Baby baptism

[Rhabdo]

Any thoughts on Lutheran baby baptism?

 

[heymikey80]

Any thoughts on Lutheran baby baptism?

While I don't agree in some respects with its theological position on regeneration, I don't see a serious impediment to baptizing infants.

 

[BigNorsk]

Just for clarity, Lutherans don't just baptise babies, they baptise all ages and babies are not excluded.

Many teach that babies must become like adults to be saved, Jesus taught that adults must become like babies to be saved.

And babies can and do believe. We have that also from scripture in Jesus' own words.

And note that we don't accept the unscriptural position that all infants are saved and then they somehow lose their salvation and then they must come to saving faith again.

All who believe shall be saved.

All have sinned.

All died with Adam.

We do not exclude infants. It would be as if we never shared the Word of God with them because we believed they could not understand.

There would also be convenental strains within the doctrine. Probably one of the best defences of that actually comes from John Calvin, a strong proponent of infant baptism. You can read his position in his Institutes which is easy to find on the web.

The recent innovation of dispensationalism seems to have trouble understanding the continuity of scripture. And so they don't see how infants were clearly included in the old Covenant. Nor do they seem to see how the covenant of grace, which we are now under, which harkened back to Abraham, clearly included infants as well. And they reject that baptism really takes the place that circumcision took in the Old Covenant, even though scripture says it does.

Anyway, that's the basis of it, all scriptural. We should note though that it is one case where Martin Luther did look to history a bit for confirmation of scripture. Rejecting infant baptism would mean that all those church fathers including such people as Martin Luther and John Calvin, but including many, many more, for literal generations, were never baptised at all. He rejected that, since scripture does indeed support infant baptism, though it could be said not strongly. What it doesn't support at all is the exclusion of people who were previously included, and that would be infants.

There is also the clear example where infants received the baptism unto Moses. It is noteworthy that clearly baptism does not guarantee you anything for the parents who followed Moses turned from God and so died in the wilderness, and the infants carried in the arms of others were the ones to receive the promised land.

It is a natural want on the part of Christian parents to want to bring their children to Jesus. You can even see it among the groups that reject infant baptism where more and more and doing infant dedications.

Marv

 

[Iosias]

“Pedobaptists say, "It is an outward sign of an in ward grace." Then if the inward grace does not exist, they make a misrepresentation. If, as some of them say, it is a symbol of the regeneration or purification (as they are so fond of calling baptism), they publish a falsehood to the world whenever they baptize anyone who does not profess to have a heart purified by faith.” – J. G. Bow, D.D

 

[E.C.]

I can see what BigNorsk is saying there.

But just to add, I'd like to say this. If you put an age requirement on when someone can be baptized, than you saying that only those with a certain IQ or level of knowledge can be Christian.

Traditionally in the Eastern Orthodox Church, babies are baptized, chrismated and (I'm almost certain about this) receive Communion for the first time all in the same day. Traditionally about 40 days after birth.

I can't say for sure, because I'm not married and I don't have kids.

 

[heymikey80]

“Pedobaptists say, "It is an outward sign of an in ward grace." Then if the inward grace does not exist, they make a misrepresentation. If, as some of them say, it is a symbol of the regeneration or purification (as they are so fond of calling baptism), they publish a falsehood to the world whenever they baptize anyone who does not profess to have a heart purified by faith.” – J. G. Bow, D.D

If God commanded an outward sign of the inward grace of faith on an infant, then according to this view would God then be making a misrepresentation or would He be publishing a falsehood?

"He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised." Gen 17:12

He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. Rom 4:11
​

 

[SimonWalker]

As Christians we should not be worrying about the laws of the Old Testament. Baptism is only an outward sign of an inward change. Peter said to repent and then be baptised. In other words to repent and then show the world what has taken place on your heart. It is not necessary for salvation.

I have found gotquestions.org very useful in answering these sort of questions. The following link is to their section on infant baptism;

http://www.gotquestions.org/infant-baptism.html

 

[BigNorsk]

Usually their articles seem quite good, but their baptism ones are based on presuppostions neither scripture not other truth are evident in them. For instance:

Quoting from the article: "Infant baptism is the origin of the sprinkling and pouring methods of baptism - as it is unwise and unsafe to immerse an infant under water." Is just not true. Ask the millions of orthodox, who baptise infants, by immersion, three times if they kill or injure their babies. The origin of pouring or sprinkling is the Bible and has nothing to do with infant baptism. Matter of fact, the only places we know for certain the mode of baptism in the Bible, it is not immersion.

Really about the only thing I can agree with the article on is that the Bible is clear. All that the article on gotquestions.org does is once more state the Baptist position as truthful even though it is not at all consistent with scripture.

One resource has tried to do it's best job of presenting three positions on baptism, the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, it gives a pretty good version of the Lutheran view, the non-immersionist view, and the Baptist view. I would encourage anyone with questions about the different interpretations to take a look at the three articles and see which indeed has the weight of scripture behind it.

