Reengineering the Family (What are the consequences of our severing biology from parenthood?)

National Review ^ | 02/01/2010 | Heather Macdonald

[silverleaf]

“For infants, it is the sponsors that are judged for worthiness; if they are unbelievers, the baptism is again pointless for the child.”

1) Infant baptism is not considered “pointless” in my Church. But you obviously worship a God who turns a child’s soul away from salvation through baptism if the hands that bring him to God are not sinless.

2) You can read anything you want into the description of d Peter’s baptism of the gentiles in Acts 10. If you are determined to believe that the first baptism of gentiles is/was brought about by about gentile “contrition” rather than faith, you will. Was Christ baptized because he was “contrite”? I think not. In the aftermath of Christ’s death, it was the Jews who had more to be “contrite” about, or certainly just as much as, the gentiles.

Acts 10:

43 All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.
45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.
46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said,
47 “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

[Theo]

Not to get all biblical here, but are there any examples of newborns being baptized in Scripture?

John promoted “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” Not sure a baby can do much repentance. Peter said, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” Again, how can a baby repent?

Scripture speaks twice of “households” being baptized after a family member turns and follows Christ — perhaps that’s where some get the idea that baptism isn’t about repentance, but is something family members can do for other family members?

It just seems to me that if a church practices “infant baptism,” they may invite other heresies as well.

Getting my popcorn ... ;-)

[brytlea]

I would say that IS the default mode if you use the Bible as your guidebook. BTW that was one long sentence!

[brytlea]

Thank you, I suspected as much, but was trying to cut thru the verbiage to be sure I understood what the point was.

[frogjerk]

Peter said, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” Again, how can a baby repent?

You need to finish what St. Peter said, namely " For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.

It just seems to me that if a church practices “infant baptism,” they may invite other heresies as well.

This is a Non Sequitur because your premise is false. Infant baptism is biblical and has been practiced since the earliest days of the Church. St. Paul compared baptism to circumcision, which was performed on infants unless you were a convert.

[Theo]

Yes, the “promise” is to you “and to your children.” But the actual physical act of baptism is for the repentant person.

Again, you provide no evidence that infant baptism is a *biblically*-advocated practice, other than to point out how some Christ-followers have practiced it.

Circumcision is a sign of God’s covenant with humanity. Baptism is a sign of repentance — death to ourselves and new life in Christ. There’s a difference, of course, between the two.

As an aside, you should note that St. Paul wasn’t all gung-ho on circumcision. Some were looking to it in a legalistic way, and so Paul in exasperation told them they should just go ahead an emasculate themselves if they want to prove their super-spirituality. Reminds us how gritty the early Christians were ...

[frogjerk]

Whole households were baptized by the Apostles themselves and then their successors. That is biblical. To argue that there wasn't an infant among these large family groups is disingenuous.

Baptism is more than a sign as it is a sacrament, as it conveys the grace it symbolizes. Baptism's effect is the remission of original and actual sin. All have original sin save the Lord and His Mother. Actual sin is committed by those who have reached the age of reason and beyond.

But the text in Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him" (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means "infants"—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior."²

As an aside, you should note that St. Paul wasn’t all gung-ho on circumcision. Some were looking to it in a legalistic way, and so Paul in exasperation told them they should just go ahead an emasculate themselves if they want to prove their super-spirituality. Reminds us how gritty the early Christians were .

Timothy was circumcised by St. Paul and there is no note of him doing it reluctantly. Secondly, my note of circumcision is in comparison to Baptism. The Old Covenant required circumcision for inclusion in God's people, the Jews, infants included. The New Covenant requires Baptism for inclusion into God's kingdom, all Jews and Gentiles, everyone, infants included.

[Theo]

Yes, Luke 18:15 says, “Now they were bringing even infants to him.” Jesus is happy to welcome adult and child alike.

Of course, that’s totally irrelevant here in a conversation about baptism.

Never mind, frogjerk. It’s clear your faith in Roman Catholic teaching (e.g., your statement that Jesus mother was free of original sin) is all-pervasive, and that no amount of biblical reasoning will be of any effect.

[frogjerk]

Yes, Luke 18:15 says, “Now they were bringing even infants to him.” Jesus is happy to welcome adult and child alike.

Which is exactly contradictory to your argument, thank you.

