Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
To me this is an extremely serious subject due to how I personally have seen it abused. And yes, it has been abused here in the USA.
There is at least one denomination which teaches that in order to be saved one must be baptized by immersion. If a person accepts Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour and truly believes in his heart that God literally raised him from the dead, but he dies prior to getting 'dunked', he is considered as a lost soul bound for hell according to their teaching.
This is a clear violation of Scripture. We are saved because we accept what God has already done for us, not because of what we ourselves have had a chance to do. Ritualism, of which baptism is one of the parts, is not salvation; it is ritualism.
What the layperson usually doesn't realize when they are accepting the teaching that they must be baptized in a certain manner in order to have the possibility (and that word is important) of being saved sometime in the future is that their mindset is being 'programmed'. They permit themselves to be baptized, not out of a desire to show their acceptance of God's salvation, but rather out of a genuine fear of being condemned by a Zeus-like God unless they perform this ritual.
What follows is not the assurance that they are now saved, but instead is a neverending list of further things that they must do, and agendas forwarded by the church heirarchy that they must accept. Their 'church life' is not one of gratitude, love, and desire to do God's will in return for what he has done for them. It is instead an atmosphere of perpetual dread, with the instilled mindset that they must accept and cooperate with all that the church heirarchy tells them. Only through their following this path do they have a chance of winning God's approval, and without it they are doomed.
Do you see the pattern that is developing? In these churches salvation is a perpetual struggle. If they obey their church heirarchy unconditionally they may have a chance of being saved, but it is far from a certainty. To them God is portrayed as a God of wrath, and the only way to appease him is to do as they're told without question or comment. They have become, for all intents and purposes, slaves.
You were doing so well until this point.
Baptism as an infant does indeed count. You are entitled to your opinion, but you do not speak for the whole of our faith, only part of it, when you decry infant baptism. As has already been said, baptism stands to the New Covenant as circumcision does to the Old, and circumcision is carried out on Jewish boys at 8 days old. There is no Scriptural justification whatever for saying that young children and babies cannot be baptised, and there is the example of circumcision to show very clearly that they can.
catherineanne said:In the apostolic churches (and some others) the promises made by a child's parents and godparents on behalf of the child are affirmed in person when he or she is old enough to be Confirmed; and this affirmation is followed by the laying on of hands, by the Bishop.
Your thinking is excessively individualised. The People of God has always included children - it wouldn't be a people if it didn't. Did Moses leave the children standing on the far bank of the sea to come accross when they reached puberty?Thank you for the clarification. And so 8 days after a person accepts Christ into their life they should be baptised.....?
And there is no scriptural justification for infant baptism. What scripture does say is that children are under the spiritual covering of their parents until they come of age. Thereafter they must decided for or against Christ. This is usually at about puberty (and this accounts for the difficult stage of life at about 13/14)
good luck confirming this doctrine from scripture because its not there...I personally dont have a problem with dedicating children to the Lord, but it can never replace baptism.
Your thinking is excessively individualised.
ebia said:The People of God has always included children - it wouldn't be a people if it didn't. Did Moses leave the children standing on the far bank of the sea to come accross when they reached puberty?
And there is no scriptural justification for infant baptism.
So am I. But, since scripture doesn't explicitly state whether or not to baptise children we need to look deeper - to what baptism is and what symbols in the ongoing story of the people of God it connects to.I am relying on scripture for my doctrine
You see that strikes me as extra-scriptural.Provision is made for children in that they are under the covering of the believeing parents. Once they come of age, having been bought up in the faith, they should decide for Christ and receive Christ as their Lord.
I'm not sure how this connects to your argument.If Abraham was counted righteous for believing (Rom 4:1-3) and not for works, why was he required to be circumcised to be a partaker of the covenant of the OT? Was circumcision not then a work as well? And why would the Jew be cut off if he did not do the 'work' of circumcision?
I've a sneaking suspition you've been sold a dud on that one. We know the church has been baptising people from as early as we can tell - we don't have a record of their reasoning from anything like that early.I suggest any person that belongs to a church that believes in infant baptism find out how they arrived at that doctrine instead of simply accepting it......might be an interesting study...
... in your opinion.
Many thousands of Christians; probably millions in fact, would beg to differ.
Kindly remember that there is more than one pov on this one, and to call into question those millions of baptisms is extremely mischievous.
catherinanne said:Nobody has to like it, but Christians with an alternative pov would do well to accept that for apostolics (inter alia) infant baptism is a perfectly valid sacrament, from which we continue to grow in faith all our lives.