Marv

 

[catlover]

As Christians we should not be worrying about the laws of the Old Testament. Baptism is only an outward sign of an inward change. Peter said to repent and then be baptised. In other words to repent and then show the world what has taken place on your heart. It is not necessary for salvation.

I have found gotquestions.org very useful in answering these sort of questions. The following link is to their section on infant baptism;

http://www.gotquestions.org/infant-baptism.html

Jesus' baptism was only "symbolic"? That is why I have a difficult time buying the "born again" theology~nothing means anything, nothing is sacred.

 

[revanneosl]

When christians start disagreeing with one another over infant baptism, it isn't really a disagreement about infants at all, but is instead a disagreement over what baptism really is - about what the church means to be doing when it baptizes. As long as we're not clear with one another about what baptism is and what it does, we'll just talk straight past each other in any discussion about whether or not infants are proper candidates for baptism.

For some churches, baptism is a sacrament in which the main actor is Christ, who bestows several gifts:
1. The cancellation of the guilt & power of original sin,
2. Initiation / incorporation into the community of those who have received the above gift, and
3. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit (in the western churches, this part is often delayed until Confirmation) In short, for these churches: baptism is what God does for us.

For other churches, baptism is an ordinance in which the main actor is the one being baptized. It signifies several things:
1. A public profession of the inward conversion of heart which has already taken place within that person,
2. Obedience to Christ's command to be baptized, and
3. Initiation / incorporation into the community of those who have experienced a similar conversion.
In short, for these churches: baptism is what we do for God.

Now, when you break it down this way, it's easy to see why some churches consider infants to be proper candidates for baptism and others do not.

If baptism depends upon Christ (the main actor) for its efficacy, then of course infants are proper candidates. When it comes to the unearned grace of God, infants and adults are equally helpless and stand equally in need of Christ's saving intervention.

If, on the other hand, baptism depends upon the believer (the main actor) for its efficacy, then of course infants are not proper candidates. Infants are unable to make the profession of faith, of which baptism is the symbol.

[As an aside, answering a question nobody asked, this breakdown of the issue also demonstrates nicely why those churches who have a category 2 definition of baptism sometimes re-baptize those who come to them from category 1 churches, while churches with a category 1 definition of baptism do not re-baptize those who come to them from category 2 churches.]

 

[heymikey80]

There's some crossover in the individual points, but this does tend to represent the infant baptist side that I'm aware of, as well as some of the believer-only baptist side that I'm aware of.

 

[SimonWalker]

Usually their articles seem quite good, but their baptism ones are based on presuppostions neither scripture not other truth are evident in them. For instance:

Quoting from the article: "Infant baptism is the origin of the sprinkling and pouring methods of baptism - as it is unwise and unsafe to immerse an infant under water." Is just not true. Ask the millions of orthodox, who baptise infants, by immersion, three times if they kill or injure their babies. The origin of pouring or sprinkling is the Bible and has nothing to do with infant baptism. Matter of fact, the only places we know for certain the mode of baptism in the Bible, it is not immersion.

Really about the only thing I can agree with the article on is that the Bible is clear. All that the article on gotquestions.org does is once more state the Baptist position as truthful even though it is not at all consistent with scripture.

One resource has tried to do it's best job of presenting three positions on baptism, the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, it gives a pretty good version of the Lutheran view, the non-immersionist view, and the Baptist view. I would encourage anyone with questions about the different interpretations to take a look at the three articles and see which indeed has the weight of scripture behind it.

Marv

Would you care to give some examples of how the Baptist position is not consistent with scripture. Maybe you would like to include some references. I'm not saying that you made a wrong statement, I would just like to see your reasoning.

I still stand by what is said on the GotQuestions article. Particularly this part about Baptism not being a requirement for salvation:

"Baptism does not save a person. It does not matter if you were baptized by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling - if you have not first trusted in Christ for salvation, baptism (no matter the method) is meaningless and useless. Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience to be done after salvation as a public profession of faith in Christ and identification with Him. Infant baptism does not fit the Biblical definition of baptism or the Biblical method of baptism. If Christian parents wish to dedicate their child to Christ, then a baby dedication service is entirely appropriate. However, even if infants are dedicated to the Lord, when they grow up they will still have to make a personal decision to believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved" (2007, http://www.gotquestions.org/infant-baptism.html)

 

[BigNorsk]

I would have thought if you simply read the three articles in the ISBE I gave you would see many of the mistakes in the Baptist position.

With this in view, infant baptism is not a Biblical practice. An infant cannot place his or her faith in Christ. An infant cannot make a conscious decision to obey Christ. An infant cannot understand what water baptism symbolizes. The Bible does not record any infants being baptized. Infant baptism is the origin of the sprinkling and pouring methods of baptism - as it is unwise and unsafe to immerse an infant under water. Even the method of infant baptism fails to agree with the Bible. How does pouring or sprinkling illustrate the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Is just one paragraph that is in error.

