Baptism

[jacobs well]

We can agree that Scripture does not provide a word for word, specific example of an infant being baptized. Can we also agree that it does not provide a word for word, specific exclusion for baptism of an infant? Why or why not?
And if faith can not be applied by proxy as you contend, then why would Jesus say that this exact scenario took place in the case of the paralytic? Of the father of the boy possessed by demons? Why does St. Paul say that the faith of even one parent can save a child? Please explain how faith via proxy can not happen when Scripture provides us with examples that it does in fact happen? Does The Word not say that Lydia's household was saved through her baptism? The Jailer? Those 'far off'? These seem to be perfect word for word, specific examples of faith by proxy? If you disagree, can you please post the Scripture that says that these examples are incorrect? Are these accounts false? Or does The Word actually support faith by proxy...at least as the impetus for faith? I would contend that faith by proxy as you put it can, does, and sometimes even should happen. Would the norm be that a person still must follow Christ as they grow (both in age and in faith)? Most assuredly YES, we are called to grow ever closer to Him. To be more like Him every single day that we breathe.

Peace in Christ

Hello Hawkiz-thank you for your reply.
With baptism we are looking at one taking the biggest step of their lives.
Making the most important decision they will ever face.
True baptism, one that is valid in God's sight, is a once-in-a-lifetime undertaking.
Paul said in Ephesians 4:4-6: " there is one body and one spirit, just as YOU were CALLED in one hope of your calling;
one Lord, one faith, one BAPTISM......"
God ordained the baptism ceremony and its deep significance. unless baptism is carried out in the right attitude, with the right knowledge and understanding it is not recognized by God. It does little more than get you wet.
Christ in John 6:44: said " No one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him "
It is God's job to call someone to baptism and conversion.
It was and is God's disciples and ministers commission to teach all nations, baptizing them. before baptism notice there must be teaching.
how does something like repentance fit into the equation?
It is a prerequisite to baptism.
Repentance is more than just saying sorry for your past sins-repentance is a complete change of ways and striving to overcome our previous worldly habits.
New " babes in Christ " is not referring to age but the new way and beginning of your surrendering to Christ and His laws in your post baptismal life.
the way I understand things is that we are called to baptism and cannot be handed over to someone for baptism without qualifying for the requirements that are necessary for the conversion procedure.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Do we need to be baptized in order to be saved?

Need? If you mean are unbaptized persons hopelessly damned, the answer is no. If you mean is Baptism the way in which God ordinarily brings us into Christ who is our salvation, the answer is a yes. Scripture frequently mentions the importance and meaning of Baptism and what Baptism does.

1) In Baptism we receive the Holy Spirit and forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38)

2) In Baptism we are united to Jesus Christ in His death and resurrection (Romans 6:2-11)

3) In Baptism we are clothed with Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:27)

4) In Baptism we have received a circumcision made without hands (Colossians 2:11-15)

Just to mention some of the things Scripture explicitly teaches about Baptism.

And if so, should that ordinance be carried out by complete immersion in water only?

There's no reason to assume so. Scripture does not prescribe how to perform a Baptism. Early Christian writings that do talk about the subject suggest the preferred and normative way of performing a Baptism is three-fold immersion in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, if there is not a sufficient enough amount of water then pouring water upon the head three times is also acceptable. The Christian Churches in the East continue the traditional method of baptizing by immersing three times, while in the West sometime in the middle ages it became standard to use aspersion (pouring). There have been exceptions to this, while three-fold immersion was normal in antiquity and the early middle ages even in the West, in Visigothic Spain single immersion was the tradition.

The actual method of Baptism really don't matter, it's Baptism itself that matters. Immersion, aspersion, three times, a single time, that's wholly beside the point. What matters is that God has instituted this Sacrament for our sake and has attached His Word and promises to ordinary water for the purpose of bringing us into His kingdom and giving us new birth (John 3:5)

Who can qualify to be baptized?

Unbaptized sinners. Christ commissioned His apostles to go to all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Scripture doesn't place any limits on who may be baptized--it's for everyone, because Jesus is for everyone. Which is why we read of entire households receiving Baptism in Scripture (e.g. Acts 16:33) and why the Christian Church has always, in recorded history, baptized infants appealing to the Lord's words in (e.g.) Luke 18:16. Christian practice, as best as we can tell, has always been to baptize our children.

