baptizing of babies

[Perceivence]

Denominations that don't baptise infants tend to be like that because they don't find a compelling reason to do so from Scripture, and because the idea of baptising an infant seems contrary to the Bible's teaching on the role of baptism. As far as I know, there are only two possible references to infant baptism in the Bible. I say they're possible because both refer to baptising a household. The accounts can be found in Acts 16: 25 - 34 and Acts 16: 11 - 15. However, Acts 16: 25 - 34 is even worse than Acts 16: 11 - 15 because Luke mentions that all the guy's household believed (verse 34).

The only other argument I've seen from Scripture has tried to make the case for baptism in the New Covenant being equivalent to circumcision in the Old.

 

[WarriorPoet777]

Denominations that don't baptise infants tend to be like that because they don't find a compelling reason to do so from Scripture, and because the idea of baptising an infant seems contrary to the Bible's teaching on the role of baptism. As far as I know, there are only two possible references to infant baptism in the Bible. I say they're possible because both refer to baptising a household. The accounts can be found in Acts 16: 25 - 34 and Acts 16: 11 - 15. However, Acts 16: 25 - 34 is even worse than Acts 16: 11 - 15 because Luke mentions that all the guy's household believed (verse 34).

The only other argument I've seen from Scripture has tried to make the case for baptism in the New Covenant being equivalent to circumcision in the Old.

Don't get me wrong. I dont want to come across that I disagree with infant baptismal. I just dont think it is an neccesity. I believe baptism is a symbol of your salvation and when you are saved that you should get baptised in succesion. I dont have any problem with a baby being baptized, but I dont think its an ordinance of God.

 

[stivvy]

I have no doubt that you believe this, but I, personally, do not agree with it. If baptism can remove sin, then Jesus' death was a waste of time. It would have been far easier, and less costly, if he'd just gone around baptising everyone for the forgiveness of sins. And actually, although he did forgive several people, there is no record that he baptised them afterwards. Personally, also, I do not believe it is the act of baptism that "protects" a child. Actually I'm not sure that they need protection. God made that child, the Psalmist said he created them in the womb. Why would God, who is love, then condemn that child because they weren't able to live long enough to hear the Gospel and receive Jesus as their Saviour?

1.) Christ died and resurrected to open the gates of Heaven back to us to us. Not as a universal forgiveness of sins.

2.) A child is under original sin and does have free will as they grow through their years. The parents have to speak for the child and as for the guidence of the Holy Spirit in their lives. Or satan most likely will influence.

I may be wrong on this, but I will error on the side of salvation for my kids sake.

 

[Perceivence]

The commonwealth of Israel was the "church" (Acts 7:38; Rom. 9:4) under the Mosaic dispensation.

This sentence seems to be the cornerstone for your first paragraph and much of your argument, but it doesn't seem to be a very firm one. How do those verses support your assertion that Israel was the Church? If they do it certainly isn't obvious.

Acts 7: 38 (ESV)
38This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers. He received living oracles to give to us.

Romans 9: 4 (ESV)
4They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises.

There is no command or statement of any kind, that can be interpreted as giving any countenance to such an idea, anywhere to be found in the New Testament.

What about verses like John 3: 16 that talk about the necessity of personal faith?

"In a company of converts applying for admission into Christ's house there are likely to be some heads of families. How is their case to be treated? How, for example, are Lydia and her neighbour the keeper of the city prison to be treated? Both have been converted. Both are heads of families. They desire to be received into the infant church of Philippi. What is Christ's direction to them?

That they share the Gospel with their family and raise their children in the Way of the Lord.

 

[GraceLikeRainFallsDown]

As children grow they should grow in their love of God. They should grow into taking ownership of their own faith. For most Catholics I know, this has been a gradual process.

Baptism makes the child more open to receive the Gospel.

I am still not understanding the viewpoint. If it is believed that the Holy Spirit enters the child at infant Baptism, how could it only make "the child more open to the Gospel?" If the Holy Spirit is in them wouldn't they believe the Gospel?

Under this logic, either all infants baptized never are given the choice to receive the Holy Spirit and the Spirit is forced on them or the Holy Spirit leaves them later in life if they chose not to follow Christ.

I am not trying to be argumentative. I truly want to know what those who believe the Holy Spirit enters the infant at Baptism think.

