give the parents a false sense of security regarding salvation. Because God's Word says that Water is Only symbolic. No saving or 'keeping' power in Any water. He would Rather take time to explain salvation to a person - giving them a chance to accept Christ as their Savior. Rather than give False sense of eternal security for them or their child.

God's Word is final authority. People are merely people. And We are All fallible.

crochet wrote:

Wouldn't That be a 'work'? towards a person's salvation? And Ephesians 2:8-9 says 'Not of works, that salvation is by grace through faith.

They believe it is God who is baptizing, so it's not a work.

crochet1949 wrote:-- a person does Not find children being baptized in Scripture.

So when entire households were baptized, are we to assume there were never any infants there?

crochet1949 wrote:So -- if a small child dies or is badly injured in an accident -- does the RCC church say that the child Might die if there is Any kind of sin present in their life? But what if the situation takes place in a setting with no water available -- Maybe my question IS Why does the RCC church teach the importance Of sprinkling with a child who's too young to know what 'sin' IS.

Because the RCC views baptism as a sacrament. In a sacramental theology, God uses physical means to impart this or that specific grace. With respect to baptism, God uses that physical act to impart the grace of the forgiveness and cleansing of original sin. So if a child dies after baptism, they go directly to heaven. If a child dies without baptism, they go directly to either limbo or hell, unless there is some way of salvation/forgiveness not revealed by God through Scripture or the Church.

Not saying I agree with any of that. I'm just saying that's their theology, so you can see why, I hope, it is so important to them. And if I did believe it, I would think it was extremely important to baptize children, too.

Byblos wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:-- a person does Not find children being baptized in Scripture.

So when entire households were baptized, are we to assume there were never any infants there?

We're neither to assume that there were or that there were not. You don't build a doctrine on what is unstated.

Jac3510 wrote:

Byblos wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:-- a person does Not find children being baptized in Scripture.

So when entire households were baptized, are we to assume there were never any infants there?

We're neither to assume that there were or that there were not. You don't build a doctrine on what is unstated.

I'm thinking that since Biblical / Scriptural baptism is described as by immersion and is symbolical of the decision that has already been made in the heart, that the adults old enough to make that decision were baptized. At what age was a person considered a legal adult? 13?

And we Do have the Old Testament example of David's infant son dying and David's comment that he Would see his son again.

Jac3510 wrote:

Byblos wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:-- a person does Not find children being baptized in Scripture.

So when entire households were baptized, are we to assume there were never any infants there?

We're neither to assume that there were or that there were not. You don't build a doctrine on what is unstated.

My point exactly.

Catholic priests have an affinity for pedobaptism.

crochet1949 wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

Byblos wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:-- a person does Not find children being baptized in Scripture.

So when entire households were baptized, are we to assume there were never any infants there?

We're neither to assume that there were or that there were not. You don't build a doctrine on what is unstated.

I'm thinking that since Biblical / Scriptural baptism is described as by immersion and is symbolical of the decision that has already been made in the heart, that the adults old enough to make that decision were baptized. At what age was a person considered a legal adult? 13?

And we Do have the Old Testament example of David's infant son dying and David's comment that he Would see his son again.

I don't think that legal adulthood has anything to do with it. I was baptized when I was six. I baptized my daughter a week or two before she turned six. That's young, yes, but she clearly understood the gospel and placed her faith in Christ.

I do, as it happens, agree that biblical baptism is "by immersion and is symbolical of the decision that has already been made in the heart" (with minor tweaking on the word 'decision' -- I'm not all that comfortable with that language, but that's a nit not worth picking). But, to go back to the point I've been harping on, all that is just to say that I'm not a sacramentalist. Neither are you. If you were, then you would not agree that biblical baptism was immersive or merely symbolic of the faith one has placed in Christ. You would look at the whole thing from a completely different perspective and so would come to completely different ages.

A nit that might be worth picking, though, is the reference to David. That might now, and in my view probably isn't, saying that David knew he would see his son again. Grant that David is talking about joining his child in death in 2 Sam 12:23 (which is even questionable, by the way). All that David is saying is that the child won't come back to life, or more specifically, that David can't bring him back to life. He's saying, "Look, I can't bring him back to life. I tried to save him by fasting and praying. But now I can't do anything about it. He's dead. I'll die someday, too; but for now, I tried everything. It's over. So there's nothing left to fast or pray about." Whether or not David will see the child in heaven is another matter, and still less the matter is whether David thought that he would see the child in heaven. You'd have to show that from other passages. All David is addressing in that passage is the problem of mortality, not the hope of the resurrection or of life in heaven.

Byblos wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

Byblos wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:-- a person does Not find children being baptized in Scripture.

So when entire households were baptized, are we to assume there were never any infants there?

We're neither to assume that there were or that there were not. You don't build a doctrine on what is unstated.

My point exactly.

And I hope you see that people like crochet and myself don't deny infant baptism because we deny that the jailor had children who were baptized. We deny that because of what we see baptism stated to be elsewhere in Scripture. Based on what Scripture does positively say, then, we build a doctrine. And then if someone asks about the jailor's kids, we draw a conclusion. Because baptism is for believers, then "all his household" wouldn't include infants. We're not building a doctrine on denying the jailor's children.

So I think it hurts your cause a bit to raise that passage when discussing paedobaptism. You do better to say that you build your understanding that infant baptism is biblical and necessary based on other Scriptures, and you could say that the "all his household" would fit with that view as it could, but certainly wouldn't have to, include children. That verse ends up, in the end, not to factor into the debate at all.

Jac wrote:
I don't think that legal adulthood has anything to do with it. I was baptized when I was six.

Just for reference, Jac understood Divine Simplicity at the age of three, and Jac wrote a book about the Theology of Thomas Aquinas, published on Jac's fourth birthday.

Jac3510 wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

Byblos wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:-- a person does Not find children being baptized in Scripture.

So when entire households were baptized, are we to assume there were never any infants there?

We're neither to assume that there were or that there were not. You don't build a doctrine on what is unstated.

My point exactly.

And I hope you see that people like crochet and myself don't deny infant baptism because we deny that the jailor had children who were baptized. We deny that because of what we see baptism stated to be elsewhere in Scripture. Based on what Scripture does positively say, then, we build a doctrine. And then if someone asks about the jailor's kids, we draw a conclusion. Because baptism is for believers, then "all his household" wouldn't include infants. We're not building a doctrine on denying the jailor's children.

So I think it hurts your cause a bit to raise that passage when discussing paedobaptism. You do better to say that you build your understanding that infant baptism is biblical and necessary based on other Scriptures, and you could say that the "all his household" would fit with that view as it could, but certainly wouldn't have to, include children. That verse ends up, in the end, not to factor into the debate at all.

But I didn't raise that passage and even less to debate infant baptism which I have no intention of doing. I was merely pointing out that a conclusion cannot be drawn one way or the other and that was in direct response to crochet's conclusion. So again, my point exactly.

That's fine. I could have misunderstood your logic. When you said, "So when entire households were baptized, are we to assume there were never any infants there?" I took that to be an argument that Scripture does have children being baptized. If I'm predisposed to misread you on that point, it's probably because I see Acts 16 seen raised in defense rather frequently of paedobaptism, and I just don't think it's appropriate. I guess if that isn't why you raised that point I don't see how it has anything to do with crochet's statement. She is correct that we don't find children being baptized in Scripture, and Acts 16 is no exception to that.

She is correct that we don't find children being baptized in Scripture, and Acts 16 is no exception to that.

Wonder just WHY that might be?