What does the Bible have to say about all this?

I've provided biblical references in my above responses.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Job8]

We can agree that Scripture does not provide a word for word, specific example of an infant being baptized. Can we also agree that it does not provide a word for word, specific exclusion for baptism of an infant? Why or why not?

It is really quite simple: (1) an infant has no concept of sin and (2) an infant could not possibly understand the Gospel and what it means to him/her personally. And without a response to the Gospel, water baptism has no meaning (Acts 2:38). God expects us to understand these things without a "word for word" exclusion. When Scripture says "Repent, and be converted that your sins may be blotted out" (Acts 3:19), it could not possibly mean anything to an infant or even a small child.

 

[Albion]

It is really quite simple: (1) an infant has no concept of sin and (2) an infant could not possibly understand the Gospel and what it means to him/her personally.

But that isn't what you're responding to asked. Is there in Scripture any exclusion of infants from baptism. We know that whole households were baptised, and it strains credulity to claim that the household of that era didn't have children.

And without a response to the Gospel, water baptism has no meaning (Acts 2:38). God expects us to understand these things without a "word for word" exclusion. When Scripture says "Repent, and be converted that your sins may be blotted out" (Acts 3:19), it could not possibly mean anything to an infant or even a small child.

In that verse, adults are being addressed. Naturally, they would be expected to make an affirmation of faith. But that doesn't mean that everyone else was being excluded.


.

 

[Job8]

But that isn't what you're responding to asked. Is there in Scripture any exclusion of infants from baptism. We know that whole households were baptised, and it strains credulity to claim that the household of that era didn't have children.

Given the clear teaching of Scripture, if children were baptized, then it would ALWAYS have been AFTER they responded to the Gospel.

Note carefully the wording in this passage (Acts 16:32,33): And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

Which infants would have understood "the Word of the Lord"?

 

[jacobs well]

Need? If you mean are unbaptized persons hopelessly damned, the answer is no. If you mean is Baptism the way in which God ordinarily brings us into Christ who is our salvation, the answer is a yes. Scripture frequently mentions the importance and meaning of Baptism and what Baptism does.

1) In Baptism we receive the Holy Spirit and forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38)

2) In Baptism we are united to Jesus Christ in His death and resurrection (Romans 6:2-11)

3) In Baptism we are clothed with Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:27)

4) In Baptism we have received a circumcision made without hands (Colossians 2:11-15)

Just to mention some of the things Scripture explicitly teaches about Baptism.



There's no reason to assume so. Scripture does not prescribe how to perform a Baptism. Early Christian writings that do talk about the subject suggest the preferred and normative way of performing a Baptism is three-fold immersion in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, if there is not a sufficient enough amount of water then pouring water upon the head three times is also acceptable. The Christian Churches in the East continue the traditional method of baptizing by immersing three times, while in the West sometime in the middle ages it became standard to use aspersion (pouring). There have been exceptions to this, while three-fold immersion was normal in antiquity and the early middle ages even in the West, in Visigothic Spain single immersion was the tradition.

The actual method of Baptism really don't matter, it's Baptism itself that matters. Immersion, aspersion, three times, a single time, that's wholly beside the point. What matters is that God has instituted this Sacrament for our sake and has attached His Word and promises to ordinary water for the purpose of bringing us into His kingdom and giving us new birth (John 3:5)




Unbaptized sinners. Christ commissioned His apostles to go to all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Scripture doesn't place any limits on who may be baptized--it's for everyone, because Jesus is for everyone. Which is why we read of entire households receiving Baptism in Scripture (e.g. Acts 16:33) and why the Christian Church has always, in recorded history, baptized infants appealing to the Lord's words in (e.g.) Luke 18:16. Christian practice, as best as we can tell, has always been to baptize our children.



I've provided biblical references in my above responses.