Of course, that’s totally irrelevant here in a conversation about baptism.

Why? It most certainly is relevant because Jesus is telling us not to prevent the children from coming to him and that children "such as these belongs to the Kingdom of Heaven."

Never mind, frogjerk. It’s clear your faith in Roman Catholic teaching (e.g., your statement that Jesus mother was free of original sin) is all-pervasive, and that no amount of biblical reasoning will be of any effect.

You've given exactly one fragment of a biblical argument and yet you state that "no amount of biblical reasoning will be of any effect" on me. I am still awaiting this implied (vast) amount of biblical reasoning you refer to.

Also, I am discussing this with you, am I not? You posted the original comment which caused a discussion. I am engaging you in the discussion that you now seem to not want any part of.

[aruanan]

I would say that IS the default mode if you use the Bible as your guidebook. BTW that was one long sentence!

Default means what happens on its own without intervention. The NT ideal of marriage and family certainly doesn't happen on its own and takes a huge amount of work even to be somewhat successful. Was that one sentence before?

[aruanan]

You (or your professors) are confusing the NUCLEAR family's fairly recent appearance with all family (marriage/blood-related) forms.

You need to pay more attention to what was actually said instead of to what you think was said.

Brytlea and FrogJerk: This guy is spouting pure BS as taught by many in the academic world today. His cited reference “The Origins of War in Child Abuse and The Emotional Life of Nations” should be a big hint as to the inanity of his argument! This cr@p was starting to be taught when I was in school (I didn't fall asleep in my classes, LOL!), but most of us had taken other courses (such as ancient history) that we could effectively challenge these anti-western bozo professors.

Up there in the hill country, you must not get much practice reading or you wouldn't have missed so much of what I said in so many instances. I think what you've provided us in your response is a pretty good example of reactive reading in which the "reader," in this case yourself, encounters a few words and phrases which stimulate some sort of reaction, perhaps a memory of something else read or heard or experienced, and then responds to the reaction as though that is what had been written. Try reading carefully this time, paying attention to what is actually written, not to how you react to what is, to you, buzz-words.

[brytlea]

Actually, I have to say your prose is not exactly reader friendly. Yeah, you can accuse us all of not being very good readers, but frankly, you are a bit wordy.

[aruanan]

Actually, I have to say your prose is not exactly reader friendly. Yeah, you can accuse us all of not being very good readers, but frankly, you are a bit wordy.

I wasn't accusing you of not being a very good reader. If you'll look it over, you'll see that. I appended your name because ROLF had done so. He was the reactive reader I was describing. He saw things that weren't there. He failed to see things that were there. He responded to things that weren't there and thought he was responding to something that I had written but that he had only imagined.

[aruanan]

Here's that sentence you were talking about:

"A father and mother who live together in a state of mutual respect, who care for each other, who have children who aren't merely the unavoidable consequence of their pursuit of satisfying their sexual urges, who have a clear idea of what they need to do to provide for their children's needs, who make the home a shelter against whatever chaos the children may experience out in the world, who help to make the world intelligible to the children but make sure the children learn that they are not the center of the universe do more than anything or anyone else to ensure that their children will grow up to be adults who treat others right and who will help to protect others from harm."

Let me arrange it so that the different parts can be seen:

A father and mother

1. who live together in a state of mutual respect,
2. who care for each other,
3. who have children who aren't merely the unavoidable consequence of their pursuit of satisfying their sexual urges,
4. who have a clear idea of what they need to do to provide for their children's needs,
5. who make the home a shelter against whatever chaos the children may experience out in the world,
6. who help to make the world intelligible to the children but make sure the children learn that they are not the center of the universe

do more than anything or anyone else to ensure that their children will grow up to be adults who treat others right and who will help to protect others from harm.

[brytlea]

The problem with long sentences is most people don’t read the entire thing. I have the same problem, and I often abuse parenthesis, because it’s how I think. I was just trying to be helpful. :)

[aruanan]

The problem with long sentences is most people don’t read the entire thing. I have the same problem, and I often abuse parenthesis, because it’s how I think. I was just trying to be helpful. :)

Sure! Thanks. On this, though, my alternative was either to make a much longer paragraph with shorter repetitive sentences or use bullet points or a numerical list. I didn't think of using the list until later.