Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Well the Catholic Church says they go into Limbo, but that is currently under reveiw.

Edit: TOTPD!

_________________

Under review? What does that mean?

The Catholic Church is reveiw the belief in limbo and they are trying to determine whether Limbo exists or not.

_________________

Doesn't the Pope get direct revelation from God? What is there to determine?

_________________

Thanks, BTG. I missed that one.

It seems to me, though, that that passage doesn't have anything to do with baby baptism.



It looks like Peter is saying that the promise is for salvation, and that this promise will also be for future generations. He's not really saying for your babies to be baptized.

In my opinion child baptism should be done when the child is old enough to actually realize that their faith is their own. Baptism is an affirmation of a person's faith, and thier conversion is symbolized by immersion in the water.

The baptism of babies might better be done as just a baby dedication, with the parents vowing to raise this child as God would have it.





But the child has not actually asked God to save him from his sins. I think that has to be an individual thing.



Baptism doesn't save; it's only an affirmation of faith, which should be done, because God has commanded it.

That's pretty much how it is. Baptism of babies is, at least to me, the dedicating of that person's life to Christianity. Then, at around age 13, there's Confirmation, which is basically where the person decides to go along with the religion they were baptized into.

So Confirmation to Catholics is pretty much the same as Baptism to Protestants.

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep

And who said they had to be able to do so on their own?


You might want to study what the Bible actually says on the subject:

1 Peter 3:21

Colossians 2:12

Romans 6:3-4

Galatians 3:27

Mark 16:16

Acts 22:16

John 3:5

Titus 3:5

The historic Christian Church has always taught and believed "one Baptism for remission of sins" (Nicene Creed). Now I have shown you where the Bible clearly states that Baptism does save. Can you show me a single passage where Baptism is called "an affirmation of faith" or "an act of obedience only?" If not, then I must caution you to speak only what the Scriptures actually say on the topic, and not what certain modern theologians tell you.

_________________

In that case, show me a scriptural instance of the baptism of an infant or it being taught by Jesus or one of his apostles.

Acts 2:39

_________________

Iffy. Is that all?

Ezekiel 18:20 - The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

There we have the principle of individual salvation.



Yes, baptism is a part of true salvation. But it alone does not save. If you are truly saved, then you will obviously want to be saved, because God commands it.

And how exactly does that apply to the principle of baptizing children? After all, weren't the Hebrew people expected to circumcise their children (or at least the males), and wasn't this covenant of circumcision a mark of the covenant with God? But how can an 8-day old child enter into a covenant agreement with God through circumcision? Because it's not based on a principle of free choice, but upon the covenant agreement God made with the Hebrew people.

The same is true with baptism for the Christian. The Scriptures clearly teach that we are not saved by our own doing (John 1:13, Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 8:29-30). It is God’s grace—God’s choosing—that makes us his people (1 Peter 2:9). BTW, when we Christians say we are saved by grace, we are basically stating that it was God’s doing, not ours.

Here is a concept I want to introduce: baptism as a means of grace. What does the term “means of grace” mean? The means of grace includes anything through which God works to bring life, salvation, and faith to individuals. The means of grace include Baptism, Holy Communion, the Word, the community of believers.

Now, as I have shown from the Scriptures, Baptism is most certainly one of the means of grace. Certain modern theologians do not acknowledge this, but instead claim that it is merely a symbolic act of submission or obedience. Now, if this were true (that Baptism is not truly a means of grace), then I could understand why it is withheld from those too young to understand. However, based on the Scriptures, I can only conclude that Baptism is in fact a means of grace, and therefore can and should be administered to children as such.

But then again, if Baptism is only a symbolic act of submission, then it would make no difference whatsoever to whom it was administered or how. One still could administer Baptism to children as a mark of dedication to God. There are, after all, cases of children being so dedicated to God in both the Old and New Testaments. Samuel, for example, Sampson (although he didn’t live up to his end), and John the Baptist come to mind, though these may not be the only examples.

But you are right about Baptism alone not saving. It is, after all, only one means of grace. For one to be secure in one’s Baptism, one must also avail themselves of the other means of grace, particularly the ministry of the Word, the gathering of believers, and Holy Communion. After all, Mark !6:16 clearly states that one must both believe and be baptized.

Here is a question: if you encountered someone (perhaps Lutheran) who was baptized as a child, grew up in the church, and trusted Jesus as their Savior, then how would you respond to them? Would you dare to tell them that their Baptism wasn’t valid because they were too young? Or that their faith in Christ is not valid because they did not independently choose it for themselves?