 

[Strong in Him]

1.) Christ died and resurrected to open the gates of Heaven back to us to us. Not as a universal forgiveness of sins.

2.) A child is under original sin and does have free will as they grow through their years. The parents have to speak for the child and as for the guidence of the Holy Spirit in their lives. Or satan most likely will influence.

I may be wrong on this, but I will error on the side of salvation for my kids sake.

1) We couldn't come into the presence of a Holy God, never mind receive eternal life and therefore go to heaven, if our sins had not been forgiven. This happened when Jesus gave his life for us - "this is my blood poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 26:28) He also spoke of the Son of Man giving his life as a ransom for many, and John the Baptist said that he was the Lamb of God who came to take away the sins of the world. It's a very clear teaching throughout the New Testament - Jesus died for our sins.

2) Possibly. But I don't believe that people are born sinners, because that would mean that any child who died before they could receive their saviour would go to hell. (Purgatory is a Catholic thing. I don't know much about it, so if you could show me the relevant Scriptures?) Also, there are plenty of people who have been baptised who have gone on to murder, steal etc etc. Like I said, I believe that the God of love who created children is able to protect them and would not send them to hell for something over which they had no control

You are free to do this. I don't have any children, but I trust the God who loves my neices and nephews and all children even more than I or their parents do.

 

[stivvy]

1) We couldn't come into the presence of a Holy God, never mind receive eternal life and therefore go to heaven, if our sins had not been forgiven. This happened when Jesus gave his life for us - "this is my blood poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 26:28) He also spoke of the Son of Man giving his life as a ransom for many, and John the Baptist said that he was the Lamb of God who came to take away the sins of the world. It's a very clear teaching throughout the New Testament - Jesus died for our sins.

2) Possibly. But I don't believe that people are born sinners, because that would mean that any child who died before they could receive their saviour would go to hell. (Purgatory is a Catholic thing. I don't know much about it, so if you could show me the relevant Scriptures?) Also, there are plenty of people who have been baptised who have gone on to murder, steal etc etc. Like I said, I believe that the God of love who created children is able to protect them and would not send them to hell for something over which they had no control

You are free to do this. I don't have any children, but I trust the God who loves my neices and nephews and all children even more than I or their parents do.

1.) That is true, and it is my contention that we are all sinners and must work and confess to receive the graces God puts before us. It is our free will that we sin and we must fight the demons of sin daily, even as children. He spilled His blood for the sins of man and at that time all those were in purgatory awaiting the gates of Heaven to be open to them. It were their sins the blood was spilled to forgive and for the possibility that ours will be forgiven too but only through purgatory penance.

2.) Answer these 2 questions. Can you be in God's presence with sin on your soul? Does original sin exist?

If you answer No to the first and yes to the second then how can anyone not baptized go straight to heaven?

Purgatory is real and given to us from the Mother Church Traditionally. Guess what, the bible is given to us from the Mother Church Traditionally too. Where is the Trinity in scripture if it has to come straight from there to be accepted by you?

I gave a lot of questions here. I will wait for your reply to each.

 

[Yeznik]

I have to disagree with you on that. You refer to in your analogy as salvation as a house. That's fair enough. Yet we do not recieve salvation as a family. We recieve it individually. A young child would not know what to do in a house. Once he/she is old enough to understand what they have they then can recieve the gift of the house and then show their appreciation. Or literally getting saved and being baptisted, but only when they understand what they have.

Sorry, my analogy is in regards to Baptism. Basically, is Baptism a gift of Grace or an action that regards merit?

 

[Strong in Him]

1.) That is true, and it is my contention that we are all sinners and must work and confess to receive the graces God puts before us. It is our free will that we sin and we must fight the demons of sin daily, even as children. He spilled His blood for the sins of man and at that time all those were in purgatory awaiting the gates of Heaven to be open to them. It were their sins the blood was spilled to forgive and for the possibility that ours will be forgiven too but only through purgatory penance.

We don't have to work to receive anything that God gives us. That is the whole point; we cannot earn anything from him. Grace is something given by God that is completely undeserved on our part.

2.) Answer these 2 questions. Can you be in God's presence with sin on your soul? Does original sin exist?

If you answer No to the first and yes to the second then how can anyone not baptized go straight to heaven?