-CryptoLutheran

Baptism pictures or symbolizes a burial of the old self. You can only do that with a complete immersion in water.
sprinkling or pouring does not accomplish the purpose intended at baptism.
The word sprinkle only occurs several times in the New Testament and is only used in the context of sprinkling of blood not with baptism.
Pouring is used many times in the NT but not once as a form of baptism. The baptism of infants did not become a practice until long after the Apostolic church sometime in the second century and even then it was rejected by the church fathers. it did not become a universal practice until around the 6th century
Baptism by immersion represents the death and burial of your old sinful self and the the rising from the watery grave to a new and changed converted life. It also portrays the death and burial of Jesus Christ to pay for our sins. And His resurrection as the firstborn from dead- Romans 6:3-4
John 1:26 " I baptize with water "
John 3:23 " John was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there......."
There are many examples of the need for large bodies of water for baptism-would that be necessary if sprinkling was even an option?
Repentance, as mentioned in earlier posts, is a necessary requirement-that is one limit for sure as required by God.

 

[Albion]

Given the clear teaching of Scripture, if children were baptized, then it would ALWAYS have been AFTER they responded to the Gospel.

Note carefully the wording in this passage (Acts 16:32,33): And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

Which infants would have understood "the Word of the Lord"?

They are included in "he and all his." I referred to that in the previous post.

 

[Job8]

They are included in "he and all his." I referred to that in the previous post.

That is merely an assumption. The key to this is the response to the Word of the Lord, just as on the Day of Pentecost and in the home of Cornelius. Infants and small children by definition know nothing about sin or salvation or the Savior. Until they see themselves as sinners they cannot respond to the Gospel. And unless they respond to thr Gospel they cannot be baptized. The only reason infant baptism came into vogue was the false doctrines of Rome, which unfortunately were not totally rejected by the Reformers.

There is no way that infant baptism is equivalent to circumcision, as some lamely claim. There is absolutely no Scripture that allows for this, since water baptism is for those who believe and are then "buried in the likeness of His death, raised to walk in newness of life".

 

[Albion]

That is merely an assumption.

It's much less one than the theory you are trying to assemble.

 

[Hawkiz]

That is merely an assumption. The key to this is the response to the Word of the Lord, just as on the Day of Pentecost and in the home of Cornelius. Infants and small children by definition know nothing about sin or salvation or the Savior. Until they see themselves as sinners they cannot respond to the Gospel. And unless they respond to thr Gospel they cannot be baptized. The only reason infant baptism came into vogue was the false doctrines of Rome, which unfortunately were not totally rejected by the Reformers.

There is no way that infant baptism is equivalent to circumcision, as some lamely claim. There is absolutely no Scripture that allows for this, since water baptism is for those who believe and are then "buried in the likeness of His death, raised to walk in newness of life".

So now St. Paul's letter to the Colossians is a way to 'lamely claim' that baptism replaces circumcision? Col. 2.

As for your patently false claim about infant baptism being 'vogue' in Rome, you might want to go back and check the early Church fathers more...infant baptism has been around a lot longer than any of the ideas put forth by the Protestant Reformation: there are documented writings as early as St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 15:6 (A.D. 110-165); Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180); Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, circa 210 A.D. As well as Augustine and Jerome. All speak of infant baptism being practiced, preached and preferred.

Infant baptism is not some new, novel, or vogue idea...it has been practiced since the infantcy of the Church. Perhaps one of the reasons that the Reformers did not reject the idea of infant baptism is because they understood perfectly well that this was exactly how things were to be done. The Reformers rejected plenty of newer teachings, but this one stayed. Are we to believe that Job8 knows better than anyone in the previous 2000 years does? 'Standing against Rome' doesn't make you right simply because you stand against Rome. please present facts if you wish to engage in discussion.

Peace in Christ

 

[Albion]

It's much less one than the theory you are trying to assemble.

I was simply calling to your attention what most Christians understand on this matter and what the whole of Christianity accepted for most of its history, as well as the relevant Bible verses that your posts didn't take account of.

You don't have to accept any of it, but neither should you pretend to yourself that it's nothing but "my" theory.

 

[jacobs well]

I believe that St. Augustine is credited with popularizing infant baptism in the fourth and early fifth century mainly because of the belief that children were born with original sin and needed baptism as soon as possible to cleanse them.
Earlier church fathers tried infant baptism but met with resistance. All of attempts were post apostolic church era and was the beginning of the watering down of church beliefs.
Jesus set the example for us in the NT and told us to follow Him and do as I do
Matthew 3:16- " When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water ..."
The command for baptism came from Christ.
If we want our sins " washed away " we must follow God's commanded actions.
Also we cannot enter the Kingdom of God unless we are baptized.
We cannot receive the Holy spirit, our comforter without the ritual of Baptism. Some distinct exceptions occurred but it does not disprove the requirement for water baptism.
God does not allow us to choose which aspects of His truth we want to keep.

