Brick Walls and Picket Fences

[susanlo]

Not just the new kids on the block, but these particular denominations are the extreme minority as many Protestants also see value in infant baptism and practice it themselves.

If there is some sort of age of reason and requirement of repentance first, how come all the other Protestants who read the same bible don’t see it that way?

Most churches that practice believer’s baptism do not have a specific age requirement set as the “age of reason.” Usually the pastor talks with the child and family to see if they fully understand what baptism means and that determines whether it is the right time for the child to be baptized. In Catholicism the pre-set “age of reason” is 7 years old. If 2 parents convert to Catholic Christianity their children 6 and under will be baptized by the parents’ request. Children 7 and up can only be baptized if they request it. This is also the age when first communion and first confession (repentance) occurs.
newadvent.org/cathen/01209a.htm

There is a requirement of repentance (and belief) before baptism. Acts 2:38; Acts 16:31; Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21.

At the time of the reformation the first reformers accepted the current beliefs and practices of the church, but rejected the ones thought to be directly contrary to the Bible. A 2nd wave of reformers did not accept the current practices of the church and wanted to go back to the way Christianity was practiced in the 1st century. That is a very simplistic explanation as to why mainline churches are very similar to the Catholic Church with a few modifications - and why others are “radically” different.

 

[susanlo]

How does an unbaptized infant enter the kingdom of God?

If infants are not to be baptized, is it not easier to enter the Old Covenant, than the New?

If an unbaptized infant can not enter heaven, then what about babies who are miscarried or stillborn? If 2 babies die next to each other in the NICU does God judge them differently if one had a sprinkling on the forehead?

Luke 18:16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

Matthew 19:14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

How did the Kingdom of Heaven (or Kingdom of God) belong to these unbaptized children?

 

[Vonsalza]

If an unbaptized infant can not enter heaven, then what about babies who are miscarried or stillborn?
If 2 babies die next to each other in the NICU does God judge them differently if one had a sprinkling on the forehead?
How did the Kingdom of Heaven (or Kingdom of God) belong to these unbaptized children?

The definitive Catholic answer:

CCC 1261: As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"63 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

There aren’t many left in the Church who worry about the souls of unbaptized children. I’m certainly not one of them. But pray for them and baptize them whenever possible, just as the primitive Church did.

 

[Duane1966]

If an unbaptized infant can not enter heaven, then what about babies who are miscarried or stillborn? If 2 babies die next to each other in the NICU does God judge them differently if one had a sprinkling on the forehead?

That’s the question. Objectively, they should be judged differently. The Old Testament is clear in many places that we are born in sin. One of those babies, had original sin washed away because of the faith of their parents. The other, unfortunately, did not.

Luke 18:16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

Matthew 19:14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

How did the Kingdom of Heaven (or Kingdom of God) belong to these unbaptized children?

So Susan, what is the answer? Because Jesus also said this:

5Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

How can an infant be hindered from coming to Jesus? If you think about it, Jesus says the kingdom of Heaven belongs to those children, if they are not hindered from coming to Him. But how do you bring an infant to Jesus?

From Catholic.com:

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.” And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. **But notice what Jesus said: “to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven.” The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. **So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said “let them come unto me,” who are we to say “no,” and withhold baptism from them?

By the way Susan, presumably those infants and children that were being brought to Jesus were part of the Old Covenant, so they had a claim on the Kingdom of Heaven. How is it that Jesus is okay with infants, without their consent, being incorporated into the Old Covenant, but you assume infants are automatically incorporated into the New Covenant? In fact, by your logic, they are part of the New Covenant, but all of a sudden, when they reach the age of reason, they are not.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Most churches that practice believer’s baptism do not have a specific age requirement set as the “age of reason.” Usually the pastor talks with the child and family to see if they fully understand what baptism means and that determines whether it is the right time for the child to be baptized. In Catholicism the pre-set “age of reason” is 7 years old. If 2 parents convert to Catholic Christianity their children 6 and under will be baptized by the parents’ request. Children 7 and up can only be baptized if they request it. This is also the age when first communion and first confession (repentance) occurs.
newadvent.org/cathen/01209a.htm

There is a requirement of repentance (and belief) before baptism. Acts 2:38; Acts 16:31; Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21.

Hi Susan.

Yes, if you are of a age of ‘reason’ then repentance is always required.

At the time of the reformation the first reformers accepted the current beliefs and practices of the church, but rejected the ones thought to be directly contrary to the Bible. A 2nd wave of reformers did not accept the current practices of the church and wanted to go back to the way Christianity was practiced in the 1st century. That is a very simplistic explanation as to why mainline churches are very similar to the Catholic Church with a few modifications - and why others are “radically” different.