When I said "come into his presence", he is everywhere, and does not ignore or turn his back on, his creation, so in one sense everyone is always in his presence. But from very early on the Jews had to offer sacrifices for their sin before God would forgive them, hear their prayers and receive their worship. At other times they offered sacrifices to say "thank you" to him, or when he had spoken to them. That's what God required - before approaching him a person offered a sacrifice, maybe two. We don't need to do this any more, and the only reason for that is that Jesus sacrificed himself for us; a once and for all sacrifice to make us right with God and cleanse us from our sins. Baptism by immersion is a great way of showing everyone what has happened to a person inside - they go under the waters, dying to sin, and come up again, living with Christ.
Infant baptism does not necessarily involve this, although my nephew's did. It is still a good thing and a sacrament, but it does not cleanse from sin. Jesus does that, and has done it by his death on the cross.

I cannot say "yes" to original sin because I believe that babies/toddlers do go to heaven when they die. A newborn baby is not capable of sinning, far less a still born one. So if original sin exists and they die before they accept their Saviour, then they would die in their sin and not go to hell, and the God I know and love is not that cruel.

Purgatory is real and given to us from the Mother Church Traditionally. Guess what, the bible is given to us from the Mother Church Traditionally too. Where is the Trinity in scripture if it has to come straight from there to be accepted by you?

No, purgatory is a belief, just as babies going to heaven when they die is a belief. They are beliefs because they cannot be proved and so we do not KNOW for certain. You've never been to purgatory, and I haven't ever died, gone to heaven, had a look round to see who's there and come back to tell you about it. The belief in purgatory may be real and very strong to you - it isn't to me. My church tradition doesn't teach it; like I said, if there are Scriptures that teach it I would be interested to read them. If not, then it's a tradition, and one which I don't share.

The word "Trinity" is not mentioned in the Bible, but Father, Son and Holy Spirit are mentioned a great deal, and if you read the Scriptures closely it is clear they are all divine. But as Christians most definitely believe in only one God, then they have to all be one. That's what trinity means - tri-unity, three in one. If you want to post a seperate thread to discuss this, feel free.

 

[Iollain]

I am not trying to be argumentative. I truly want to know what those who believe the Holy Spirit enters the infant at Baptism think.

i can tell ya what i think about that.........

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

The thing about infant baptisms is that some denominations view the water as holy. They don't realize that the water does nothing for the child and true baptism occurs after you consciously accept Christ and wish to profess your faith.

The thing about infant baptism is that some denominations view their children as Christians, not as unbelievers who need to be evangelized. They realize that in God's hands, even material elements such as water can become means of grace and that we are to meet God on His terms, and not our own. True baptism is a work of God, not of man. All man does is receive the gifts from his gracious Lord, and must not be so arrogant as to declare that the Kingdom does not belong to such as these children.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Infant Baptism is a meaningless ritual. If you understand the true purpose and ramifications of Baptism, you will be able to understand that.

Hardly!

You are saying that baptism of infants is a meaningless ritual under the NEW Covenant, yet I hardly think you would say infant circumcision was a meaningless ritual under the Old Covenant!

Circumcision was the entrance into the Old Covenant and all its rights and priviledges as well as duties and responsibilities.

It was performed based on the faith of the parents, who vowed to raise their child in the ways of the Jewish faith as is required under the Old Covenant.

Baptism is the entrance into the New Covenant. It is the circumcision made without hands.

Now why, in the New and BETTER Covenant, would God EXCLUDE an entire group of people, babies and children, He REQUIRED be included in the Old, and INERIOR, Covenant?

Where is the logic in that?

There is none, for if this were true, then the New Covenant would be INFERIOR to the Old . . . but the bible tells us it is the BETTER covenant


God did not exclude babies and children from the New Covenant.



Man tries to though, and then even in the name of God . . . .



Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

We don't have to work to receive anything that God gives us. That is the whole point; we cannot earn anything from him. Grace is something given by God that is completely undeserved on our part.

Amen.