 

[Hawkiz]

I believe that St. Augustine is credited with popularizing infant baptism in the fourth and early fifth century mainly because of the belief that children were born with original sin and needed baptism as soon as possible to cleanse them.
Earlier church fathers tried infant baptism but met with resistance. All of attempts were post apostolic church era and was the beginning of the watering down of church beliefs.
Jesus set the example for us in the NT and told us to follow Him and do as I do
Matthew 3:16- " When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water ..."
The command for baptism came from Christ.
If we want our sins " washed away " we must follow God's commanded actions.
Also we cannot enter the Kingdom of God unless we are baptized.
We cannot receive the Holy spirit, our comforter without the ritual of Baptism. Some distinct exceptions occurred but it does not disprove the requirement for water baptism.
God does not allow us to choose which aspects of His truth we want to keep.

Sources please?
Where can we find documentation that St. Augustine 'popularized infant baptism'? Considering that I have already cited at least three others who came hundreds of years prior, and wrote of infant baptism, we will need more than your opinion here please.
Please also provide citation for the early Church fathers being 'met with resistance' to infant baptism? Again, the citations that I have already provided seem to say the exact opposite of what you claim.
Please explain how infant baptism is a 'watering down' of Church beliefs as well.

We can fully agree that baptism is necessary for the washing away of sins, and that unless our sins are washed away, we can not enter The Kingdom.

Thank you

Peace in Christ

 

[Albion]

Matthew 3:16- " When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water ..."

Meaning only that he was in the river and then walked up the bank when the baptism was over.

We cannot receive the Holy spirit, our comforter without the ritual of Baptism.

There's widespread agreement that Baptism imparts the Holy Ghost.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I believe that St. Augustine is credited with popularizing infant baptism in the fourth and early fifth century mainly because of the belief that children were born with original sin and needed baptism as soon as possible to cleanse them.
Earlier church fathers tried infant baptism but met with resistance. All of attempts were post apostolic church era and was the beginning of the watering down of church beliefs.
Jesus set the example for us in the NT and told us to follow Him and do as I do
Matthew 3:16- " When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water ..."
The command for baptism came from Christ.
If we want our sins " washed away " we must follow God's commanded actions.
Also we cannot enter the Kingdom of God unless we are baptized.
We cannot receive the Holy spirit, our comforter without the ritual of Baptism. Some distinct exceptions occurred but it does not disprove the requirement for water baptism.
God does not allow us to choose which aspects of His truth we want to keep.

All available sources we have speak of the baptism of infants as an accepted practice dating well before Augustine. Also trying to credit it to Augustine ignores the fact that Augustine was never an important or influential theologian outside of the Latin-speaking parts of Chrsitendom. Augustine was never popular in the Greek, Syriac (etc) parts of Eastern Christianity, and held no influence there--thus cannot be responsible for the universal acceptance and practice of baptizing infants in the Eastern Churches.

Our only opponent to the baptism of infants in antiquity is Tertullian of Carthage, who joined the highly legalistic and apocalyptic Montanist sect, thus joining himself to heresy. Tertullian, in his writings, speaks of the baptism of infants as normal and ancient in the Church; Tertullian personally objects because he believes that it places the infant's eternal salvation in jeopardy. According to Tertullian sins committed after baptism are nearly impossible to have forgiven, and thus Tertullian believes it is better to post pone baptism until very late in life in order to better guarantee that one cannot sin and thereby be damned after being baptized. Thus Tertullian's rejection of infant baptism comes from a place of deep theological error and his own legalism.

Thus in our historical sources we have the unanimous practice of Christians having their infants and young children baptized, with little opposition--and our only known opposition comes from someone who joined a highly legalistic heretical sect.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[jacobs well]

Infant baptism contradicts direct commands from God as to requirements and method.
Man made traditions water down New Testament commanded practices.
Infant baptism fails to symbolize the meaning of a transformation from your old self of sinning to a new person in Christ on the path to righteousness.
Baptism require an inward change of heart and mind.
Baptism represents our faith in Jesus as our personal Savior-it's a vow we take.
There is no scriptural proof of infant baptism other than something like a household heading down to the water-it does not mention whether the infants or children were baptized. Wouldn't you bring your kids with you if you were being baptized as a follower of Christ today?
So we have Jesus setting the example for us to adhere to and the apostles in clear scripture commanding it as well.

