Any infant baptist churches?

[InChristForever]

My agenda is standing up for the doctrine of liberty of conscience. Meaning that each person has a God given right to read the scriptures for themselves and with an honest conscience to interpret it to the best of their ability.

So, so, so, wrong!

It has only solidified that one must ASSUME it since it does not say that there were infants in any of those households. Furthermore if you want to assume I can assume that everyone was older in those households, that they were all saved, and, that they were baptised in their own understanding.

Right? I mean, we are both on the same page now right?

*rolls eyes*

 

[Yitzchak]

So, so, so, wrong!

It has only solidified that one must ASSUME it since it does not say that there were infants in any of those households. Furthermore if you want to assume I can assume that everyone was older in those households, that they were all saved, and, that they were baptised in their own understanding.

Right? I mean, we are both on the same page now right?

*rolls eyes*

Since the scripture gives several hints and does not spell it out , then one is left with an educated guess. There is a differene between just assuming and making up random stuff versus making educated guesses about the details. When one pouts together all of it , infant baptism is a viable option which is why there has been a divide about it within the church since the early church. One poster posted one of the quotes from one of the early church fathers which indicated that infant baptism was practiced in the church then.

The people who believe in adult baptism are forced to make educated guesses too. As was shown in the answer to my question concerning the baptism of Jesus. No where does the scripture spell out that there was a "Jewish" baptism which was somehow different from a Christian baptism. But some make an educated guess and draw that conclusion. In fact the scripture is largely silent about baptism in the Old testament and it suddenly appears on the scene with John The baptist with very little explanation given. I think that the first appearance in scripture of a concept is very important. To my knowledge , the first appearance of baptism is in John the Baptist's ministry. yet , some dismiss th meaning of that as irrelevant and a "different" baptism. Convenient and understandable , but educated guesses are employed.

While I think that there is a time and place for starting with a doctrine and going to the scripture to prove it . That is not the best way to determine doctrine. The best way is to let the scripture speak for itself. If we are honest , the scripture is silent on many details and we are left to make educated guesses.

For example , no where does the scripture come out and say that scripture must be by immersion. That is an educated guess. I find it amazing that one side of a debate will ridicule the other because they are supposedly deivating form scripture , while they themselves have filled in the blanks on many points with their own additions to scripture.

 

[Yitzchak]

Perhaps a little more explanation is called for since some seem to have missed the points which I made in my previous posts concerning Covenant Theology.

Let's begin by looking at circumcision which was a command given to Abraham and then reaffirmed to the nation of Israel.

Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

It says that circumcision was two things. A sign and a seal of the saving faith that Abraham already possessed.

Gen 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

Circumcision was a sign of the covenant.

Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
Gen 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

Now we can see a few things here. First Abraham was circumcised as an adult as a sign of his faith and a sign of the covenant. Second the same language is used as that in the book of acts where it says an entire household was baptized. This was a case where young and old alike were all circumcised because his entire household was included.

Gen 17:23 And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.
Gen 17:24 And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
Gen 17:25 And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
Gen 17:26 In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son.
Gen 17:27 And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him.

Now we see this continue in the history of Israel. babies being circumcised as a sign and seal of their faith which could not be willingly exercised until they grew older and could decide for themselves. yet one of the arguments against infant baptism is that they are not old enough to decide and a sign of salvation like baptism should only be given to an adult who has chosen God. We can see here with the Old Covenant that God commanded babies to receive the sign and seal of the covenant , and yet Romans chapter 4 clearly says it was a sign of the saving faith that Abraham already had. In other words , God saw no contradiction with giving babies the sign of saving faith when they were eight days old.


When one sees circumcision as a the foreshadowing of Baptism , then they should not stumble over infants being baptized since God himself commanded that infants be circumcised.

Now I have a suggestion for those who oppose infant baptism. Take about a minute and actually think about this before you just go into whatever arguments against that you can brainstorm.

As I said before , my goal is not to convert everyone to see infant baptism as the only right way. My goal is liberty of conscience to see that believing in infant baptism does not have to be because a person thinks tradition matters more than the Bible.

 

[yogosans14]

The United Methodist Church.

They are laid back and open to different view points.

 

[Second Phoenix]

People are brought into Christ's community by surrendering their lives to Him. Infants cannot do that.

How did infants enter into the covenant?

 

[HereIstand.Todd]

Why not reconsider the Presbyterian or Lutheran Churches? The structure of the church is less noticed in the Presbyterian than the Lutheran especially in the smaller ones like ARP or OPC. In your area you may not find ARP but maybe OPC.

 

[Alithis]

.

That is your distinction , not necessarily the scriptures. But regardless , Jesus was baptized by John and Jesus never sinned. So on what basis was Jesus baptized if it was a baptism of repentance ? What repentance did Jesus need ?


oh and here is some scriptures. hardly someone's made up doctrine. Just different from yours.





Speaking of Israel passing through the red Sea. Guess what Israel included their children which included babies.

Act 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.
1Co 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other

hi again ... a few pages back you posted the above verse and i said i accept the BIBLE reference as it is direct like i asked for .
and i said i will take it on board and consider it .

so i now reply to you as you were the only one who gave scriptural
reference on the topic .