I would contend that Christian parents have a responsibility to their children to do whatever is within their power to make their children Christian. That includes having them baptized, instructing them in the Christian faith, teaching them the Word, bringing them into the worship of the faith community--in short, availing them of the means of grace.

_________________

You bring up some interesting points, which I'll have to study further into, and I'll get back to you on that.

I'll just answer your question:



I would assume that they are indeed saved, if their life shows the effects of it. I would also encourage them to be baptized again as a symbol of their faith (but that just might be my own thinking as I'm from a non-Lutheran background.)



I wholeheartedly agree with you. But just to make it clear - you're not saying that the child is saved through the parent's faith, are you?

And I would suggest that you not, for two reasons: (1) you would be discounting the faith that they do have, and (2) you would be denying the validity of their Baptism, indeed the validity of the Sacrament itself. If, for example, you were to suggest to my supervising pastor, Weldon Brinkley, that he needed to be rebaptized, or that his baptism was not valid because he was a child, he would most likely respond to you, in the very same words of Martin Luther himself, "I am baptized."

If Baptism is indeed a means of grace, as I contend, then it is valid, regardless of the age of the individual. On the other hand, if it is not a means of grace, then why is there any discussion about what constitutes a valid Baptism at all? If that were the case, there would be no distinction between a valid Baptism and an "invalid" Baptism, because there is no essential difference between the two (since there would be no real work of God involved). And if you cannot present a valid reason why a person should consider their childhood Baptism invalid, then why encourage them to be rebaptized at all?

But here is yet another question I must pose for the discussion: Is Baptism something that people must do to please God, or is it something that God does to/for the people who receive it? (keep in mind, the biblical definition of grace, as well as the fact that βαπτισθητω, "be baptized," is a passive verb).

_________________

Grace is unfair, not in a bad way, but that just means that it saves those who don't seem to be deserved to be saved, while those who are must give their life away to save others. Baptism is a thing of grace, and young children are included. It is also a dedication of the person to god as well.

_________________
No, I lied. I'm never going to have a good sig. So just forget about it.

Who says we have to give our lives away for others? The only one who had to do that was Jesus.

_________________

Not die, like, spread the word of god all the time. People today who do that are looked down upon in society. They are rejected for their beleif, and since they are unpopular, they essentially give their lives away.

_________________
No, I lied. I'm never going to have a good sig. So just forget about it.

Continuing a discussion from the "Drifting Away from the Church" thread:

1. Are they to be trusted above the teachings of Sacred Scripture? That was one of the points Luther contested in the Reformation, and one in which I would prefer to stand by him. While I have great respect for men like Aquinas, Francis, Dominic, etc., I would be hesitant to attribute them with infallibility. In other words, the saints can be mistaken; the Scriptures cannot.

2. Which saints? It is my understanding that the idea of purgatory did not surface until about the 7th century or so. To the best of my konwledge, the great saints of the early church (like Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, Augustin, etc,) did not acknowledge such a place. If anything, I would think that the idea of purgatory would go against the teachings of Augustin and Athanasius, who both attributed salvation to the incarnation, sacrificial death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, who alone is able to atone for sins due to the fusion of his divine and human natures.

_________________

Cephas, I really don't see what that has to do with anything. IMHO, I the miracles of the saints do not necessarily prove that everything they thought, said, or did was right. Heck, even St. Paul made some pretty drastic mistakes in his life, yet still accomplished great works on behalf of God. My point is still valid: if neither Jesus, nor the Apostles, nor the early Church Fathers testify to the existence of such a place as purgatory, then there's no reason to believe such a place exists. Not only that, but as I stated before, the whole idea of purgatory contradicts Scripture and the Church Fathers, which gives plenty of reason to doubt it. Just because later on a few saints here and there mistakenly believed it does not make it valid.

The Scriptures teach that, in the resurrection, we will be given new bodies completely free from the corruption of sin and death. That being the case, I see no reason for purgatory at all.

But you see, that was why there was a need for the Reformation. The Church had departed from the teachings of Scripture and the Early Church, and needed to be restored. The Roman church had begun to teach that Christ's atonement was not sufficient. Well, if Christ's atonement is not sufficient, then neither can anything else be (Athanasius). But if Christ's atonement is sufficient, then there is neither any need for, nor justification for, such a belief in purgatory.

_________________