If Jesus does not represent the standard for Christianity and its practices, then what is the standard?

Over the years, I have used the encyclopedia britannica, the Catholic encyclopedia, histories of Christianity as sources for non biblical information. even the religious internet sites will answer many of your questions regarding the origins and development of infant baptism-but you won't find it in the Bible.

I don't understand the eagerness to discredit Holy Scripture by replacing doctrine with conjecture and man made rituals?

 

[Albion]

There is no scriptural proof of infant baptism other than something like a household heading down to the water-it does not mention whether the infants or children were baptized.

Actually, it does.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Infant baptism contradicts direct commands from God as to requirements and method.

Well, no, it doesn't.

God's command is to baptize--there is no command on how old a person must be to receive baptism. The only requirements given in Scripture are that we as the Church baptize all nations in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. And Scripture never proscribes a method of baptizing, except that it be with water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Man made traditions water down New Testament commanded practices.

Such as the adult-only baptism of believers? That's a man made tradition and I would agree that it waters down what Scripture says about Baptism, namely that it is for forgiveness of sins and for all nations.

Infant baptism fails to symbolize the meaning of a transformation from your old self of sinning to a new person in Christ on the path to righteousness.

How? The only difference between an infant and an adult is age, both are sinners and both need Jesus Christ.

Baptism require an inward change of heart and mind.

Which is why we don't baptize infants and leave them all on their own, but rear them up in the Church, teaching them all that our Lord has given, and preach repentance and confession of sin, etc.

Baptism represents our faith in Jesus as our personal Savior-it's a vow we take.

That's not what Scripture says. Scripture never presents Baptism as a personal vow of demonstrating our faith, but always presents Baptism as the rite of entrance into Christian faith. Baptism isn't our vow to God, it is God's vow to us in Christ.

There is no scriptural proof of infant baptism other than something like a household heading down to the water-it does not mention whether the infants or children were baptized. Wouldn't you bring your kids with you if you were being baptized as a follower of Christ today?

Except it says the entire household was baptized, not that the entire household spectated a baptism.

So we have Jesus setting the example for us to adhere to and the apostles in clear scripture commanding it as well.

If Jesus does not represent the standard for Christianity and its practices, then what is the standard?

So should Christians only be baptized by St. John the Baptist and only in the River Jordan?

Over the years, I have used the encyclopedia britannica, the Catholic encyclopedia, histories of Christianity as sources for non biblical information. even the religious internet sites will answer many of your questions regarding the origins and development of infant baptism-but you won't find it in the Bible.

Not to make to fine a point, but you won't the Bible in the Bible either. Scripture itself neither commands nor forbids the baptism of infants, the question we should ask then is if there is any good reason why we shouldn't baptize infants? The Church has, as best as we can tell, from the beginning answered that there is no good reason to withhold Baptism from infants.

I don't understand the eagerness to discredit Holy Scripture by replacing doctrine with conjecture and man made rituals?

Confusing disagreement with your opinions with discrediting Holy Scripture is a pretty severe position to take, don't you think? Neither your opinions nor mind are Scripture, as such our opinions on the subject do not hold the weight of Holy Scripture.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bcbsr]

How? The only difference between an infant and an adult is age, both are sinners and both need Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

Is the gospel that salvation is apart from faith in Christ? Is faith in Christ required to be a member of the Church? Or is the gospel that one is automatically saved by simply being born of Christian parents? That's a different gospel.

Show me any example where unbelieving infants were baptized. There isn't any. The reference to whole households getting baptized is because whole households believed. Prove otherwise.

 

[Albion]

Is the gospel that salvation is apart from faith in Christ?

But the topic was not salvation, and no one has been claiming that Baptism automatically is a guarantee of salvation.

. The reference to whole households getting baptized is because whole households believed. Prove otherwise.

Surely.

Acts 16:15
Acts 16:33 and
1 Corinthians 1:16

All state that they were baptized. They did not just believe (your idea) or go with their parents to the river to watch someone else be baptized (as was claimed earlier here).