"an infant cannot place his or her faith in Christ."

Jesus said this:
Mat 18:6 NET.
(6) "But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the open sea.

We see the same word translated "little ones" elsewhere used for the eight day old John the Baptist.
Luk 1:59 NET.
(59) On the eighth day they came to circumcise the child, and they wanted to name him Zechariah after his father.
Little ones, small children, the least. If your view is that little children cannot have faith, it is unbiblical.

"The Bible does not record any infants being baptised."

1Co 10:1-2 NET.
(1) For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea,
(2) and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,
Tells of the baptism of infants. We see a reference to the infants in
Deu 1:39 NET.
(39) Also, your infants, who you thought would die on the way, and your children, who as yet do not know good from bad, will go there; I will give them the land and they will possess it.
So already we see that even infants can have saving faith, and we see the infants of Israel underwent baptism while being carried in the arms of others. Shall we continue?

"Infant baptism is the origin of the sprinkling and pouring methods of baptism - as it is unwise and unsafe to immerse an infant under water. Even the method of infant baptism fails to agree with the Bible."

Let's go back a moment to the baptism unto Moses, what was the mode there? Water on the sides, clouds above, I suppose one could argue the best for sprinkling, like walking through a fog. The Egyptians were the ones immersed. And of course there is the saving of Noah's family throught the water which is linked to baptism. Noah and his family were rained upon, sprinkled, who was immersed? The ungodly who perished. In addition, we see the cleansing of Aaron and his sons by sprinkling, mater of fact most of the Old Testment references to baptism really talk more of washing or sprinkling.

Anyway we also have the case where the Pharisee, was amazed Jesus didn't baptise his hands before eating.

Luk 11:38 NET.
(38) The Pharisee was astonished when he saw that Jesus did not first wash his hands before the meal.
The washing? Baptizo, baptism. It's not talking about immersion it's talking about the way they poured water down their hands and arms to ritually clean before eating. It's referred to in other places as well, sometimes as wash sometimes as baptism. The idea that baptism equals immersion is not biblical, the text does not support it. Matter of fact, not one place in the Bible that talks of baptism can be shown to absolutely be immersion. I have shown a couple where it definitely is not.

That's just one paragraph.

I would refer you again to the three articles in the ISBE, if you simply read them and look through the Bible to the references from each, you will see where the Baptist position makes a lot of claims but those claims are explained and refuted in the other two articles. If you don't want to read the Baptist position from the ISBE, it's basically identical to the one you keep referencing.

Marv

 

[SimonWalker]

I would have thought if you simply read the three articles in the ISBE I gave you would see many of the mistakes in the Baptist position.


Is just one paragraph that is in error.

"an infant cannot place his or her faith in Christ."

Jesus said this:
Mat 18:6 NET.
(6) "But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the open sea.

We see the same word translated "little ones" elsewhere used for the eight day old John the Baptist.

Matthew 18:6 Talks about the Christian attitude of humbleness. He was answering the question of "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven". This is what he answered;

"3 "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me."

This passage talks about beleivers being humble like that of a child. Jesus encourages us to welcome children so that we can teach them about the kingdom of God. It does not mention the faith of a child or the baptism of a child.

Luk 1:59 NET.

(59) On the eighth day they came to circumcise the child, and they wanted to name him Zechariah after his father.
Little ones, small children, the least. If your view is that little children cannot have faith, it is unbiblical.

This passage talks about the birth and circumcision of John the Baptist. It has no reference to baptism of the faith of children. What is does outline is the naming of John the Baptist and his father regaining his speach which he lost due to unbelief in the prophecy about his son.

As for the faith of children try these;

http://www.gotquestions.org/age-of-accountability.html

http://www.gotquestions.org/young-salvation.html

"The Bible does not record any infants being baptised."

1Co 10:1-2 NET.

(1) For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea,
(2) and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,
Tells of the baptism of infants. We see a reference to the infants in

Again this passage has no references to the baptism that Christians practise. This passage does mention being baptised into Moses. This means that the Israelites were Baptised (washed clean in the sense their souls were washed clean) by the Holy Spirit when they heard the laws and testament of God which were delivered by Moses to them. Versus 3-5 talk about them eating and drinking spiritual food and drink that came from Christ who is described as the spiritual Rock that accompanied them. It was the presence of God/Christ in the cloud that went before them which is what they were baptised in. It has no reference to Baptism that Christians practise, that is immersion in water.

Deu 1:39 NET.

(39) Also, your infants, who you thought would die on the way, and your children, who as yet do not know good from bad, will go there; I will give them the land and they will possess it.
So already we see that even infants can have saving faith, and we see the infants of Israel underwent baptism while being carried in the arms of others. Shall we continue?