When I said "come into his presence", he is everywhere, and does not ignore or turn his back on, his creation, so in one sense everyone is always in his presence. But from very early on the Jews had to offer sacrifices for their sin before God would forgive them, hear their prayers and receive their worship. At other times they offered sacrifices to say "thank you" to him, or when he had spoken to them. That's what God required - before approaching him a person offered a sacrifice, maybe two. We don't need to do this any more, and the only reason for that is that Jesus sacrificed himself for us; a once and for all sacrifice to make us right with God and cleanse us from our sins. Baptism by immersion is a great way of showing everyone what has happened to a person inside - they go under the waters, dying to sin, and come up again, living with Christ.
Infant baptism does not necessarily involve this, although my nephew's did. It is still a good thing and a sacrament, but it does not cleanse from sin. Jesus does that, and has done it by his death on the cross.

. . . . THROUGH Baptism!

"..... BAPTISM DOTH ALSO NOW SAVE US"
1Pet 3:18

"He who believes and is baptized will be saved.."
Mark 16:16


And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord [said] unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
Act 9:6

And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins,. calling on his name.
Acts 22:16
​

I cannot say "yes" to original sin because I believe that babies/toddlers do go to heaven when they die.

Original sin does not mean we are presonally guilty of sin as babies.

It means we are born with a wounded human nature, separated spiritually from God, as a result of the original sin of Adam and Eve.

Can you say "yes" to that?

A newborn baby is not capable of sinning, far less a still born one. So if original sin exists and they die before they accept their Saviour, then they would die in their sin and not go to hell, and the God I know and love is not that cruel.

No . . they would have no PERSONAL sin so there would be no "sin" of theirs to die in . . .

That is not what original sin is about.

No, purgatory is a belief, just as babies going to heaven when they die is a belief. They are beliefs because they cannot be proved and so we do not KNOW for certain.

Can you prove that God exists objectively?

Beliefs are right or wrong because they are based on truth or falsehood.

Whether we can "prove" them true or not is besides the point.

You've never been to purgatory, and I haven't ever died, gone to heaven, had a look round to see who's there and come back to tell you about it.

Others have.

The belief in purgatory may be real and very strong to you - it isn't to me. My church tradition doesn't teach it; like I said, if there are Scriptures that teach it I would be interested to read them. If not, then it's a tradition, and one which I don't share.

Where does it say that everything we believe has to be explictly stated or presented in scripture?

For instance, it is a core belief of the Christian faith and not open to dispute that the Holy Spirit is

1. Co Equal with the Father and the Son
2. Co Eternal with the Father and the Son
3. Co Eternally Pre-existing with the Father and the Son

Yet never once, in all of scripture, will you find this explicitly stated or represented. . . So . . does this mean that it is not worthy of belief?

Nowhere in the bible does it say that everything we are to believe is explicitly stated within its pages. It is an unreasonable standard to hold to, and a hypocritical one for those who do and who believe the three things regarding the Holy Spirit I outlined above.

The word "Trinity" is not mentioned in the Bible, but Father, Son and Holy Spirit are mentioned a great deal, and if you read the Scriptures closely it is clear they are all divine.

But nowhere is it stated that the Holy Spirit is

1. Co Equal with the Father and the Son
2. Co Eternal with the Father and the Son
3. Co Eternally Pre-existing with the Father and the Son

Yet this is a core dogma of the Christian faith.

But as Christians most definitely believe in only one God, then they have to all be one. That's what trinity means - tri-unity, three in one. If you want to post a seperate thread to discuss this, feel free.

No - Tri-unity is used by those who do not believe that the three are One in BEING. . . so it is not a good phrase to use.

The Trinitarian doctrine is not only that The Three are One, but that The are One in BEING.



Peace

 

[Strong in Him]

. . . . THROUGH Baptism!

"..... BAPTISM DOTH ALSO NOW SAVE US"​

1Pet 3:18​

"He who believes and is baptized will be saved.."​

Mark 16:16 ​

And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord [said] unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.​

Act 9:6​

And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins,. calling on his name.​

Acts 22:16​

But someone who repented, accepted Jesus was born again but died before they could be baptised would still be saved, whereas a non christian who went through the rite of baptism but without repenting and meaning what they said, and then died without having accepted Jesus, would not be.

Original sin does not mean we are presonally guilty of sin as babies.

It means we are born with a wounded human nature, separated spiritually from God, as a result of the original sin of Adam and Eve.

Can you say "yes" to that?

Maybe. That's not what I understood original sin to be from some of the other posts though.

Can you prove that God exists objectively?

No of course not - but that is what the Bible is all about. It is a book from God about God. It teaches us about his love, his creation, his Son and many other things about him.

