vic C. said:
No one here has made that claim. We state an age of accountability, which I average to be about 12-13 years old. The very same age as Bar Mitzvah and Bat Mitzvah. Just like Jesus. Interesting, heh? Biblical too!
That comment refering to the actual age was a tongue-in-cheek number. The year is not important, but preventing people from entering into the Church of the New Covenant while the Old Covenant allowed 8 day old infants in. The Old Covenant is a SHADOW of the good things to come - thus, we would think that Baptism, a New Covenant sacrament that the Bible says is better than circumcision in Paul's writings (Col and Gal come to mind), would NOT be more restrictive.
vic C. said:
I tend to lean towards us being born with a "sin nature"; the propensity to sin... and we all do sin, eventually. A just and loving God will and does make provisions for those who are too young to profess their faith, those who are either unable to be baptized, whether it be a physical handicap or they die after professing but before a baptism, etc.
If man has a "sin nature", if that IS part of our makeup, then how did Jesus become fully man and NOT take up this "sin nature"? Christ took up man's nature, which was originally created without sin. Thus, humans were MEANT and CREATED without a sin nature. AFTER the fall, we inherited something foreign to man's nature - the propensity to sin. This is foreign, although "universal" to man. By looking to Christ, we see man as he was meant to be. Thus, man's nature is NOT sinful. We are not how we should be.
vic C. said:
Then... there's that pesky thief on the cross; what do we do about him? Jesus did not say, "Wait, you can't crucify him yet. I promised him he would be in paradise with me but he needs to be baptized first".
The Church has realized this and has said that the "desire" to be Baptized is sufficient of itself if the ritual cannot be performed. This dates back to Justin the Marytr's time (150 AD) who wrote that the Greek philosophers were "Christian" in their recognition of the Logos, as well as the righteous of the OT. The Spirit blows where He will. God is not bound by the sacrament. Thus, we say that Baptism is ORDINARILY required. In other words, if accessible, we are to be baptized. God will not hold us responsible for something we knew nothing about. However, the desire to please God is the beginning of faith, which only the Spirit can give. Those who abide in Christ in such a manner are considered as mysteriously linked to the Body, and thus, are considered to have the "Baptism of Desire".
vic C. said:
Again, we are not considering what a water baptism meant to a first century Jew as opposed to the type of baptism Jesus was to establish after the Cross. We have thrown away historical context for the sake of traditions of men. ... and even if we are to adhere to baptism being a regenerating force it should be repent first, baptize second.
That was the ordinary way in the time frame the Bible was written. It still is for adults who are able to repent. However, as I said before, Baptism is ALSO the door by which we enter the sheepfold. If circumcision brought people into covenant with God through the parent, why not Baptism?
And we also have Gospel precedent for God coming to man through the confession of another. For example, in Luke's Gospel, we have the centurion's servant being healed (saved) by the confession and faith of the centurion. The servant had no faith, as far as we know - and YET, the man was healed/saved! The second example is the paralytic in Mark 2. And finally, what about those whom Christ raised from the dead? What greater sign of proof do you need to see that God can and DOES act through the proxy of another to extend His healing touch? The dead didn't ask to be healed. Nor do infants. Yet, God heals both.
Those who prevent children from being baptized are merely interfering with God's good desires that all men be saved/healed.
Regards