Again this passage neith talks about infant/child faith or Baptism. This passage is directly referring to the punishment that Israel received as a result of their refusal to enter the promised land. They were exiled back into the desert until all of the adults who refused to enter were dead. The promise of the promised land was handed to the children who as yet do not know good from bad. This part in bold is especially useful to outline that the children were as yet unable to comprehend their sinfulness and to distinguish good from bad. How is that an example of their faith. All this passage does is outline the consequences of Israels rebellion against God.

"Infant baptism is the origin of the sprinkling and pouring methods of baptism - as it is unwise and unsafe to immerse an infant under water. Even the method of infant baptism fails to agree with the Bible."

Let's go back a moment to the baptism unto Moses, what was the mode there? Water on the sides, clouds above, I suppose one could argue the best for sprinkling, like walking through a fog. The Egyptians were the ones immersed. And of course there is the saving of Noah's family throught the water which is linked to baptism. Noah and his family were rained upon, sprinkled, who was immersed? The ungodly who perished. In addition, we see the cleansing of Aaron and his sons by sprinkling, mater of fact most of the Old Testment references to baptism really talk more of washing or sprinkling.

Anyway we also have the case where the Pharisee, was amazed Jesus didn't baptise his hands before eating.

Luk 11:38 NET.
(38) The Pharisee was astonished when he saw that Jesus did not first wash his hands before the meal.
The washing? Baptizo, baptism. It's not talking about immersion it's talking about the way they poured water down their hands and arms to ritually clean before eating. It's referred to in other places as well, sometimes as wash sometimes as baptism. The idea that baptism equals immersion is not biblical, the text does not support it. Matter of fact, not one place in the Bible that talks of baptism can be shown to absolutely be immersion. I have shown a couple where it definitely is not.

That's just one paragraph.

I would refer you again to the three articles in the ISBE, if you simply read them and look through the Bible to the references from each, you will see where the Baptist position makes a lot of claims but those claims are explained and refuted in the other two articles. If you don't want to read the Baptist position from the ISBE, it's basically identical to the one you keep referencing.

Marv

Again I fail to see what the passage you have quoted has to do with Baptism by immersion. The passage talks about Christs rebutal to the Pharisees when they saw that he did not wash his hands to be ceremonially clean. Being ceremionialy clean has nothing to do with Baptism. If you read further you have Christs answer;

"39 Then the Lord said to him, "Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish" Making a metaphore between the body and dirty dishes ", but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. 40 You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside not make the inside also?"

Christs rebuttal referes to the Pharisses notion that to be ceremonialy clean was sufficient and more important to being clean and right inside. As it clearly states, God judges what is inside, not out.

In the Old Testament Aaron and his sons were to be ceremonially clean. I would think that by doing this as part of their ceremonioes it focused their minds on what they were doing/about to do, that is the work of the Lord.

The Baptism that Christians practise is immersion by water. While this is not necessary to salvation it identifies that we have died with Christ and have been reborn. That is the baptism that we should be following. I have some more links for you though which discuss this subject.

http://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-mode.html

http://www.gotquestions.org/Spirit-baptism.html

If you want to discuss anything about this you might want to send me a private message.

God bless and God speed.

 

[BigNorsk]

I see no benefit to going private, there are obviously many people with questions about this.

The first passage has Jesus saying little children believe in him, they have faith, saving faith.

The passage with John is simply to show the same word that is translated little children in the first was used for John on his eighth day, it is talking of infants. That was to help those people who might try to say he was talking of older children understand that it is referring to those who are the least among us, the infants. They are included in those who believe by none other than Jesus. Obviously, if someone says infants cannot have saving faith, he is directly contradicting the words of Jesus, Himself. So there is a major problem with the whole Baptist doctrine, infants, in the words of Jesus, can and do have saving faith. To say that they don't because they can't explain it or because we don't understand how is to reject the clear teaching of scripture and insert our own understandings in its place.

The second group of passages is speaking against the idea that baptism of infants never occurs in the Bible. I gave the two verses, one shows that all of Israel was baptised, it referred to it as the baptism unto Moses. And the second verse is simply absolute proof that infants were there. Those who received the baptism unto Moses were to receive the promised land. Yet the adults who walked in faith turned from their faith and so perished without receiving the promise and the infants who were carried, they received the promise through their faith. The vast majority of those who received the promise were baptised, but there were some, such as Rahab and her family who received the promised land without baptism, baptism unto Moses was necessary, but not absolutely necessary to receive the promised land.

The whole thing so clearly lays out the doctrine of baptism that I have difficulty understanding why you have problems seeing it.

Today, we have a promised land, heaven. Those who are to receive it receive baptism. But while baptism is required to receive the promise, it is not absolutely required, there are those who will receive it through other acts of faith.