Yeah the 2nd wave of reformers were definitely more fundamental in their interpretation of the scriptures and in practice. Saying the blessed Mother had 7 kids… and some even going as far as drinking poison and handling snakes.

 

[Duane1966]

There is a requirement of repentance (and belief) before baptism. Acts 2:38; Acts 16:31; Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21.

You better reread those verses. Not one of them states that repentance is required** before **baptism. All those verses are stating requirements to be saved. The question becomes, can the faith of the parents, suffice to bring their children into a covenant with the Lord, without the child’s consent? Scripture is quite clear that the answer is yes.

Can you show me where Jesus condemns the Jews, for circumcising infants to bring them into the Old Covenant, without the infant’s consent?

From Catholic.com:

**This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ”—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision. **

Were Only Adults Baptized?

Fundamentalists are reluctant to admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults, but when pressed, they will. They just conclude that is what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text does not explicitly support such a view. Naturally enough, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture (and few are individually identified) are adults, because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just beginning—there were no “cradle Christians,” people brought up from childhood in Christian homes.

Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a “decision for Christ.” Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been “baptized into Christ” (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.

 

[susanlo]

That’s the question. Objectively, they should be judged differently. The Old Testament is clear in many places that we are born in sin. One of those babies, had original sin washed away because of the faith of their parents. The other, unfortunately, did not.

The OT is clear that all men sin. However in Judaism there has never been a concept of ‘Original Sin’ that a baby is cleansed of.

So Susan, what is the answer? Because Jesus also said this:

5Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

How can an infant be hindered from coming to Jesus? If you think about it, Jesus says the kingdom of Heaven belongs to those children, if they are not hindered from coming to Him. But how do you bring an infant to Jesus?

Was Jesus talking to children or sinful adults in this verse? He also states that to have eternal life one must believe. Does this mean that young children are excluded?

He doesn’t say the kingdom of heaven belongs to them IF they are not hindered. Where did you come up with the “if?”

From Catholic.com:

By the way Susan, presumably those infants and children that were being brought to Jesus were part of the Old Covenant, so they had a claim on the Kingdom of Heaven. How is it that Jesus is okay with infants, without their consent, being incorporated into the Old Covenant, but you assume infants are automatically incorporated into the New Covenant? In fact, by your logic, they are part of the New Covenant, but all of a sudden, when they reach the age of reason, they are not.

Circumcision did have some similarities to baptism, but it was also very different. It was done to all males in the household - even non-Jewish slaves regardless as to whether they had faith in God. It was done to males only, but we would agree that women were Jewish too and never received circumcision or baptism. Circumcision did not qualify them for eternal life. In 2 Samuel 12:23 David states that he believes he will someday join his infant son who died at 7 days and was uncircumcised.

I don’t know that infants are part of the new covenant exactly. But I don’t think that they are guilty of sin when they are too young to even know what that means. Jesus saves people from their sins.

 

[Duane1966]

The OT is clear that all men sin. However in Judaism there has never been a concept of ‘Original Sin’ that a baby is cleansed of.

But there is a concept of ‘Original Sin’ in Judaism. Psalm 51, Genesis 8, Proverbs 21…If baptism washes away sin, which is clear from the NT, why would you withhold it to an infant?

Was Jesus talking to children or sinful adults in this verse?

Sinful adults. They were, and are the ones that hinder.

He also states that to have eternally life one must believe. Does this mean that young children are excluded?

This is the concept that you have such a hard time grasping. Can the belief of the parents, incorporate infants who are not capable of belief on their own, into the covenant? Scripture is clear in the Old and New Testament, that the answer is yes.

Again, if infant baptism is wrong, infant circumcision must have been wrong also. Yet oddly, you have not shown me one verse from Jesus condemning infant circumcision, or baptism.

He doesn’t say the kingdom of heaven belongs to them IF they are not hindered. Where did you come up with the “if?”

What happens if they are hindered?

Circumcision did have some similarities to baptism, but it was also very different. It was done to all males in the household - even non-Jewish slaves regardless as to whether they had faith in God. It was done to males only, but we would agree that women were Jewish too and never received circumcision or baptism. Circumcision did not qualify them for eternal life. In 2 Samuel 12:23 David states that he believes he will someday join his infant son who died at 7 days and was uncircumcised.

Did Judaism believe that uncircumcised infants were part of the Old Covenant? St. Paul calls baptism the circumcision of Christ. Remind me again when circumcision was performed on the children of believers in Judaism?

I don’t know that infants are part of the new covenant exactly.

