5 reasons babies should be baptized

[Tangible]

Here is an excellent 11 minute video covering five of the most commonly given scriptural reasons infants should be baptized.

 

[Ken Rank]

1. "Baptism is a work of God and some denominations view it as a work of man."

Then why baptize the infant? If it is God's work, there is no reason to soak the kid.

2. "Infants are sinner"

Incorrect, infants are born into a fallen state and need to be redeemed, but 1 John 3:4 reveals sin as anomia, being outside the law... breaking commandments. Infants have no ability to discern right from wrong so baptism will have no affect on this child.

3. "Infants can't believe"

True, they can't. Belief is not just being firmly convinced in your mind, it is act on what you are convinced on. Not only can't an infant do this... but even if they could "believe" they don't know right from wrong, they have to be taught that as they grow.

4. "Household baptism"

His use of "households" here is beyond the scope of the intent. This is his definition being used on the text.

5. "God includes children in His promises"

True... but that does't mean they get baptized.

My position is simple... if you want to baptize your infant, go ahead. If you think that action remits their sins when they don't even know right from wrong... well... you really can't prove that. At some point that infant will become a young adult and they will have to choose whom they will follow, God or the world. And if God, they will get baptized because now it has a significance in meaning it couldn't have had as an infant who knew nothing but milk and sleep were coming at some point.

 

[All_In]

I'm beginning to see infant baptism is biblical. Baptism is God imparting His salvation onto us & Salvation is a free gift given by Him according to His will. We can't earn it or choose it. Its given by Him. Given to the elect. So we bring our children to the means He gives that imparts His grace.

 

[Dave-W]

2. "Infants are sinner"

That reflects a basic doctrinal standpoint of original sin.

1 John 3:4 reveals sin as anomia, being outside the law... breaking commandments.

That is only a partial definition. Sin is also missing the mark and anything done "not from faith." Since infants cannot have faith, it is all sin.

5. "God includes children in His promises"

This is a serious misunderstanding for both catholic and protestant, stemming from not seeing the difference between the Mosaic covenant and the New Covenant, expecially in how one gets into the covenant.

The Mosaic is entirely by virtue of physical birth. If your parents are Jewish/Israelite (for this discussion I will use the terms interchangeably) then you are in that covenant from birth. But if you are NOT a Jew, but your parents are Christians, then you are born in no covenant. The New Covenant is only joined by New Birth which requires repentance confession and faith.

Every instance you see in the bible where it talks about children being included in God's benefits are all Israelite children already in either the Mosaic or Abrahamic covenant.

 

[Ken Rank]

That reflects a basic doctrinal standpoint of original sin.

1 through 5 were the person who did the video's claim... what was below that was my comment. I stated the infant is born into a fallen state we ALL are but that the idea of the infant sinning is wrong as I will show you in the next comment.

That is only a partial definition. Sin is also missing the mark and anything done "not from faith." Since infants cannot have faith, it is all sin.

What is the mark Dave? The mark is the Torah, the righteousness of God. We aim to walk in His will, by His standards, according to His definition of what is and is not sin and we will simply miss from time to time. A baby doesn't even know the mark... the target is no known to an infant, therefore, the idea that an infant can sin is just wrong.

This is a serious misunderstanding for both catholic and protestant, stemming from not seeing the difference between the Mosaic covenant and the New Covenant, expecially in how one gets into the covenant.

The Mosaic is entirely by virtue of physical birth. If your parents are Jewish/Israelite (for this discussion I will use the terms interchangeably) then you are in that covenant from birth. But if you are NOT a Jew, but your parents are Christians, then you are born in no covenant. The New Covenant is only joined by New Birth which requires repentance confession and faith.

I don't agree at all... the ger (strangers/foreigners) who came out of Egypt with Israel were 1. to be treated as native born 2. to assimilate into the tribes they traveled with and 3. had Torah given to them as well and they were blessed when they kept it and cursed when they didn't. Therefore, the "Mosaic covenant" (What God calls His covenant and also the Everlasting covenant) is not JUST by birth because the ger prove that notion to be wrong. Sorry.

Every instance you see in the bible where it talks about children being included in God's benefits are all Israelite children already in either the Mosaic or Abrahamic covenant.

OK.

 

[Tangible]

A baby doesn't even know the mark... the target is no known to an infant, therefore, the idea that an infant can sin is just wrong.

So we are not guilty of unconscious sins we commit, or of sins of omission? The standard is perfection, is it not?

Jesus makes it perfectly clear that we not only sin in words and deeds, but in thoughts. Our basic human condition is to be selfish, to be turned in upon ourselves (homo incurvatus in se). Can you really say that an infant is not merely partly, but totally selfish - unaware and uncaring about those around them?

Can you show me from scripture that we are only guilty before God for actual sins, and not for our natural concupiscence?