Don't throw away the Old Testament, are we not told that all scripture is useful for teaching? Maybe you should notice that Paul would go into the synagogs and teach the Gospel from scripture. Well the only scripture that he would have had in the synagog is the Old Testament. Don't make the mistake of thinking the Gospel in not there, or that we should just ignore it.

So clearly infants were indeed baptised in the Bible. The Bible says they were baptised. They were baptised as they carried between the waters and under the cloud. Like I said, the mode seems most like sprinkling, it was the Egyptian who were immersed.

I know that you do not like to consider that a real baptism, but scripture calls it baptism, and so it is untrue to say that infants were not baptised in the Bible. I just showed that to be false.

We also do have other examples. For instance, we are commanded to go and baptise nations.
Mat 28:19-20 NET.
(19) Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
(20) teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age."
Infants are clearly included in the normal meaning of nations, matter of fact, this verse tears down that one has to understand everything in order to be baptised. If such were an important thing. It would need to be more specific about the baptism and the teaching.

We do also see whole households baptised, I won't quote them here. And infants are again inclded in the normal meaning of that term, households. To exclude infants would be like taking the term mankind and excluding women. If someone was to be excluded it would be told us, but we aren't told that. Indeed when we examine the texts on baptism we see that our children specifically are included.
Act 2:38-39 NET.
(38) Peter said to them, "Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
(39) For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far away, as many as the Lord our God will call to himself."
Did you notice the tense of the verb "is," it is present tense, the promise is right now for your children. And the command in the previous verse specifically says every one, who does that exclude? No one. It does not exclude anyone there. So everyone is to be baptised and the promise is for their children. A direct command to have their children baptised. What more do you want?

Now you also seem to have missed the gist of the passage on Jesus washing. The word is baptizo. The Pharisee was astonished that Jesus did not baptize his hands before eating. It shows that baptism does not equal immersion. The Jews did not plunge their hands into a basin for their ritual baptism of their hands, that would have had the unclean in contact with the clean, they poured water over their hands and down their arms. There was a proscribed amount and way to rub your hands and such. Baptizo, baptism never has been equivalent to immersion.

I can understand how people lost this knowledge when they had only translations and they saw baptism and they saw washing but now there are plenty of people who know the original languages and so the oft quoted statement of baptism equals immersion should be laid to rest for it is contrary to scripture.

If you keep compartmentalizing scripture until you are left with only a couple of verses that you recognize as Christian baptism I suppose you could make your arguement. But I've already shown that baptism does not mean immersion, that infants were baptised and were included in the commands to baptise and that infants believe. Is that not enough to realize that what you are saying does not stand up to scripture?

Once again I would ask that you would actually read the articles in the ISBE. I think it is rather obvious from them which position has the weight of scripture behind it.

Marv

 

[IamAdopted]

why may I ask would a baby need to be baptized? They are not old enough or capable of accepting Christ. This is what baptism is all about.

 

[BigNorsk]

Why do you need to be baptised?

 

[SimonWalker]

I see no benefit to going private, there are obviously many people with questions about this.

The first passage has Jesus saying little children believe in him, they have faith, saving faith.

Matthew 18:6 refers to "little ones" who believe in Jesus. What does he mean by "little ones". It is not, as you are claiming, infants/children of a young age. It rather refers to those adults who believe in him and are like "little children" in their spiritual growth. This comparison is made elsewhere, try Mark 10:24.

The passage in Matthew is using the attitude of a child as an example of the proper attitude to have, which is humbleness. Adults being likened to children is stressed elsewhere in the Gospels, e.g. 1 Cor. 14:20, 1 Peter 2:1, 2. Christ often refers to the poor, needy, helpless people as little ones.

In Matthew 18 Christ is not referring to the beliefs of children in the sense of a child being of a young age (infants), rather he is describing those who are new to his teachings and are "like children" as they start to understand and grow in his teachings and purpose.

The whole point of Matthew 18 is not to outline children’s (young people) beliefs but to answer the question of "Who will be the greatest in the kingdom of God?". It is not discussing the baptism of infants.

The passage with John is simply to show the same word that is translated little children in the first was used for John on his eighth day, it is talking of infants. That was to help those people who might try to say he was talking of older children understand that it is referring to those who are the least among us, the infants. They are included in those who believe by none other than Jesus.

The “least among us” refers to those people who are in a lower position than ourselves, e.g. poor, sick, struggling, in other words less fortunate.

This passage about Johns birth is completely irrelevant to this argument. It has no weight of influence on the meaning of Matthew 18. Nor does it have anything to do with the discussion of Baptism. Words in context have meaning. In this case you have missed the context of Matthew 18. The passage from john is a completely different context to that of Matthew.

Obviously, if someone says infants cannot have saving faith, he is directly contradicting the words of Jesus, Himself.

