A thought or two about Infant Baptism

[BNR32FAN]

According to scriptures the bible is for:

2 Tim 3: 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

And to be...

Psalms 119:105 Your word is a lamp to my feet
And a light to my path.

So I look for what the scripture teaches, instead of doesn't teach.

Ok if your point is don’t give bibles to infants then I would agree with you it’s best to wait until they’re old enough to read but again I don’t see how this has anything to do with infant baptism.

 

[Markie Boy]

As an observation - with believers baptism, it's not really an issue. Baptized and become a member of the church, then share communion. Definitely clearer, and I think something all would agree on.

I once listened to a debate - a really good and charitable one - with Jimmy Akin and Steve Gregg. Jimmy on the Catholic side agreed, that if someone was a criminal, and got baptized, but never changed their ways or heart, they are not saved by the baptism - baptism alone does not save.

If this is true for an adult, why is it different for an infant?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Ok if your point is don’t give bibles to infants then I would agree with you it’s best to wait until they’re old enough to read but again I don’t see how this has anything to do with infant baptism.

That’s not my point but it’s a good comparison, infants can’t read bibles nor can they accept Jesus or repent from sins or have sin so is pointless. If you thought your infant baptism was valid why did you get baptized again when you were older?

My point is the scripture is for our guidance, there is no scripture on infant baptism and I look at scripture based on what it teaches versus the slippery slope of the opposite.

 

[BNR32FAN]

This is a re-quote from from #272

Baptists and American Evangelicals allow women take Holy Communion and yet there is no "Bible record" allowing women to take holy communion. No example and no teaching. So why do they do it?

Hermenuetics.

There are two ways to interpret Scripture: That which is not prohibited is permitted OR that which not permitted is prohibited.

Baptists and American Evangelicals are schizophrenic. They interpret infant Baptism as "not specifically permitted, therefore prohibited" and the Lord's supper as "not specifically prohibited, therefore permitted."
--------
The whole tenor of the NT in hermenuetics is that which is not prohibited is permitted. The whole of Paul's argument on Christian liberty is he can "do all things" but all not "all things" are profitable.

We are always looking for prohibitions which is restrictive. Nowhere does Scripture prohibit infant being baptized.

I have notice a few people here on CF basically two sets of rules for interpreting Scripture. One for baptism and other for the rest of Scripture.

Personally I think the argument spawns from typical anti Catholic propaganda.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That’s not my point but it’s a good comparison, infants can’t read bibles nor can they accept Jesus or repent from sins or have sin so is pointless. If you thought your infant baptism was valid why did you get baptized again when you were older?

I answered that in another post in this thread. I got baptized a second time as an outward symbol of my new faith. I wanted to make a conscious pledge of my faith to God.

I was baptized at the age of 4 or 5. I had no idea of what was going on and it didn’t change me in the slightest. When I was 38 years old I came to Christ and received the Holy Spirit. I decided to get baptized a second time as a sort of pledge to God in my new found faith. But yes I agree the scriptures record people receiving the Holy Spirit before baptism and not receiving Him after baptism.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I answered that in another post in this thread. I got baptized a second time as an outward symbol of my new faith. I wanted to make a conscious pledge of my faith to God.

And thats the biblical reason.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The harm is its giving people false hope that if they were baptized as an infant, they will be saved no matter what, but that's not what the scriptures teach. I am glad as an adult you had better understanding what it means to make the commitment to Christ, saying goodbye to your life of sin and walking in newness with Christ.

False hope? Really? The vast majority of Christian's baptize their children because of the promises attached to baptism. These promises have been clearly articulated to you in probably 15 separate posts. Yet you don't believe.

What kind of FALSE

 

[SabbathBlessings]

False hope? Really? The vast majority of Christian's baptize their children because of the promises attached to baptism. These promises have been clearly articulated to you in probably 15 separate posts. Yet you don't believe.

What kind of FALSE

A baby can't accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior or have sin or repent from sins, that comes from a personal decision that babies can't make, which has also been articulated in several different posts followed by the scripture on what is required. If one thinks their infant baptisms are valid and do not need to be baptized when they are old enough to understand the following scriptures, than yes, it is giving people false hope that they are already baptized. If you have an example from scripture that shows otherwise, feel free to share, I look to scripture to be our guide which is what we are told to do. Pslams 119:105

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them ... teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19, 20).

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16).

“Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).

“Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19).

