thompson@athos.rutgers.edu (Marge Thompson) (08/09/89)
I finally had to get into the act. I am Godmother to 6 children. I am a Lutheran and yet, two of my God Children are Catholic. Let me assure you that as Godmother, I took my vow and still take my vow seriously. I have made sure that all of the children have been brought up in a Christian environment. The five older children have all reaffirmed their baptism (confirmation) as they reached the age of 13 to 14. The youngest one (age 10) goes to Church every week, is involved in his church activities and is preparing to start his studies for his confirmation. I truly believe it is because I took my job seriously and continually checked with the parents to make sure that the children were going to Sunday Church School or Church as they grew up. I had a problem with only one Baptism. When my friend was questioned by the Priest who was to be the Godmother, she mentioned me and said I was a Lutheran who was baptized and confirmed and the Priest gave her a hard time. She settled it all by asking him what was she to do, go out into the street and find someone and say, "hey, are you a Catholic and will you be my daughter's Godmother?" In fact, the day of the Christening, I, the Lutheran, had to teach the Godfather (a born Catholic) the Act of Contrition and the Apostle's Creed so that he would be able to repeat them at the Christening. My Godchildren are like my own. God did not provide my husband and I with children of our own. Perhaps if He did, my Godchildren would not have gotten so much attention, however, I would like to feel that no matter what the circumstances, taking on the responsibilities of God Parent to a child means caring and sharing and making sure the child is brought up in his/her respective religion. It all sums up like this...I was born of my parents on June 21st. I was born again in Christ on August 12th, two months later and I reaffirmed my baptism on May 12, 1945 ....three dates I still celebrate and I am 57 years of age. If you take on the responsibility of Godparenting, then take it seriously enough to follow up with the children and make them aware of Jesus. Marge Thompson
frgreen@uunet.uu.net (08/17/89)
Marge: We would love to have you in this area of Depew. If only 50% of the
persons requesting permission to be sponsors here..Catholics that is...it
would be a great experience to pastor a parish and have people who really
commit themselves to the responsibility undertaken. So much is a cultural
"honor" rather than a "religious responsibility". You're a great person.
Msgr Green
---
******************************************
* In Buffalo - We're Number One (sbuf01) *
******************************************math1h3@jetson.uh.edu (11/02/90)
In article <Oct.30.00.17.05.1990.6701@athos.rutgers.edu>, farkas%qual@sun.com (Frank Farkas) writes: > > I find it strange that a new born needs baptism! Can someone tell me why? > If I read the Bible, I understand that baptism is unto repentance. Can > someone tell me what is a new born baby need to repent of? > > The second problem I have is regarding what happens if a new born baby won't > get baptized. Most of the world is not Christian. What happens if they are > not baptized? This is a good question, and one which shows how difficult it is to discuss one aspect of Christian doctrine, without getting into everything else that we as Christians confess. As we have seen from various posts, Roman Catholics, Episcopalians/Anglicans, and Lutherans all perform 'emergency Baptism' on infants about to die. The fundamental reason for this is that all of these churches believe that Sacraments, including Baptism, are more than just outward symbols, but work real spiritual benefits in us. In particular, Christ, in Matt. 28:19 mentions Baptism as a means of making disciples; 'teaching' being the other means. We baptize infants because they need forgiveness of their sins. Simply by failing to know and love God they are in a state of sin -- or perhaps this is a result of their state of sin. Perhaps even I am stretching a point. But they definitely have 'original' or inherited sin. As Jesus said, 'Flesh is born of flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.' And as David said, 'Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me' (Psamy mother conceive Noah's day God said: "every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood" (Gen 8:21) and "every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was evil all the time" (Gen 6:5). At the time of the reformation, almost all of the theologians, Catholic, Lutheran, and many non-Lutherans who praised the Augsburg Confession, subscribed to the doctrine of original sin. There was some difference of opinion regarding what original sin was. So we believe infants need forgiveness. And Baptism offers assurance of forgiveness, the promise of salvation. For Christ said "All who believe and are baptize will be saved." So in Baptism we have a means of offering comfort to parents of infants who are about to die. Christ did not say, however, that those who are not baptized will be damned. In fact he told the thief on the cross next to him, "Today, you will be with me in paradise." We have no reason to believe that this thief was baptized. Christ did say, however, that those who do not believe will be damned. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston.