Where did Christ say this. Quote some passages that actually refer to children and infants as being of a young age having saving faith. I have shown above that in the Matthew passage Christ is referring to the new believers as "little children". For those who are incapable of understanding Christs message of salvation (of which infants are included) his death is still sufficient, even though they lack the capabilities to understand.

So there is a major problem with the whole Baptist doctrine, infants, in the words of Jesus, can and do have saving faith. To say that they don't because they can't explain it or because we don't understand how is to reject the clear teaching of scripture and insert our own understandings in its place.

Nope sorry mate but you are wrong. The Baptists doctrine is based on a scriptural teaching taken in context. Having faith in Christ has to be a choice made on an individual level. What I mean is that a person needs to be able to make an intellectual and emotional choice regarding Christ and where they stand with him. As said earlier, Christs death and resurrection was enough to pay for all the sins of humanity, for young and for old. If a child dies without being able to understand the teachings of Christ then they are already saved as Christ still died for them and paid their penalty.

At this point I would stress this article from gotquestions.org as it directly addresses this issue of child faith and accountability;

http://www.gotquestions.org/age-of-accountability.html

The second group of passages is speaking against the idea that baptism of infants never occurs in the Bible. I gave the two verses, one shows that all of Israel was baptised, it referred to it as the baptism unto Moses. And the second verse is simply absolute proof that infants were there.

Again 1 Cor 10:1-2 does not. Where it says “all” it is not referring necessarily to every single person in Israel. The word "all" has several different uses. In the case of the passage from Cor it refers to all "The Fathers". The father is the head of the household, he is the one that carries the responsibility for his family. The father was baptised and had the responsibility to bring his family up in the knowledge of God.

Those who received the baptism unto Moses were to receive the promised land. Yet the adults who walked in faith turned from their faith and so perished without receiving the promise and the infants who were carried, they received the promise through their faith.

Not so. The children of the adults received the promise as a result of their parent’s disobedience, not as a result of their faith. God in his forbearance knew that when the children grew up they would be willing to follow Him. Israel was banished to the desert until all of the adults who had refused to go into the Promised Land were dead. By this time the children would have grown up and were willing to follow the Lord, in other words they were obedient towards him.

That passage from Deuteronomy has nothing to do with Baptism. What it has to do with is Gods punishment of the Israelites for their unbelief.

The vast majority of those who received the promise were baptised, but there were some, such as Rahab and her family who received the promised land without baptism, baptism unto Moses was necessary, but not absolutely necessary to receive the promised land.

Rahab was not a part of Israel when they left Egypt, which is when they were baptised into Moses. Rahab, if you read your Bible properly, was a prostitute that already lived in the Promised Land in the city of Jericho. She and her family were saved the destruction of Jericho as a result of her help to the Israelite spies and her belief in God and his power. Read Joshua 2:1-14.

The whole thing so clearly lays out the doctrine of baptism that I have difficulty understanding why you have problems seeing it.

Sorry mate but it does not. Not one of the passages you have quoted has anything to do with the Christian Baptism, and they especially do not have anything to do with infant Baptism.

Today, we have a promised land, heaven. Those who are to receive it receive baptism. But while baptism is required to receive the promise, it is not absolutely required, there are those who will receive it through other acts of faith.

You contradict yourself here. You say that baptism is required to receive the promise but that it is not absolutely required. You go on to say that others will receive the promise through other acts of faith. This sounds disturbingly familiar to the salvation by works debate, where you can earn your place in heaven. THIS HAS NO SCRIPTUAL SUPPORT. Paul in his letter to the Romans makes the statement that the righteousness from God is received by FAITH from first to last so that no man can boast.

Christian Baptism has been and always will be an outward expression of ones faith. It is not necessary for salvation, it never has been, but it is a very important step in a Christians life when they can stand up and say to the people around them, "This is what I believe" by undergoing a public statement of their beliefs.

Don't throw away the Old Testament, are we not told that all scripture is useful for teaching? Maybe you should notice that Paul would go into the synagogs and teach the Gospel from scripture. Well the only scripture that he would have had in the synagog is the Old Testament. Don't make the mistake of thinking the Gospel in not there, or that we should just ignore it.

I agree with you that all of scripture is good for teaching and rebuking. Unfortunately what you have done is mis-quote scripture. The passages that you have quoted have been taken out of context with regard to their proper meaning. It is obvious to me that you have not looked beyond the versus and looked at what issue was being addressed and the context in which it was written.

So clearly infants were indeed baptised in the Bible. The Bible says they were baptised. They were baptised as they carried between the waters and under the cloud. Like I said, the mode seems most like sprinkling, it was the Egyptian who were immersed.

No they were not. Not one of your passages have shown that.

 

[SimonWalker]

Sorry have to break up this reply to get it in. There is a limit of 15000 words per post, didn’t realise my post was that long so I apologise if your find this too long;

I know that you do not like to consider that a real baptism, but scripture calls it baptism, and so it is untrue to say that infants were not baptised in the Bible. I just showed that to be false.