 

[Dave-W]

I don't agree at all... the ger (strangers/foreigners) who came out of Egypt with Israel were 1. to be treated as native born 2. to assimilate into the tribes they traveled with and 3. had Torah given to them as well and they were blessed when they kept it and cursed when they didn't. Therefore, the "Mosaic covenant" (What God calls His covenant and also the Everlasting covenant) is not JUST by birth because the ger prove that notion to be wrong. Sorry.

One can enter the Mosaic covenant by formal conversion as well. (that is what Acts 15.1 is all about)

But that is not the common way to enter it. And most never got that chance.

 

[Dave-W]

Can you show me from scripture that we are only guilty before God for actual sins, and not for our natural concupiscence?

Another error that say sins keep us from salvation.

Salvation is on the basis of being in a covenant.

 

[Ken Rank]

So we are not guilty of unconscious sins we commit, or of sins of omission? The standard is perfection, is it not?

You want the truth? There are three words in Hebrew that WE in the west tend to lump together as one collective "sin." But the truth is, there is a reason there are three words in Hebrew that have unique definitions. They are...

chata'ah - translated generally as sin and most lexicons say, "missing the mark." However, the better picture here is of an archer who intends to aim at and hit 100% of the time the target (that being the righteousness of God). Despite his intent to hit the target ALL the time, he misses from time to time because he exists in a fallen state. This is better translated as unintentional or unknown sin.

avon - same archer and same intent but in this case he gets caught up in an emotion and temporarily seeks a different target to aim at. Once he calms down, he returns (repents) to the proper target.

Pesha - rebellion, plain and simple. This is one who KNOWS the target and doesn't care, he deliberately aims at any target but the one God desires.

An infant falls into chata'ah... the sin is unknown and unintentional. The Yom Kippur sacrifice, which points to Yeshua's work as it relates to sin... is SPECIFICALLY for chata'ah. Avon and pesha can be covered by they require the one who transgressed or rebelled to repent and come back to God's ways. But the baby didn't know there was even a target and so IF it did something we can identify as sin, it was unknowingly.

Jesus makes it perfectly clear that we not only sin in words and deeds, but in thoughts. Our basic human condition is to be selfish, to be turned in upon ourselves (homo incurvatus in se). Can you really say that an infant is not merely partly, but totally selfish - unaware and uncaring about those around them?

Do you have kids? Why do you think kids get burned when their parent says "don't touch the flame?" Because they don't understand that there are consequences to their actions. We all ended up with scars, bruises, broken bones, burns... all because we didn't understand. Are you seriously going to take the position that a 6 month old child has the understanding that YOU DO?

Being zealous over your beliefs is one thing, but when your become so zealous that in defense you become blindly dogmatic, then that isn't healthy. You know and I know that you and a 6 month old cannot be compared in terms of understanding. So why then take this position? If you want to baptize your child, dedicate them to God (which is really YOU making an oath to raise them properly) then go ahead. But to think that a 6 month old understands the ramifications of Adam's transgression is not reality and that YOU putting some water on their heads or body brings about the remission of sins when they can't even talk yet let alone knows what sin or remission (or death) is... I think, is outside of the scope of what Scripture is saying.

Blessings.

 

[Ken Rank]

One can enter the Mosaic covenant by formal conversion as well. (that is what Acts 15.1 is all about)

But that is not the common way to enter it. And most never got that chance.

I wrote an article 8 years ago that I need to rewrite on Acts 15. Did you know that Hillel and Shamai got into a debate over how one could become a proselyte? Hillel took the position that one needed only to refrain from blood, things strangled, from idols and sexual immorality... EXACTLY what the council determined in Acts 15. Shammai on the other hand, accepted Hillel's position but added that one ALSO needed to recite all 613 commandments AND get circumcised. That was accepted at that time and became halacha. The two who approached Paul and Barnabas were adhering to halacha.

The command to be circumcised was given to the FATHER of an 8 day old, not to the 8 day old. And while one couldn't eat the pesach without being circumcised, Hillel was taking a position that if you start here ______ and then go to the synagogues and hear Moses read and learn you can take the next steps in time. That is exactly what the council said.... they listed the 4 things and then said, "For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath." The idea was... begin HERE and do these few things to differentiate you from your ex-pagan brethren and then go and learn from Torah.

This is even similar in spirit to how Elisha dealt with Naaman. Stubborn at first, the light go turned on for Naaman and he got zealous quickly. So much so that he was bringing in 4X4 pick up trucks to take out the holy ground they stood on. But when the realization came to Naaman that he was to return to his master and end up in the idol's temple... he asked Elisha what to do? And the prophet responded with, "Go in peace." I think he realized Naaman had enough for one day... this is a marathon not a sprint and the Acts 15 letter was simply the starting line for non-Jews like me.

