Infant Baptism

Gregory95 said:

Then if the water is what saves how did Christ say you will see paradise

Click to expand...

First, water does not save. Maybe it would be better if we held back from satirizing the sacrament every time it is referred to. It is because Our Lord instituted it that we practice it at all, you know.

Second, Christ can personally save whomever he chooses. When Baptism was instituted, it was for all the millions who would come later and not have a face-to-face meeting with Christ in which the person could affirm to Christ personally that he or she believed in Him.

JacksBratt said:

Then.... why the big worry about baptizing a baby.... if it may grow up and chose another path in life...

Again... will..... someone..... please.... tell me....

What happens to a baby, if the parents don't have it baptized and it dies as an infant?????????????

Click to expand...

That's hard to say, because baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation.

And forgiveness of sin is only one of its benefits.

Albion said:

First, water does not save. Maybe it would be better if we held back from satirizing the sacrament every time it is referred to. It is because Our Lord instituted it that we practice it at all, you know.

Second, Christ can personally save whomever he chooses. When Baptism was instituted, it was for all the millions who would come later and not have a face-to-face meeting with Christ in which the person could affirm to Christ personally that he or she believed in Him.

Click to expand...

Pretty sure we agree unsure why it seems as if you are trying to correct me?

Ttalkkugjil said:

That's hard to say, because baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation.

Click to expand...

Ugghhhhhh

So, the bible does not say,,anywhere, that you can or need to baptize a baby for the safety of it's soul... in case it dies.

Nobody can tell me the fate of the two babies.. one baptized one not.... if they die.

But, baptism brings salvation?

Sorry.. but it's not scriptural.

You cannot save anyone else by your actions, any sprinkling of any water mingled with anything.

One is only saved by cognitively and consciously understanding and admitting that:

1/ They are a sinner and have no hope of anything under their own power to pay the price for their sins... thus must die.
2/Christ paid the price for your sins.
3/ Humble yourself, admit that you are a sinner and need Christ.
4/ Ask for the free gift of salvation from Christ....

Babies cannot do any of this.

Babies... if they die.. baptized or not... go to heaven...

Only those that have reached a level of mental ability to consciously understand that they are a sinner... are capable of knowing that they have accepted or rejected Christ.

No human that never reaches an age of mentally understanding that they need Christ... will ever be denied eternal life.

I have several explanations for that, Gregory, but lets just say I mistook some of what you wrote for meaning something else.

Baptism to the Jews was purification, not initiation.

JacksBratt said:

You cannot save anyone else by your actions, any sprinkling of any water mingled with anything.

Click to expand...

Agreed that I cannot. It's God who saves.

JacksBratt said:

One is only saved by cognitively and consciously understanding and admitting that:

1/ They are a sinner and have no hope of anything under their own power to pay the price for their sins... thus must die.
2/Christ paid the price for your sins.
3/ Humble yourself, admit that you are a sinner and need Christ.
4/ Ask for the free gift of salvation from Christ....

Babies cannot do any of this.

Click to expand...

So faith to you is mere intellectual assent - being able to check off a list of doctrines? Where do you find that notion in Scripture?

JacksBratt said:

Babies... if they die.. baptized or not... go to heaven...

Click to expand...

Wow Jacksy, where do you find that in the Bible?

JacksBratt said:

Only those that have reached a level of mental ability to consciously understand that they are a sinner... are capable of knowing that they have accepted or rejected Christ.

No human that never reaches an age of mentally understanding that they need Christ... will ever be denied eternal life.

Click to expand...

Again, chapters and verses please.

Natsumi Lam said:

Hi Family,

Can you please explain to me the logic and reasoning behind infant baptism?

~Natsumi Lam~

Click to expand...

The answer to that question hinges on just what are the significance and fruits of water baptism.

Natsumi Lam said:

If circumcision had eternal implication like salvation. Christ saved with heart and mouth. Infants cant with heart and mouth.

If medicine had eternal implications yes.

Click to expand...

So salvation is less important than medicine or circumcision?

-CryptoLutheran

Natsumi Lam said:

God grants faith. Not baptism.

Click to expand...

God grants faith through Baptism.

You say we dont have a choice on salvation?

Click to expand...

We can choose to reject it, but our salvation has nothing to do with some "choice" we make. We are saved by the grace of God alone, through faith, on Christ's account alone.

Do baptised infants have a choice of salvation under your belief?

Click to expand...

No more and no less than an adult. Salvation is by grace alone.

-CryptoLutheran

JacksBratt said:

In the day... circumcision was God's law for His people.

Nothing like infant baptism.

Click to expand...

Colossians 2:11-12

-CryptoLutheran

JacksBratt said:

Whats that?