They weren't and you didn’t. The Baptism that we are discussing here is that of water baptism. Those children did not need baptism as they were not at the stage of being able to understand the message of God as revealed through Moses. Christs death centuries later was enough to pay the price for those children. There is baptism of the spirit, but all the references to it were of adults being baptised of the spirit after they had believed and confessed their sins.

We also do have other examples. For instance, we are commanded to go and baptise nations.

Mat 28:19-20 NET.
(19) Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
(20) teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age."
Infants are clearly included in the normal meaning of nations, matter of fact, this verse tears down that one has to understand everything in order to be baptised. If such were an important thing. It would need to be more specific about the baptism and the teaching.

I agree that we are to baptise all the nations. But I disagree with your interpretation. What the passage means is that we are to teach other nations about Christ. I fail to see how you can teach a new born baby about Christ. The message of Christ should be shared with those who have the capacity to understand it. I fail to see how a new born baby could possibly understand the message of Jesus Christ. Again read the link I have provided above which talks about the age of accountability.

Also bear in mind that we do have a translated Bible. The words in the original language, be it Greek or Hebrew, would have different meanings for different situations. Your argument about the normal meaning of a word is a bit narrow. "Nations" does not necessarily mean every single person within a people group. It could mean within a geographical location. I am not saying that this is correct but just outlining what the use of the word could be. The definition that fits better is “all people of every group that can hear and understand”.

We do also see whole households baptised, I won't quote them here. And infants are again included in the normal meaning of that term, households. To exclude infants would be like taking the term mankind and excluding women. If someone was to be excluded it would be told us, but we aren't told that. Indeed when we examine the texts on baptism we see that our children specifically are included.

The use of the word “household” does not mean that infants were baptised. Refer to http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2548 & http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Bailey/John/Carlos/1903/Articles/baptismi.html

A couple of quotes from each. First from apologeticspress;

“In each example of “household baptism,” the people who were baptized were ones who had been taught what they needed to do in order to receive salvation (Acts 10:34-43; 16:14, 32; 1 Corinthians 1:16-18; 16:15-16). They were the people who could hear and understand the Word of God (Acts 10:44), believe (10:31-33), and devote themselves to the ministry of the saints (1 Corinthians 16:15). The absence of the noun “belief,” and the verb “believe,” in some of the conversion accounts, does not necessarily imply that the ones who were baptized did not, or could not, believe. Also, the context of the household conversions does not demand that any infants were baptized.”

Next from oldpaths;

“Infant baptism is not of divine origin
I say this without fear of successful contradiction. Jesus said: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16). Peter, led by the Holy Spirit, said: "Repent and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). Truth is always in harmony with truth. Scriptural baptism is preceded by faith and repentance. Infant baptism is preceded by neither. To practice baptism before there is faith and repentance is to pervert the gospel. Anyone who preaches a different gospel is accursed (Galatians 1:6-9). When one practices infant baptism he is going beyond the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9).”

Act 2:38-39 NET.
(38) Peter said to them, "Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
(39) For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far away, as many as the Lord our God will call to himself."
Did you notice the tense of the verb "is," it is present tense, the promise is right now for your children. And the command in the previous verse specifically says every one, who does that exclude? No one. It does not exclude anyone there. So everyone is to be baptised and the promise is for their children. A direct command to have their children baptised. What more do you want?

Now you also seem to have missed the gist of the passage on Jesus washing. The word is baptizo. The Pharisee was astonished that Jesus did not baptize his hands before eating. It shows that baptism does not equal immersion. The Jews did not plunge their hands into a basin for their ritual baptism of their hands, that would have had the unclean in contact with the clean, they poured water over their hands and down their arms. There was a proscribed amount and way to rub your hands and such. Baptizo, baptism never has been equivalent to immersion.

Interesting how you say that baptizo does not mean immersion, it does. It actually means both. This is from wikipedia.

“The Greek word βαπτίζω, from which baptize is derived, basically means "to immerse, submerge".[3] In spite of the word's basic meaning, there is, as Strong's Concordance says, no unequivocal instance in the New Testament of its use to indicate full body immersion.[4] There are two cases in which it clearly indicates instead a washing that did not involve complete immersion. One case is Luke 11:38, which recounts that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee's house, "[t]he Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash (literally, be "baptized" - βαπτίζω) before dinner." There was obviously no expectation that Jesus would immerse himself totally before eating, and so βαπτίζω does not have that meaning here. The word βαπτίζω appears also in Mark 7:3–4a of a before-meals ritual washing: "The Pharisees ... do not eat unless they wash (νίπτω, the ordinary word for washing) their hands thoroughly, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash themselves (literally, are "baptized" - βαπτίζω)".[5]
Some religious groups understand the word baptism to mean whole-body immersion in water, including submersion and emergence. For others, the meaning is broad enough to encompass washing by pouring. For yet others, it is a symbolic term meaning "identification with" (e.g. Jesus) having no connection with earthly ritual.”