 

[Tangible]

1. "Baptism is a work of God and some denominations view it as a work of man."

Then why baptize the infant? If it is God's work, there is no reason to soak the kid.

Because of all the promises God has made to the baptized.

2. "Infants are sinner"

Incorrect, infants are born into a fallen state and need to be redeemed, but 1 John 3:4 reveals sin as anomia, being outside the law... breaking commandments. Infants have no ability to discern right from wrong so baptism will have no affect on this child.

See post above.

3. "Infants can't believe"

True, they can't. Belief is not just being firmly convinced in your mind, it is act on what you are convinced on. Not only can't an infant do this... but even if they could "believe" they don't know right from wrong, they have to be taught that as they grow.

Actually, he says they CAN believe, and gives several scripture references to that effect.

4. "Household baptism"

His use of "households" here is beyond the scope of the intent. This is his definition being used on the text.

I'm pretty sure we can find plenty of contemporary sources to confirm the intended definition of the word translated as "household" which (I could be wrong) is "oikos", from which we get the word "economy".

5. "God includes children in His promises"

True... but that does't mean they get baptized.

Simple response: Why not? Can you give a scriptural argument for specifically excluding infants in light of the other points made in the video?

My position is simple... if you want to baptize your infant, go ahead. If you think that action remits their sins when they don't even know right from wrong... well... you really can't prove that.

Except for all the places in scripture which do in fact prove that, of course.

At some point that infant will become a young adult and they will have to choose whom they will follow, God or the world. And if God, they will get baptized because now it has a significance in meaning it couldn't have had as an infant who knew nothing but milk and sleep were coming at some point.

Our Lord commands his Church to make disciples by baptizing and teaching. This is where the teaching part comes in. Baptized children are to be catechized at the appropriate level as their ability for comprehension increases.

It seems that you are confusing the gift of faith in Christ with the ability to rationally comprehend. I'm sure that John the Baptizer did not comprehend much when through the Holy Spirit he responded by leaping to the presence of the prenascent Christ.

Isn't it doctrinally inconsistent for credobaptists to have Sunday School and Children's Church and such for the purpose of teaching the faith to their small children when they believe that their small children can't have faith, and do not have the Holy Spirit? Doesn't Paul clearly say that the natural man cannot believe in Christ, cannot please God through faith? Doesn't he also clearly say that no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit?

 

[Tangible]

The Mosaic is entirely by virtue of physical birth. If your parents are Jewish/Israelite (for this discussion I will use the terms interchangeably) then you are in that covenant from birth. But if you are NOT a Jew, but your parents are Christians, then you are born in no covenant. The New Covenant is only joined by New Birth which requires repentance confession and faith.

Except for all those OT converts, you mean?

 

[Tangible]

Another error that say sins keep us from salvation.

Salvation is on the basis of being in a covenant.

It is man's innate sinfulness that keeps mankind from salvation. It is only by being included in the New Covenant with Christ that salvation is granted.

 

[Ken Rank]

Because of all the promises God has made to the baptized.

When we enter the water we are, symbolically, being buried with Christ (in Baptism) and being raised to walk in the newness of life. Why did we do that? Because we professed with our mouth he is Lord and are willing to submit to him AS LORD. Can a baby comprehend what I just said? No... therefore... the promised are to those who can, not to those you want to save.

Actually, he says they CAN believe, and gives several scripture references to that effect.

There is no verse that shows an infant understanding sin and death and the need to be redeemed. Honestly, this is a little silly and I am sorry if that offends, I am not trying to offend. But if you have had kids or been around them you KNOW that an infant has no idea what sin, death and redemption are. And if they don't... baptizing them isn't going to matter.

I'm pretty sure we can find plenty of contemporary sources to confirm the intended definition of the word translated as "household" which (I could be wrong) is "oikos", from which we get the word "economy".

It means, in this sense, family members. I am not debating that.... I am suggesting you are thinking Greek and not Hebraically which is the underlying paradigm of Scripture. Look at it from this perspective... why wouldn't a male under 20 even be counted in the census? Not even counted. Yeshua feeds 5000.... "plus the women and children." There is a separation here in the ancient near east thinking as compared to our western thoughts. You see "adoption" and think "God brought us in, us poor spiritual orphans," when back then in that part of the world it meant, "to bring on into the family in order to do the WORK of the family." A father would adopt his OWN SON into the family business. The idea of baptizing the household does not include those who have no idea what baptism is. I can only repeat that... an infant doesn't even know what baptism is.

Let me throw this in.... Peter said, "Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins." You are suggesting baptism alone does this while Peter was inspired by God to include "repent." How can an infant repent when it doesn't even know what that word means?

 

[Tangible]

You want the truth? There are three words in Hebrew that WE in the west tend to lump together as one collective "sin." But the truth is, there is a reason there are three words in Hebrew that have unique definitions. They are...