charles@rpi.edu (Charles K. Hurst) (11/06/90)
David, your quote says "All who believe...". Do infants believe? How do you know this? Charles K. Hurst charles@pawl.rpi.edu **One who is interested in learning**
wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) (11/08/90)
In article <Nov.5.22.05.14.1990.20921@athos.rutgers.edu> charles@rpi.edu (Charles K. Hurst) writes: >David, your quote says "All who believe...". Do infants believe? How >do you know this? > >Charles K. Hurst >charles@pawl.rpi.edu >**One who is interested in learning** This is a fair question, a good followup to my somewhat sketchy article. Luther and Melancthon, who pretty much took infant Baptism for granted, (only the 'Anabaptists' rejected infant baptism in Luther's day, and Lutherans and Catholics were united in condemning the errors of the Anabaptists, and concentrated their efforts on other issues) reasoned thus: "That the Baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ is sufficiently proved from his own work. God has sanctified many who have been thus baptized and has given them his Holy Spirit. Even today there are not a few whose doctrine and life attest that they have the Holy Spirit. Similarly by God's grace we have been given the power to interpret the Scriptures and to know Christ, which is impossible without the Holy Spirit. Now, if God did not accept the Baptism of infants, he would not have given any of them the Holy Spirit nor any part of him; in short, all this time down to the present day no man on earth could have been a Christian. Since God has confirmed Baptism through the gift of his Holy Spirit, as we have perceived in some of the fathers, such as St. Bernard [I think this refers to Bernard of Clairvaux, a monk of the 12th century well regarded by Luther], Gerson, John Hus, and others, [later addition: who were baptized in infancy] and since the holy Christian church will abide until the end of the world, our adversaries must acknowledge that infant Baptism is pleasing to God. For he can never be in conflict with himself, support lies and wickedness, or give his grace and Spirit for such ends." (Luthers Large Catechism, see also Melancthon's 'Apology to the Augsburg Confession') Luther next writes: "Further, we are not primarily concerned whether the baptized person believes or not, for in the latter case Baptism does not become invalid. Everything depends upon the Word and commandment of God. This, perhaps, is a rather subtle point, but it is based upon what I have already said, that Baptism is simply water and God's Word in and with each other; that is, when the Word accompanies the water, Baptism is valid, even though faith be lacking. For my faith does not constitute Baptism but receives it. Baptism does not become invalid even if it is wrongly received or used, for it is bound not to our faith but to the Word." Now, to try to answer your question more directly, in Matthew 28:18-20 (The Great Commision) Jesus mentions baptism, together with teaching, as a means of making disciples. It is interesting to note that he mentions baptism before teaching. I see this as indicating, perhaps not conclusively, that Baptism is a means for the Holy Spirit to work faith in peoples hearts, apart from teaching. Naturally this faith needs to be fed and strengthened through teaching: "Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, now that you have tasted that the Lord is good." (1 Peter 2:2,3) Even if you do not agree with this, you must agree that we cannot teach infants. Yet God still desires that they be brought into his kingdom. For Jesus said: "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." (Matthew 19:14, also Mark and Luke). Since we are commanded to make disciples of them, and we cannot teach, we baptize, for we are commanded to do this generally, on the one hand, and are not forbidden from baptizing infants. (Can I say this in Texas and yet live? :-) ) I hope you find this helpful. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran "Dearest Jesus, we are here, gladly Thy command obeying; With this child we now draw near In accord with Thine own saying That to Thee it shall be given As a child and heir of heaven. "Yea Thy word is clear and plain, And we would obey it duly: 'He who is not born again, Heart and life renewing truly, Born of water and the Spirit, Can My kingdom not inherit.' "Therefore hasten we to Thee, In our arms this infant bearing; Let us here Thy glory see, Let this child, Thy mercy sharing In Thine arms be shielded ever, Thine on earth and Thine forever." --'Liebster Jesu, wir sind hier --Benjamin Schmolk, 1704, selected verses. My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston.