For the full article on Baptism go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism. While the word has several uses, when it comes to Christian Baptism it refers to immersion. But again you have taken the passage out of context as it has nothing to do with the type of Baptism this thread is discussing, which is the baptism of infants.

Verse 38 specifically says to repent and then be baptised. How can a child understand the necessities of repentance, and what it entails? A child is in no way capable of making the intellectual choice that has to happen in a person for them to accept Christ as their saviour. I use the word child to mean very young infants.

I can understand how people lost this knowledge when they had only translations and they saw baptism and they saw washing but now there are plenty of people who know the original languages and so the oft quoted statement of baptism equals immersion should be laid to rest for it is contrary to scripture.

As shown by the definition above from Wikipedia it can and does mean immersion.

If you keep compartmentalizing scripture until you are left with only a couple of verses that you recognize as Christian baptism I suppose you could make your argument. But I've already shown that baptism does not mean immersion, that infants were baptised and were included in the commands to baptise and that infants believe. Is that not enough to realize that what you are saying does not stand up to scripture?

What I am saying does stand up when compared to scripture. I would say that I have refuted your interpretation of what you believe the passages you quoted mean. I have taken them in their historic and social contexts and looked at the issue that was being discussed, particularly in the case of Matthew 18. Unfortunately I can’t see how you have managed to prove infant baptism with the passages you have quoted.

Once again I would ask that you would actually read the articles in the ISBE. I think it is rather obvious from them which position has the weight of scripture behind it.

Marv

I would encourage you to read the articles I have listed in this post. I am not convinced that you fully understand the passages that you have quoted.

To be blunt Baptism ultimately does not matter when it comes to the requirements for salvation. It is however an important public display of your commitment to the Christian faith and it symbolises an acceptance of Christ as your saviour. I have yet to see a child or infant demonstrate the intellect capable of making that choice. Again I use the words child and intellect to mean humans of a very young age. As they become older and learn more about themselves and what Christ has to offer then they will be able to grow in understanding and make a choice of being either for God or against God. It is after this choice, if you choose for God, that the real purpose of Baptism come into play. Baptism is meaningless when it is done on someone who is unable to understand the offer of salvation that we have through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[BigNorsk]

Matthew 18:6 refers to "little ones" who believe in Jesus. What does he mean by "little ones". It is not, as you are claiming, infants/children of a young age. It rather refers to those adults who believe in him and are like "little children" in their spiritual growth. This comparison is made elsewhere, try Mark 10:24.

The passage in Matthew is using the attitude of a child as an example of the proper attitude to have, which is humbleness. Adults being likened to children is stressed elsewhere in the Gospels, e.g. 1 Cor. 14:20, 1 Peter 2:1, 2. Christ often refers to the poor, needy, helpless people as little ones.

In Matthew 18 Christ is not referring to the beliefs of children in the sense of a child being of a young age (infants), rather he is describing those who are new to his teachings and are "like children" as they start to understand and grow in his teachings and purpose.

The whole point of Matthew 18 is not to outline children’s (young people) beliefs but to answer the question of "Who will be the greatest in the kingdom of God?". It is not discussing the baptism of infants.



The “least among us” refers to those people who are in a lower position than ourselves, e.g. poor, sick, struggling, in other words less fortunate.

Mat 18:1-6 NET.
(1) At that time the disciples came to Jesus saying, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
(2) He called a child, had him stand among them,
(3) and said, "I tell you the truth, unless you turn around and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven!
(4) Whoever then humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
(5) And whoever welcomes a child like this in my name welcomes me.
(6) "But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the open sea.


To say that passage is referring to new believers is rather incredible.

Here's what it is saying.

First Jesus takes a child, a little child, and He stands the child in front of the adults who were concerned about who was going to be the greatest in the kingdom of God. And he says that those that believe like little children believe are the greatest in the kingdom.

So it was an example of how we are to be. Humble, like the child.

But, it provided us with other information, such as children, little children, infants do believe in Jesus. Jesus is calling them a part of the kingdom of heaven and he warns that anyone who leads a believing child astray, well, things will not be good for that person.

You keep thinking that it takes some sort of huge mental capability that you say infants don't have to be a believer. But Jesus says they are believers. To say this passage is talking about new believers and not real little children is a real stretch.

You seem to have trouble understanding when I quote something like the passage referring to John the Baptist, it is for the benefit of people who do not have knowledge of the original languages. Some might think the word translated "little children" doesn't include infants but only older children, say 4 or 5 years old or even older. I used the passage about John to show the same word is used in reference to John when he was 8 days old, so clearly, what we call infants are included in the normal meaning of the word.

Marv