While i find it fully reasonable to make the assumption that, had there been babies in the household ,the text implies they would have been baptized , one can also easily assume there were not babies present and thus no infant baptism took place .. yes ..it is assumption both ways ,so to make any final judgment on the matter would be dishonest by either stance .

having said that .. one must weigh up what the entire bible has to say on the topic .. not a singular ambiguous reference which cannot establish one way or the other .

your reference to the red sea if a very acceptable argument , a case in which ,symbolically , every household ,was baptized ,young and old .

but your other reference to the baptism of Jesus ..both by water and by the Holy Ghost shows there is more to salvation then only baptism by water ..

and following him through both is quite normal ans we do .
ie-i was baptized in water by identifying with the death and burial of Jesus -thus full immersion- and raised up again unto new life in Jesus by faith in his resurrection.. AND then ,later .. i was baptized in the Holy Ghost (where by i began to speak in other tongues as the Holy Spirit gave me utterance ,an outer manifestation of what had happened inwardly ) so certainly we can follow him through the symbolic and into the reality ).

so one is symbolic in the body, the other is an actual happening in the Spirit .

now it is written that an infant is sanctified ,covered ,by the righteousness of the parents..in that , if they are believers in Jesus and thus clothed by FAITH in HIS righteousness the uncomprehending child is also ,thus covered .by faith .. not by the outer work of water baptism .and the outer choice to obey and be baptized in water is not a decision an uncomprehending child can make ..thus i think the act of baptism of an infant is merely human tradition . neither does it have any weight of biblical instruction to do so behind it .

so after considering the new testament verse mentioned above , which is, in honesty , not meant offensively , ambiguous .

i have settled upon my original stance on the matter (unless the holy Spirit shakes that tree also lol) which is summed up as this-

i have no problem if people wish to follow a tradition i consider to be man made (like birthday cakes at birthdays) ..

but 4 things
#1 sprinkling is not baptism as it does not identify with the death and burial and resurrection.

#2 there is no biblical direct unambiguous instruction to do so-thus it is man made tradition. (not all traditions are necessarily bad)

#3 It is of the utmost importance that a person is not taught that they are saved because the were sprinkled with water as a baby -as that would be giving false hope and would be deceitful.

#4 any one who says you must be baptized through one particular denomination to get to heaven - lies .

..........
i have considered these matters with an open an honest heart before God

 

[Yitzchak]

Act 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.
1Co 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other

hi again ... a few pages back you posted the above verse and i said i accept the BIBLE reference as it is direct like i asked for .
and i said i will take it on board and consider it .

so i now reply to you as you were the only one who gave scriptural
reference on the topic .

While i find it fully reasonable to make the assumption that, had there been babies in the household ,the text implies they would have been baptized , one can also easily assume there were not babies present and thus no infant baptism took place .. yes ..it is assumption both ways ,so to make any final judgment on the matter would be dishonest by either stance .

having said that .. one must weigh up what the entire bible has to say on the topic .. not a singular ambiguous reference which cannot establish one way or the other .

your reference to the red sea if a very acceptable argument , a case in which ,symbolically , every household ,was baptized ,young and old .

but your other reference to the baptism of Jesus ..both by water and by the Holy Ghost shows there is more to salvation then only baptism by water ..

and following him through both is quite normal ans we do .
ie-i was baptized in water by identifying with the death and burial of Jesus -thus full immersion- and raised up again unto new life in Jesus by faith in his resurrection.. AND then ,later .. i was baptized in the Holy Ghost (where by i began to speak in other tongues as the Holy Spirit gave me utterance ,an outer manifestation of what had happened inwardly ) so certainly we can follow him through the symbolic and into the reality ).

so one is symbolic in the body, the other is an actual happening in the Spirit .

now it is written that an infant is sanctified ,covered ,by the righteousness of the parents..in that , if they are believers in Jesus and thus clothed by FAITH in HIS righteousness the uncomprehending child is also ,thus covered .by faith .. not by the outer work of water baptism .and the outer choice to obey and be baptized in water is not a decision an uncomprehending child can make ..thus i think the act of baptism of an infant is merely human tradition . neither does it have any weight of biblical instruction to do so behind it .

so after considering the new testament verse mentioned above , which is, in honesty , not meant offensively , ambiguous .

i have settled upon my original stance on the matter (unless the holy Spirit shakes that tree also lol) which is summed up as this-

i have no problem if people wish to follow a tradition i consider to be man made (like birthday cakes at birthdays) ..

but 4 things
#1 sprinkling is not baptism as it does not identify with the death and burial and resurrection.

#2 there is no biblical direct unambiguous instruction to do so-thus it is man made tradition. (not all traditions are necessarily bad)

#3 It is of the utmost importance that a person is not taught that they are saved because the were sprinkled with water as a baby -as that would be giving false hope and would be deceitful.

#4 any one who says you must be baptized through one particular denomination to get to heaven - lies .

..........
i have considered these matters with an open an honest heart before God

I came to similar conclusions on the matter. I think that baptism by immersion of someone who is old enough and has made a decision for Christ is the right way. That is my personal conviction.

My only reason for arguing the other side of the issue was to help defend the liberty of conscience issue. I think it is important to recognize that other sincere Christin brothers and sisters see it in a different way than I do. Just because there is difference of opinion does not necessarily mean that one side rejects the authority of scripture. Although there are some who do reject scriptural authority in favor of tradition. It is important when debating the issue to discern what the basis of someone's belief is.

I think that your post is a good one because it uses scripture and makes a clear case for what you believe and why.