ASC105@psuvm.psu.edu (11/09/90)
There is no need for infant baptism at all. The bible does not support this
practice.
The bible gives a clue to what happens to an infant when he/she dies.
This is found in 2nd Samuel 12. When King David committed adultery with another
man's wife, the woman became pregnant. The infant died from sickness as
a result of David's sin. After he heard that the child was dead, he said
that he could not bring the child back, but that he will go to the same place
where the child went. This place was NOT hell, since David had a righteous
heart before the Lord.
Infant baptism will not send the baby to hell. Neither does it do anything
to help them into the kingdom of God since that is already taken care of.
Jesus in Mark 10 said that the kingdom of God was of such people as LITTLE
CHILDREN.
In Jesus' Name
Allen S. Cheung
(Jesus is Lord)
[Note that in most cases infant baptism is not done because people
feel it is specifically needed to save infants from going to hell.
Rather, baptism is a sign of our entry into the Church. Becoming
fully Christian involves two things: God's call and our response. The
Baptist tradition uses baptism as a sign of the latter, and believes
that a full response can be made only as an adult commitment. Other
traditions use baptism as a sign of the beginning of the process, and
believe that our true membership in the Church begins with God's call,
which happens even before we are born. The Episcopalean rubics
comment (as those knowing them might expect) that it is good for the
Church to have both traditions of baptism, since both aspects are
worth celebrating. --clh]stevep@uunet.uu.net (Steve Peterson) (11/10/90)
One the question of infant baptism: Was infant baptism practiced by first-century Christians? Math 28:19,20: "Go therefore and make *disciples*....*baptizing them* Acts 8:12: "When they believed Philip... they proceeded to be baptized, both *men and women* However, *later on*, Origen (185-254 C.E.) wrote: "It is the custom of the church that baptism be administered even to infants." (Selections From the Commentaries and Homilies of Origen, Madras, India; 1929, p. 211) The practice was confirmed by the Third Council of Carthage (253 C.E.). Religious historian Augustus Neander wrote: "Faith and baptism were always connected with one another; and thus it is in the highest degree probable... that the practice of infant baptism was unknown at this period [in the first century]... That it first became recognised as an apostolic tradition in the course of the third century, is evidence rather *against* than *for* the admission of its apostolic origin." History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church by the Apostles (New York 1864), p. 162 Best Regards...... Steve Peterson ---- stevep@cadence.com or ...!uunet!cadence!stevep [The most honest answer seems to be that no one knows. Acts talks about whole families being baptized. I know of no way to decide whether this includes infants. All of the arguments I know take other information, and say because of this, it must have been the case that baptizing the whole family included|excluded infants. --clh]
stevep@cadence.com (Steve Peterson) (11/29/90)
I liked the comment that the moderator made on this subject of infant baptism. He mentioned that the explicit doctrine of baptising or not baptising infants isn't really mentioned in the Bible, but is determined by pulling in other Scriptural quotes and then based on those principles, the question is answered. I tend to agree with this. My earlier brief post on this subject was to show some of these other Scriptural quotes that would lead me to believe that infant baptism wasn't practiced in the first century. Personally, I look at the example of the apostles and the Scriptures to answer docrinal questions rather than counsels of men or even the quotes that I provided from Religious historian Augustus Neander. But, I do understand that other people look to the rulings of the counsels of the early Catholic Church. Is infant baptism bad or harmful? No, I don't think so. Is it of value? Some feel that it is in that it puts them "right with God" or admits them to the church. I think that Jehovah is looking for more than for a dip into water. A coming to a knowlege of one's sins, a turning around/repentence, and a dedication of ones life to doing His will. This is symbolized in an outwardly fashion by undergoing water baptism. In view of the fact that 'hearing the word,' 'embracing the word heartily' and repenting' precedes water baptism (Acts 2:14, 22, 38, 41) and that baptism requires the individual to make a solemn decision, it is apparent that one must at leat be of age to hear, to believe and to make this decision. An argument is made by some in favor of infant baptism. They refer to the instances where 'households' were baptized, such as the households of Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian jailer, Crispus and Stephanas. (Acts 10:48; 11:14; 16:14, 32-34; 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:16) They believe that this implies that small babies in those families were also baptized. But, in the case of Cornelius, those who were baptized were those who had heard the word and received the holy spirit., and they spoke in tongues and glorified God; these things could not apply to infants. (Acts 10:44-46) Lydia was "a worshiper of God, ... and the Lord opened her heart wide to pay attention to the things spoken by Paul." (Acts 16:14) The Philippian jailer had to "believe on the Lord Jesus," and this implies that the others in his family also had to believe in order to be baptized. (Acts 16:31-34) Of Crispus and "all his household," it is stated that they 'became *believers* in the Lord.' (Acts 18:8) All this demonstrates that associated with baptism were such things as hearing, believing and glorifying God, things that infants cannot do. At Samaria when they heard and believed "the good new of the kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, they proceeded to be baptized." Here the Scriptural record specifies that the ones baptized were, not infants, but "men and women." (Acts 8:12) The statement made by the apostle Paul to the Corinthians that children were "holy" by reason of a believing parent is no proof that infants were baptized; rather, it implies that oppostie. Minor children below the age of reason and ability to make such a decision would come under a form of merit because of the believing parent, not because of any so-called "sacramental" baptism, imparting independent merit. If infants could properly be baptized, they would not need to have the merit of the believing parent extended to them. (1 Cor. 7:14) It is true that Jesus saied: "Stop hindering [the young children] from coming to me, for the kingdom of the heavens belongs to suchlike ones." (Matt. 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16) But Jesus did not baptize them; he blessed them, and there is nothing to indicate that his laying his hands upon them was a religious ceremony. He further showed that the reason 'the kingdom of God belongs to such' was not becuase they were baptized but because they were teachable and trusting. Christians are commanded to be "babes as to badness," yet "full-grown in powers of understanding." (Matt. 18:4; Luke 18:16, 17; 1 Cor. 14:20) Regarding the practice of infant baptism, The Encyclopedia Britannica, Vo. III, ed. of 1946 p. 84, states: "The whole early period knows baptism only for adults who join themselves of their own resolve to the Christian community. Infant baptism appears sporadically towards the end of the second century and was indeed practised also during the following centuries, yet on as an exception." Religious historian Augustus Neander wrote: "Faith and baptism were always connected with one another; and thus it is in the highest degree probable... that the practice of infant baptism was unknown at this period... That not till so late a period as (at least certainly not earlier than Irenaeus [140-204 C.E.], a trace of infant baptism appears, and that it first became recognised as an apostolic tradition in the course of the third century, is evidence rather *against* than *for* the admission of its apostolic origin." History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church by the Apostles (New York 1864), p. 162 Best Regards...... Steve Peterson ---- stevep@cadence.com or ...!uunet!cadence!stevep
jayc@hubcap.clemson.edu (Jay Crawford) (02/03/91)
I have a good friend to whom I am trying to explain the credibility of infant baptism. She was raised in a Baptist church and feels that you can be baptized only when you have a conversion, when you can decide for yourself what you believe, and profess it. I suppose you can say that she believes in "believer's baptism" only. I believe that it is correct to baptize infants, to make them part of the Christian community. However, I have not done a very good job explaining this issue. If anyone wants to offer their justifications for infant baptism, I would like to hear from you. Thanks to all! -Jay jayc@hubcap.clemson.edu [It appears that "believer's baptism" and "infant baptism" symbolize somewhat different aspects of Christian experience. Baptists see baptism as symbolizing our decision for Christ, a commitement that involves a reasoned decision, and thus cannot be made by an infant. Those who practice infant baptism seem it as symbolizing God's call to us, and see our response to God as involving more than just reason, such that each age has its own appropriate way of responding to God. "Upon thee I have leaned from my birth; thou art he who took me from my mother's womb" Ps 71:6 (RSV) There are some of us who think both aspects are important, and thus see some value in having both traditions present in the Church. --clh]