Jac3510 wrote:On these points, you and I share a common theology.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.
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.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.
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.'