Then wouldn’t it be better to positively incorporate them into the New Covenant, which we know baptism does. By the way, doesn’t it seem odd that you are arguing with a practice of the Catholic Church, that you admit you don’t know the answer to.

But I don’t think that they are guilty of sin when they are too young to even know what that means.

Which is why Catholics don’t believe Original Sin, is sin in the normal sense. Baptism restores to us the sanctifying grace that Adam and Eve lost. Again, why would you withhold grace from an infant, just because they cannot consent? Would you withhold medicine from a sick infant, based on the inability of the infant to consent?

Jesus saves people from their sins.

Susan, if one only needs to believe, just what does baptism do?

 

[mackbrislawn]

I thought ya’ll might find this interesting. This is from Pastor David Miller who is pastor of a large Southern Baptist Church in Iowa.

This may give ya’ll some idea of how many Protestant view the universal church. It is about how we can have unity despite differing doctrinal beliefs.

Below are some quotes from Pastor Miller. He has a book that expounds on this premise.
The entire blog post can be found here.

Brick Wall Doctrines: "There is some doctrine which we must contend for, even to the point of separation. God’s word is a sword, and swords divide. There are some doctrines that all must believe. If you do not believe them, you have denied the faith. There can be no unity in the body of Christ with those whose doctrines threaten the very existence of that body.

Some Christians are unwilling to admit that this level of truth even exists. But doctrines of first importance must be contended for in uncompromising measure. What are those doctrines? I would use 1 Corinthians 15 as a guide.

Paul identifies the facts of the death and resurrection of Christ as of first importance. So, “Brick Wall” doctrine is that truth which is essential to the gospel of Christ. If you question the authority of God’s Word, the foundation of the gospel crumbles. Salvation is grounded in a Biblical view of a sovereign, triune God. There is no compromise on these doctrines."

Picket Fence Doctrines: “A picket fence is a friendly way of separating neighbors. It is not a brick wall that divides, it just establishes boundaries. You chat over the fence, have picnics together, watch over each other’s homes, and value the neighborhood you share. Around many doctrines we do not need a brick wall, but a simple picket fence.”…

“Instead of fighting over these issues, we form a “Christian neighborhood.” Around the neighborhood is the brick wall of protection. Inside the neighborhood we have picket fences. We chat over the fence, fellowship together, watch over and bless each other, and value our unity in Christ.”

"Some major doctrines that may require picket fences: Calvinists and Arminians view so many things differently. The question of God’s sovereignty in salvation has been the watershed doctrine that has divided the church. Though I am opposed to Arminian doctrine, I know many who hold those views and have a passion for Christ equal or greater than my own. So what do we do? We stand at the picket fence and lovingly try to convince one another of our position. When the discussion is over, we shake hands and return to our homes where we worship with the folks who believe as we do. "

“It is not that these doctrines do not matter. They are crucial. But I must, in humility, recognize that it is possible for someone to be a good Christian who loves Jesus and still comes to a different position than I do on these issues. If someone preaches universalism, I erect a brick wall. No fellowship. There can be no unity with wolves. But if someone disagrees with me on election or predestination, we maintain a friendship over the picket fence.”

Backyard Doctrine: "Even if you live in the same home, you don’t always agree about everything. You sit on your deck in the backyard and talk about all kinds of things. Every doctrine of Scripture is important. It is important to figure out how the world will end. We can debate the North and South Galatian theories and who wrote the book of Hebrews. We may sit in the backyard and talk about these things, but they do not affect our fellowship and we should never divide over them. Not even a picket fence is needed.

If a doctrine affects salvation, erect a brick wall. If it affects the fellowship or functioning of the church, erect a friendly picket fence. But if the doctrine affects neither, then sit in the backyard talking about it, but never let it become a point of division."

Closet Doctrine: "A closet is a place of privacy. Some things I believe, I should just keep to myself. I should follow the Lordship of Christ and permit other Christians to do the same. In the early church, the question was whether a Christian should eat meat sacrificed to an idol. Paul told the Romans and Corinthians that each of us can follow our own conscience under Christ, and keep our opinions to ourselves. In 1 Corinthians 8 through 10, and in Romans 14 and 15, Paul spent a long time explaining this principle of personal freedom to his churches.

For us, the issues are observing the Sabbath (or what day to observe it), or taking a glass of wine, or going to the movies, or dietary preferences, or . . . the list is long. Paul commands that those who say no on disputable issues should not condemn those who say yes and those who say yes should not disdain those who say no. Each of us seeks to be obedient to Christ on these matters and allows others to do the same. We also should be willing to limit our freedom to be a blessing to others."

Just the same old excuses.