I'm not sure I guess, whether 'saved' or 'uncondemned', or is that splitting hairs?Sudsy wrote:I agree this practise of child dedications goes back to the OT just like using musical instruments in worship. My guess is that most Anabaptists view children as in a saved state until they reach an age where they can decide for themselves what they will believe and some chose not to believe in Christ. What the Schleitheim confession says is - underlined mine -Valerie wrote: We don't read about 'child dedication' in the New Testament. But a child raised in the fear of the Lord and of course Apostle Paul called the children "holy" so I think that leaving them 'out' of taking part in the communion until they're older, well these little ones already believe, since I had been going for awhile to Orthodox Church, I witnessed their faith and love for Jesus. Of course, Jesus saw them that way too, He told US to have faith like THEM- for such is the Kingdom of Heaven- it's a beautiful picture of Christ's feelings about children- they do have faith!
Some very stern words about the pope and child baptism. I prefer dialogue like we are having to consider all the possible ways of looking at this and appreciate reading others explanations of the RC and Orthodox views.Observe concerning baptism: Baptism shall be given to all those who have learned repentance and amendment of life, and who believe truly that their sins are taken away by Christ, and to all those who walk in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and wish to be buried with Him in death, so that they may be resurrected with Him, and to all those who with this significance request it [baptism] of us and demand it for themselves. This excludes all infant baptism, the highest and chief abomination of the pope.
Seems 'saved' would suggest no further need of salvation? Or does that become OSAS?