Interesting. What words are used for sin in the Koine of the New Testament by writers raised in the Jewish culture of Jesus' day? Do they make the same distinctions?

An infant falls into chata'ah... the sin is unknown and unintentional. The Yom Kippur sacrifice, which points to Yeshua's work as it relates to sin... is SPECIFICALLY for chata'ah. Avon and pesha can be covered by they require the one who transgressed or rebelled to repent and come back to God's ways. But the baby didn't know there was even a target and so IF it did something we can identify as sin, it was unknowingly.

Have you ever unintentionally sinned, or sinned without understanding? Are you guilty of that sin before Our Holy God?

Do you have kids?

Just seven. From 3 1/2 to 19 years old.

Why do you think kids get burned when their parent says "don't touch the flame?" Because they don't understand that there are consequences to their actions. We all ended up with scars, bruises, broken bones, burns... all because we didn't understand. Are you seriously going to take the position that a 6 month old child has the understanding that YOU DO?

Of course not, but understanding doesn't enter into it. My position is that we are conceived and born in a sinful state, that we are not sinners because we sin, but that we sin because we are sinners.

Being zealous over your beliefs is one thing, but when your become so zealous that in defense you become blindly dogmatic, then that isn't healthy. You know and I know that you and a 6 month old cannot be compared in terms of understanding. So why then take this position?

What if a dogmatic position rests upon the clear teaching of scripture. Are you dogmatic about the two natures of Christ? Are you dogmatic about God's omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence?

Please remember that credobaptism is an innovation that did not exist in the Church catholic (except for some heretical sects) until the 1500s.

If you want to baptize your child, dedicate them to God (which is really YOU making an oath to raise them properly) then go ahead.

You are very kind. But I think I will follow the lead of the Apostolic Church and baptize my children instead of following a 20 year old tradition of standing up in front of your congregation and effectively saying "Look everyone, I really want my baby to be a Christian, but I'm not going to go so far as to have him baptized to actually make him one."

But to think that a 6 month old understands the ramifications of Adam's transgression is not reality and that YOU putting some water on their heads or body brings about the remission of sins when they can't even talk yet let alone knows what sin or remission (or death) is... I think, is outside of the scope of what Scripture is saying.

Like I stated earlier, an infant doesn't have to know he is a sinner to be a sinner any more than my children had to know they were Americans in order to be American citizens. Being a sinner is a state of being, not a choice or a consequence.

And Holy Baptism is an act of God, not of man. Granted it seems a little weak and ridiculous to say a few words and pour water on a baby's head. If you are looking through the eyes of the world, anyway. But through the eyes of faith, informed by the Holy Scriptures, we see God acting in typically hidden fashion to wash away sins, grant the Holy Spirit, new life, and faith in Christ.

 

[Ken Rank]

You are very kind. But I think I will follow the lead of the Apostolic Church and baptize my children instead of following a 20 year old tradition of standing up in front of your congregation and effectively saying "Look everyone, I really want my baby to be a Christian, but I'm not going to go so far as to have him baptized to actually make him one."

There is no reason for me to cover the rest, we don't read Scripture through the same lens and quite frankly, I don't think we need to. For me, I don't see the NT having been written in Greek, I spend considerable time weighing in Hebraic nuances and idiomatic phrases that were in use then and not now... and so forth. But to address this... I am not trying to get you to think or practice like I do. Nor, by the way, do I take part in a 20 year old tradition. In practice you would probably consider me more Jewish but I am not. Just do as you feel led... you answer for you.
Blessings.
Ken

 

[Dave-W]

Did you know that Hillel and Shamai got into a debate over how one could become a proselyte?

There were well over a hundred points of doctrine and practice that they varied on - and yet they remained the best of friends all their lives. I have read several of their disputes but that specific is not one of them.

 

[Ken Rank]

There were well over a hundred points of doctrine and practice that they varied on - and yet they remained the best of friends all their lives. I have read several of their disputes but that specific is not one of them.

They remained friends... a lesson we all could learn because they were opposed at the core of the NT argument. Hillel was know to teach "spirit of the law" and Shammai "letter of the law" and when Paul is writing about the differences he is drawing on their debates.

Pretty sure my source was the Mishnah but will double check, it's been a while since I quoted it. Do you have any source that shows they remained friends. Because again, in our current environment... if those two considered themselves friends and even brothers in the "family of God" sense despite their differences... that would be a great tool to use in teaching unity among the body.

 

[Dave-W]

Except for all those OT converts, you mean?

Yes, I have noted that exception (post #7) - but that is exactly what it is - an exception. Not the normal way of entering the covenant. And not that many took them up on it.

 

[CrystalDragon]

Saying infants are born sinners or in a fallen state implies that infants who die will be sent to hell. That view is nothing but evil.