Click to expand...

Together, various passages gradually draw together a fuller picture:

1At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me."
(Mt 18)

13Then people brought little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked them.
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.” 15 When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.
(Mt 19)

-----------
though it may not be needed, we can gain yet more broader context:

5 “See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. 6 He will turn the hearts of the parents to their children, and the hearts of the children to their parents; or else I will come and strike the land with total destruction.”
(Malachi 4)

13But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John. 14He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, 15for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born. 16He will bring back many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God. 17And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”
(Luke 1)

Why this special emphasis on loving our children, in particular? Consider: it might have plausibly been a different wording that would seem ok: "...to turn the hearts of the people to their neighbors" ('love your neighbor') for instance. But it was not that, but instead it was "to turn the hearts of the parents to their children".
He says "the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these", and we can sense right off I think that there is something about children that is the right way, the way we should be, and which is acceptable to God, as He wants us to be, as confirmed further in Matthew 18.
But, for myself, I'm already content with the straightforward wording of the Matthew 19 quote by itself. It's conclusive to me.

Natsumi Lam said:

Hi Family,

Can you please explain to me the logic and reasoning behind infant baptism?

~Natsumi Lam~

Click to expand...

It's best not to approach the Bible as matter of logic and reasoning. But circumcision as a sign of the covenant in the OT (Genesis 17) is replaced with the same meaning by baptism in the NT (Colossians 2). The covenant given to Abraham continues in meaning but not in its form in the NT fulfilled by Jesus. Baptism does not save the baby, according to the Reformed Protestant view, but it looks forward to its fulfillment in the new birth in the child or later. Adult baptism happens after that hoped-for event, but infant baptism happens before it with the parents' promises to raise the child in the faith. That in a nutshell is infant baptism.

Natsumi Lam said:

Hi Family,

Can you please explain to me the logic and reasoning behind infant baptism?

~Natsumi Lam~

Click to expand...

There are some long explanations, tradition, and the way certain verses are interpreted figure highly in the reasoning.

Anglicans, Lutherans, Reformed, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church all baptize infants. Although among these groups there may be some dissenting congregations, or, splinter groups that have sworn off the practice.

When I first of this I was shocked, then I read Some writings of Martin Luther on the subject, among others, and I slowly accepted it.

If you are looking for a bible verse that says you must baptize infants, or it's ok to do so, you will not find it. However, you will not find any verses that say you will not baptize infants either. Although all the examples in the New Testament were adults.

Baptism, and the Lord's Supper are both commanded in scripture, our savior was baptized, our savior took communion. So that's good enough for me.

If you look at history though, all the saints, and all the reformers were baptized as infants (some maybe not) and if the gift of the Holy Spirit is not given to an infant at baptism, then there would be no church.

This is a 2K year old debate (or 500 depending on who you talk to) that shows no signs of ever being resolved (along with many others)

My wife and I were baptized as adults, our children were like 13 and 10. We did not plan it that way, it just worked out like that.

I wish you the best

ViaCrucis said:

Colossians 2:11-12

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

All those in the NT were adults and asked to be baptized....

No?

Bruce Leiter said:

It's best not to approach the Bible as matter of logic and reasoning. But circumcision as a sign of the covenant in the OT (Genesis 17) is replaced with the same meaning by baptism in the NT (Colossians 2). The covenant given to Abraham continues in meaning but not in its form in the NT fulfilled by Jesus. Baptism does not save the baby, according to the Reformed Protestant view, but it looks forward to its fulfillment in the new birth in the child or later. Adult baptism happens after that hoped-for event, but infant baptism happens before it with the parents' promises to raise the child in the faith. That in a nutshell is infant baptism.

Click to expand...

This i can understand however i would think it would be more beneficial and cause less issues if they didn't as you stated its really just a ritual but seeing as its for the parents not the infant

Pro makes parents feel good

Con causes division among those who should be one mind

As true believers are of one mind

All those who point to post original followers of Christ (those of the NT)

And say see they did it /said it


Know
This

Paul said upon his death wolves WILL appear and turn if possible even the elect from the truth

Just something to keep in mind

merely pointing out his warning nothing more

Gregory95 said:

All those in the NT were adults and asked to be baptized....

No?

Click to expand...

Hard to say that considering there were household baptisms.

Gregory95 said:

All those in the NT were adults and asked to be baptized....

No?

Click to expand...

You wouldn't expect an evangelist to make children his main targets, especially when the whole world was then being presented with a new religion. No, if it were you, you would go first to adults, but that doesn't mean children were excluded from baptism. We have evidence in scripture that children of those adults you were thinking of were baptized .