Infant baptism

SoldierOfTheKing · Dec 9, 2018

ml5363 said:
No but baptism is a way to show that someone has accepted Christ...not to save them

Rather it to show that Christ has accepted them. A child of believing parents, or even one believing parent, is a child of the new covenant, and therefore part of the visible church, which is what baptism indicates.

ItIsFinished! said:
Babies and young children cannot intellectually make the decision (understand properly) to accept Christ as Saviour first , then make the decision to be baptized secondly.

No, but God can, and baptism is His work.

ItIsFinished! · Dec 9, 2018

Shawn Stuart said:
What about the scripture that declares the believers children sanctified.

1 Corinthians 7:14

That verse is dealing with a spouse within a marriage that is an unbeliever.
1 Corinthians chapter 7 is dealing with marriage.
Basically the one within the marriage who is saved should live accordingly before the one who is not.
Not knowing that living and behaving in a Godly manner could not only bring the unbeliever to God , but also any children that may be involved.

Look at what Paul wrote two verses later in 1 Corinthians 7:16 (KJV)
For what knowest thou, O wife , whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man , whether thou shalt save thy wife?

Notice the question marks that Paul inserted in that verse .
It doesn't mean the one or other will be saved , but certainly it is clearly an option for the lost one even more so if the believing spouse live and love according to God's Word.
Insomuch that even from that Godly influence any children involved within that marriage could also be influenced to be saved.

ItIsFinished! · Dec 9, 2018

SoldierOfTheKing said:
Rather it to show that Christ has accepted them. A child of believing parents, or even one believing parent, is a child of the new covenant, and therefore part of the visible church, which is what baptism indicates.

No, but God can, and baptism is His work.

Then why didn't Jesus set the example and get baptized when He was an infant?

Shawn Stuart · Dec 9, 2018

ItIsFinished! said:
That verse is dealing with a spouse within a marriage that is an unbeliever.
1 Corinthians chapter 7 is dealing with marriage.
Basically the one within the marriage who is saved should live accordingly before the one who is not.
Not knowing that living and behaving in a Godly manner could not only bring the unbeliever to God , but also any children that may be involved.

Look at what Paul wrote two verses later in 1 Corinthians 7:16 (KJV)
For what knowest thou, O wife , whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man , whether thou shalt save thy wife?

Notice the question marks that Paul inserted in that verse .
It doesn't mean the one or other will be saved , but certainly it is clearly an option for the lost one even more so if the believing spouse live and love according to God's Word.
Insomuch that even from that Godly influence any children involved within that marriage could also be influenced to be saved.

But it clearly states that the children are holy. Who are you to say that they cannot be baptized?

TuxAme · Dec 9, 2018

ItIsFinished! said:
I don't have to prove anything and circumcision is not the topic here.
God allows us to choose or reject.
He doesn't force His salvation upon anyone and baptism comes after salvation.
Therefore one can conclude that infant baptism is not Scriptural.

What does being baptised- entering into God's Covenant- have to do with forcing one's salvation?

Under the Law, infant boys had no choice in being circumcised. It was imposed on them by the Mosaic Law (which was God-given), and their parents were responsible for getting the child circumcised. At no point was the child asked if he wanted to enter the Covenant- God (and his parents) made that decision for him. This is the standard that God has set, and the first Christians (including the apostles, and Jesus Himself) understood this.

LaSorcia · Dec 9, 2018

Shawn Stuart said:
But it clearly states that the children are holy. Who are you to say that they cannot be baptized?

And the spouse.

ItIsFinished! · Dec 9, 2018

Shawn Stuart said:
But it clearly states that the children are holy. Who are you to say that they cannot be baptized?

Where did I ever state they couldn't?
And what we are discussing involving the verse you and I provided has nothing to do with baptism.

Neostarwcc · Dec 9, 2018

I was baptized as an infant. I have no desire to get baptized again due to I think my first baptism counted. There are examples in scripture of children being baptized so... Its valid. There's no point in infants who grow up to get baptized again and again.

ItIsFinished! · Dec 9, 2018

TuxAme said:
What does being baptised- entering into God's Covenant- have to do with forcing one's salvation?

Under the Law, infant boys had no choice in being circumcised. It was imposed on them by the Mosaic Law (which was God-given), and their parents were responsible for getting the child circumcised. At no point was the child asked if he wanted to enter the Covenant- God (and his parents) made that decision for him. This is the standard that God has set, and the first Christians (including the apostles, and Jesus Himself) understood this.

Number one you are putting the cart before the horse.

Number two, we are NOT UNDER THE LAW.
Please stop using OT comparisons when we are dealing with NT realities .