 

[BNR32FAN]

And thats the biblical reason.

I was still able to accomplish it after being baptized as a child before I knew what it meant.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The harm is its giving people false hope that if they were baptized as an infant, they will be saved no matter what, but that's not what the scriptures teach. I am glad as an adult you had better understanding what it means to make the commitment to Christ, saying goodbye to your life of sin and walking in newness with Christ.

False hope? Really? Baptism is seen as a remedy for original sin. We baptized based upon the promises attached to baptism. There have a been at least 10 posts on this thread that list them. I won't bother relisting as it will be of no use to you.

What FALSE HOPE to you give a grieving parent who lost an unbaptized infant who died?

Are you saying the child will be saved NO MATTER WHAT? Are all children born to Christian parents 'SAVED NO MATTER WHAT? Or are all children who die before the Age of Accountability SAVED NO MATTER WHAT?

What pastoral counseling statements would you state to grieving parent?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

False hope? Really? Baptism is seen as a remedy for original sin. We baptized based upon the promises attached to baptism. There have a been at least 10 posts on this thread that list them. I won't bother relisting as it will be of no use to you.

What FALSE HOPE to you give a grieving parent who lost an unbaptized infant who died?

Are you saying the child will be saved NO MATTER WHAT? Are all children born to Christian parents 'SAVED NO MATTER WHAT? Or are all children who die before the Age of Accountability SAVED NO MATTER WHAT?

What pastoral counseling statements would you state to grieving parent?

You are putting words in my mouth that infants would die no matter what- never once did I post that so please do not add what's not there. My posts are about baptism and what it stands for and the scripture associated with it and the example in scriptures, which shows no infant baptism.

If you would like to talk scripture, please do, I am not interested in opinions.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I was still able to accomplish it after being baptized as a child before I knew what it meant.

Thats great, many people think their infant baptism was enough despite having no memory or understanding what it meant, which is the point and congrats on your baptism.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Already answered.

I guess I missed these answers. Could you please refer me to the post # to this answers.

 

[eleos1954]

That was not my point. My point was that the RCC has a range of options regarding the rite of baptism.

Baptism by water is symbolic .... water or the act of baptism (religious ceremonies) don't save anyone ..... Jesus does. Baptism is not a
requirement for salvation.

The Catholic Church teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that "baptism is necessary for salvation".

1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.57 In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize58 , by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Thats the issue, baptism is supposed to mean something, its part of our salvation according to the scripture Mark 16:16

An infant can't do the following...

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them ... teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19, 20).

A child can be instructed as they are raised in the faith.

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16).

A baptized child is reared up in the faith.

“Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).

Repentance is part of the life of faith we receive in baptism.

“Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19).

Repentance is part of the life of faith we receive in baptism.

The harm is its giving people false hope that if they were baptized as an infant, they will be saved no matter what, but that's not what the scriptures teach. I am glad as an adult you had better understanding what it means to make the commitment to Christ, saying goodbye to your life of sin and walking in newness with Christ.

Straw man. No church teaches that "if they were baptized as an infant, they will be saved no matter what". Baptism is not a magic "go to heaven" ticket. A person who is baptized, but then walks away from faith, is no longer a believer; and thus they shipwreck themselves.

That there are people out there who are under the delusion that just because they were baptized as an infant they can live however they want, and be completely without faith, and yet somehow that grants them a magic ticket to a good afterlife only speaks to their personal ignorance, and the need to reach them and call them to repent and be restored to faith.

Find a single church that says that a person can be baptized and then shipwreck their faith and still be saved "no matter what". That's not rhetorical, I challenge you to actually back up your argument. Also, anecdotes from ignorant lapsed Christians don't count.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Baptism by water is symbolic

Not according to the Bible.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[trophy33]

Baptism is seen as a remedy for original sin.

The doctrine of the original sin was a mistake of Augustine. He misunderstood one specific Greek text of Paul.

AUGNET : 1311 Greek language

Fill this in with your information

www.augnet.org

More detailed explanation:

Augustine's mistake about original sin - Gentle Wisdom

Scot McKnight writes: Behind the Reformation is Augustine; behind much of modern evangelicalism, especially in the Reformed circles today, is the

gentlewisdom.org

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The doctrine of the original sin was a mistake of Augustine. He misunderstood one specific Greek text of Paul.

Not believing in original sin was the mistake of Pelagius. He was a condemned heretic.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Thats the issue, baptism is supposed to mean something, its part of our salvation according to the scripture Mark 16:16

An infant can't do the following...