Where does it say that everything we believe has to be explictly stated or presented in scripture?

Nowhere, but it does say that all Scripture is inspired by God, and contains all that we need for salvation. The OT prophesies the coming of the Messiah, Jesus; the NT tells us about the life of Jesus and his death on the cross for us. After Jesus was raised from the dead, the apostles went out and preached this Gospel of forgiveness and new life through him. There were many heresies around at the time, but it was the teaching that the apostles, who had been with Jesus, and Paul who had met him and therefore was allowed to be called an apostle, gave that was considered authoritative. When the Bible came to be compiled, it was on this basis that books were accepted or rejected. That is why we say, and are justified in saying, that the Gnostic Gospels - the ones that speak of Jesus being in love with Mary Magdalene - are not authentic and acceptable. So if a doctrine is not on record as having been taught by Jesus or his apostles, how do we know it is correct? If it is so important for our Christian life and faith, why didn't Jesus tell us about it? And if the teaching didn't come from Jesus, where did it come from? I can respect that it's a church tradition, and one that you might have good reason to accept. But Scripture doesn't tell us that we have to believe it as part of the gospel.

For instance, it is a core belief of the Christian faith and not open to dispute that the Holy Spirit is

1. Co Equal with the Father and the Son
2. Co Eternal with the Father and the Son
3. Co Eternally Pre-existing with the Father and the Son

Yet never once, in all of scripture, will you find this explicitly stated or represented. . . So . . does this mean that it is not worthy of belief?

"In the beginning God created the heaven and and the earth. Now .... the SPIRIT OF GOD was hovering over the waters" Genesis 1:1-2

".... the Lord God .... breathed into his nostrils the breath of life." Genesis 2:7 The Hebrew word for breath here, Ruach, is the same as the word for Spirit. As in Ezekiel 37:14; "I will put my Spirit in you and you will live."

That's three places for a start, there may be more, I haven't looked.

 

[Iollain]

The thing about infant baptism is that some denominations view their children as Christians, not as unbelievers who need to be evangelized. They realize that in God's hands, even material elements such as water can become means of grace and that we are to meet God on His terms, and not our own. True baptism is a work of God, not of man. All man does is receive the gifts from his gracious Lord, and must not be so arrogant as to declare that the Kingdom does not belong to such as these children.

We do not declare that the kingdom does not belong to children, that is not Biblical at all but the opposite is true. I've got relitives who had their children christened and believe me......they would be the last of the children i'd declare had the Holy Ghost......more like holy terrors.

I'd agree if someone said they had their child baptised because it is God's plan to someday have them baptised with the Spirit, but believing that one takes a baby to church for a ceremony and comes home with a Spirit filled, saved individual?

 

[Iollain]

So how do the EO view baptism, i understand that the RC believes original sin is erased, but do the EO believe that the Spirit is given at infant baptism?

 

[ScottBot]

So how do the EO view baptism, i understand that the RC believes original sin is erased, but do the EO believe that the Spirit is given at infant baptism?

The EO believe in the exact same things regarding baptism as the CC does. Our sacraments and their mysteries are identical.

 

[choirfiend]

THis is not entirely true. The OC and the RCC teaching about baptism is different, as evidenced by the differences in practice between the two groups and such things as delayed chrismation and eucharist reception in the RCC.

This article explains the Orthodox purpose for infant baptism rather well, if you ask me. Please do read it.
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7067.asp

 

[Oblio]

If you understand the true purpose and ramifications of Baptism, you will be able to understand that.

Scotch !
Fast !

 

[ScottBot]

THis is not entirely true. The OC and the RCC teaching about baptism is different, as evidenced by the differences in practice between the two groups and such things as delayed chrismation and eucharist reception in the RCC.

This article explains the Orthodox purpose for infant baptism rather well, if you ask me. Please do read it.
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7067.asp

The difference in practice is that the Latin Rite of the Roman Church separates baptism, Holy Eucharist, and Confirmation into three distinct steps in the case of an infant. Other Rites of the church practice the mysteries in the exact same manner as the EO Church. Even in the Latin Rite, when an adult is taken into the church, quite often they are Baptised, given the Eucharist, and Confirmed on the same day.

Here is the Catholic stance on infant baptism. I think you will find that the theological premise for paedobaptism is the same for both of our parts of the Church.

Infant Baptism