There is a reason for the New Testament.
If Jesus wanted to set the example of infant baptism (not circumcision) He would of been baptized as an infant.
He wasn't

ItIsFinished! · Dec 9, 2018

Neostarwcc said:
I was baptized as an infant. I have no desire to get baptized again due to I think my first baptism counted. There are examples in scripture of children being baptized so... Its valid. There's no point in infants who grow up to get baptized again and again.

Please provide examples of infants being baptized in the Scriptures.

Hank77 · Dec 9, 2018

Shawn Stuart said:
But it clearly states that the children are holy. Who are you to say that they cannot be baptized?

So is the unbelieving husband but your church wouldn't consider baptizing him. Why not? The wording is exactly the same for both.

Shawn Stuart · Dec 9, 2018

ItIsFinished! said:
Where did I ever state they couldn't?
And what we are discussing involving the verse you and I provided has nothing to do with baptism.

But it does state that the child is holy because of the parent. Whose to say that child who is holy cannot be baptized?

Neostarwcc · Dec 9, 2018

ItIsFinished! said:
Please provide examples of infants being baptized in the Scriptures.

Its already been stated in the first page of the thread. But, The centurion and his household were baptized. I highly doubt they were all grownups. Not to mention Lydias household was also baptized see acts 16:15. I highly doubt all of these households in scripture were all grownup adults. Many of them were infants and children. But anyway yeah they've already been brought up in this thread.

HTacianas · Dec 9, 2018

ml5363 said:
Just curious for those that believe in infant baptism, sprinkling, etc where did this idea come from since Jesus himself was not baptized until he was around 29-30?

Act 2:38 - Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Act 2:39 - “For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

Shawn Stuart · Dec 9, 2018

HTacianas said:
to your children

Hank77 · Dec 9, 2018

TuxAme said:
Under the Law, infant boys had no choice in being circumcised. It was imposed on them by the Mosaic Law (which was God-given), and their parents were responsible for getting the child circumcised. At no point was the child asked if he wanted to enter the Covenant- God (and his parents) made that decision for him. This is the standard that God has set, and the first Christians (including the apostles, and Jesus Himself) understood this.

Circumcision of the flesh was a sign that one was a member of the nation of Israel. All of the nation of Israel of the flesh were under the Law of Moses.
Members of Christ body are circumcised of the heart.

ItIsFinished! · Dec 9, 2018

Shawn Stuart said:
But it does state that the child is holy because of the parent. Whose to say that child who is holy cannot be baptized?

Regarding our previous discussion from verses from 1 Corinthians 7:14 and 16, I believe Paul is still speaking in a futuristic manner of the possibilities not only regarding the husband and wife within the marriage, but also any children that may be involved regarding salvation.
He chose to use the word holy regarding the child , but used the word saved regarding the parents.
It was a hypothetical scenario that he presented which obviously existed then and now.
But, none of this has anything to do with infant baptism.
They are good questions that you bring up however.

ItIsFinished! · Dec 9, 2018

Neostarwcc said:
Its already been stated in the first page of the thread. But, The centurion and his household were baptized. I highly doubt they were all grownups. Not to mention Lydias household was also baptized see acts 16:15. I highly doubt all of these households in scripture were all grownup adults. Many of them were infants and children. But anyway yeah they've already been brought up in this thread.

No. No infant baptisms were brought up in this thread , but rather assumptions were brought up.
Big difference.

Why do you suppose Jesus wasn't baptized as an infant?
Seriously, why wasn't He?

Apologetic_Warrior · Dec 9, 2018

TuxAme said:
What about circumcision? The infant boys of Israel (including Jesus) were circumcised- thereby entering into God's covenant- despite not having made the decision to themselves. It was made for them by their parents, who obeyed the Mosaic Law. "Personal acceptance" isn't the standard that God set for us in the past, and we have no reason to believe that He has changed His mind.

Nice post, this is a progressive covenantal understanding of baptism which I happen to agree with. :oldthumbsup:

Shawn Stuart · Dec 9, 2018

ItIsFinished! said:
Regarding our previous discussion from verses from 1 Corinthians 7:14 and 16, I believe Paul is still speaking in a futuristic manner of the possibilities not only regarding the husband and wife within the marriage, but also any children that may be involved regarding salvation.
He chose to use the word holy regarding the child , but used the word saved regarding the parents.
It was a hypothetical scenario that he presented which obviously existed then and now.
But, none of this has anything to do with infant baptism.
They are good questions that you bring up however.

You’re completely missing the point.

Infant baptism

Christian Spenglerian

Jesus Christ is our only hope.

Jesus Christ is our only hope.

Active Member

Quis ut Deus?

Well-Known Member

Jesus Christ is our only hope.

We are saved purely by the work and grace of God.

Jesus Christ is our only hope.

Jesus Christ is our only hope.

Well-Known Member

Active Member

We are saved purely by the work and grace of God.

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Jesus Christ is our only hope.

Jesus Christ is our only hope.

Pilgrim

Active Member

Similar threads