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them ... teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19, 20).

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16).

“Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).

Credos don’t baptize infants because they can’t repent. Paedos baptize infants because it is IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO REPENT.

“Repent and be baptized” is only addressed to sinful adults. And you can’t bring children into these passages who are not addressed. Had Jesus expected children to repent and be converted, He would have addressed them as He did His adult audience. There is no expressed command for infants to repent.

Here is where we get into some rules for interpreting Scripture to clarify why infants and children do not need to repent before being baptized.

PRINCIPLE HERMENUETIC: An absolute inability to perform any command from scripture absolves a person from the obligation to perform it. Any passage of scripture, requiring a qualification or action of which children are incapable is to be interpreted as pertaining to adults.

We see this hermenuetic in Paul’s writings. In I Thessalonians certain people got the idea that the Second Coming was around the corner so they stopped working….they wanted other believes to feed and take care of them. Then Paul rails the law at them:

II Thess 3:10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

This passage only refers to adults. Infants don’t work nor can they. What about the infirmed, aged, mentally disabled? These inabilities need to be remedied if you apply this passage to all. God does not require impossibilities. Helping widows, giving alms, feeding the poor, preaching the word, defending the faith studying scripture do not apply to infants.

Paul’s words there are only for adults, and they are only for able-bodied adults who could work but refuse. Even though none of those explanations are explicit in the text of the New Testament,

An absolute inability to perform any command from scripture absolves a person from the obligation to perform it. Thus a blind man is not bound to read the gospel, nor deaf man to hear the gospel preached, nor an insane person from understanding it. This is what baptism is for. Baptism is the remedy for these horrid disabilities.

The Bible was not written to infants and is therefore not going to direct them to do anything. They are under the care of their Christian parents and pastors who can repent, hear, understand, and believe, teach and confess the faith.

Additionally, there is an important distinction to be made between baptizing an infant and an adult believer---one has the need to repent, the other does not. Failure for infants to have intricate knowledge of the Atonement is no more a barrier to baptism than to their future repentance. Furthermore, adults do need to repent, but repentance is not a one time act...what infants and adults have in common is their future repentance.

However, infants have one advantage over unbelieving adults. Infants do not yet have a rebellious reason! Scripture teaches that we are conceived in sin and if we grow up as unbelievers we develop a conscious reason that is hostile to the Gospel. So, unlike infants who are in a position to receive the Gospel, adults need to have their reason humbled through the preaching of God’s Word. Adults must become like “little children” or “spiritual infants” before they can receive Holy Baptism. Infants oppose no emotional, intellenctual or wilful hindrance to baptism,

Unbelieving infants are like a plowed field. They do not have the “seed of life” but they are in a position to receive it. In contrast, unbelieving older children and adults are like a field with hard soil (covered by weeds and rocks) that needs to be broken up and cleared out before it can receive the “seed of life.” This explains why infants are baptized and then taught, whereas older children and adults are taught and then Baptized.

Under the New Testament, little children are introduced into the Kingdom of Heaven by baptism, because there is no hindrance to the gracious operation of the Holy Spirit. The administration of adult baptism requires a removal of a hindrance for its effectiveness, the natural will, which is hostile to God, and resists His grace, must be subdued in repentance as a preliminary to being baptized. Infant resistance to God’s grace is impossible, because the infant has not the mental qualification for rejecting the offered grace.

In this sense infant baptism is not only believers baptism, but the highest form of believers baptism

Credos say: If children cannot reason, then they should not be baptized. For this very reason, children and infants should be baptized, as depraved adult human reason is the great obstacle to faith.

The faith that an infant has and the faith that an adult has is the same faith: It is trust in Christ Jesus. What is different is an adult’s ability to doubt and disbelieve, which is far greater than an infant’s.

So faith is not dependant on having knowledge of good and evil, indeed if anything it is hindered by it. Infants do not need this knowledge to have faith. To teach that infants have to become like adults to be saved is contrary to scripture, scripture teaches that adults need to become like infants.

Acts 2:39 includes both children and adults.

 

[trophy33]

Not believing in original sin was the mistake of Pelagius. He was a condemned heretic.

Pelagius had much more complex theology than just "there is no original sin". Anyway, its not too relevant to my point that Bible (in Greek) does not support it.

I am quite sure that somebody somewhere condemned as heresy almost anything.