I was baptised at one month old, and confirmed at 21. Honi soit qui mal y pense.
So am I. But, since scripture doesn't explicitly state whether or not to baptise children we need to look deeper - to what baptism is and what symbols in the ongoing story of the people of God it connects to.
read 1 Corin 7Ebia said:You see that strikes me as extra-scriptural.
Ebia said:I've a sneaking suspition you've been sold a dud on that one. We know the church has been baptising people from as early as we can tell - we don't have a record of their reasoning from anything like that early.
A starting point is resurrection, ie New Exodus and therefore both Exodus and crossing the Jordan - things done by the whole people.Well what is your opinion on what baptism connects to?
Perhaps you're looking for the wrong thing because you're thinking too individualistically.We are told to preach the gospel and baptize those that receive Christ in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost. I have yet to see any infant converted to Christ...
Maybe you need to spell it out again for me, because I'm not sure what you are trying to say on this point.I have previously quoted scripture which makes the parallel to the OT shadow clear.
You seem to be reading something into that that has nothing to do with what Paul is talking about.read 1 Corin 7
Clearly you have no idea about the history of infant baptism (or church history generally?), so why suggest those of us who have would be surprised if they researched it? Infant baptism can be traced back historically to the 2nd century with absolute certainty, to the first century with reasonable confidence. Centuries before current splits, indulgences, or anything of that ilk. And was practiced and supported by all the mainstream reformers as well as the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches. It's "believer's baptism" that represents a change of view, and one that was viewed as seriously extremist by almost all Christians until very recently. Seriously - where've you've got your ideas about Christian history from they are very distorted.Well the only ones selling duds are churches and Im not buying. Im sure there is a Pope and an Anglican leader/king somewhere back in history that changed the doctrine....Probably when they started selling indulgences...
A starting point is resurrection, ie New Exodus and therefore both Exodus and crossing the Jordan - things done by the whole people.
ebia said:Clearly you have no idea about the history of infant baptism (or church history generally?), so why suggest those of us who have would be surprised if they researched it? Infant baptism can be traced back historically to the 2nd century with absolute certainty, to the first century with reasonable confidence. Centuries before current splits, indulgences, or anything of that ilk. And was practiced and supported by all the mainstream reformers as well as the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches.
ebia said:It's "believer's baptism" that represents a change of view, and one that was viewed as seriously extremist by almost all Christians until very recently. Seriously - where've you've got your ideas about Christian history from they are very distorted.
At this stage I'm only addressing the infant-baptism question. Did Moses or did he not bring all the people of God through the sea?So, can you not see that it was the water that delivered the Israelites from the Egyptians, just as the water saved Noah
You do not know that it wasn't practiced in the bible - the bible is ambiguous on the issue. I have not said "it appeared 100 years later". What I've said is that we know without ambiguity that it was practiced in the 2nd century and with reasonable certainty that it was practiced in the first century. If you can't see the difference between those then there's a big problem.I know enough about church history to know infant baptism was not taught or practised anywhere in the Bible and you have now confirmed that it appeared 100 years later. So should we follow the Bible or the church, which lets face it, has strayed on many things through the ages.
Those tell us about converts from outside the faith. What they don't tell us is about children born into the faith, because that's not the question they are trying to address.Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Acts 8:35-37
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 19:4-5
And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. Acts 18:8
On his own terms, yes. Unless you've turned Christianity into pseudo-Gnostism.Can an infant believe?
If they are being brought up in the people of God they are part of the people of God and therefore must be baptised.Or does an infant remain under the covering of their parents until they are old enough to decide for themselves?
If that meant what you are trying to force it to mean it would mean also that a non-believer is also "covered" by a believing spouse. What Paul is saying is much more down-to-earth than that in a very down-to-earth letter: that by staying with a husband or bringing up your children in the faith you make a difference to and for them. It's not some magic trick to get adult-baptisers off their major sticking point.For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 1 Corin 7:14
Again, I'm not sure how you think that helps us answer the infant baptism question. Or have you swapped back to the other question?Whats even more interesting, is that even after the gentiles received the promise (baptism of the Holy Ghost) they were water baptised.
hi, i am a christian from a christian family but none of us were baptized.we repent and all that stuff, but since we weren't baptized will we still go to hell?
if so where and how can we get baptized?
plz answer quickly because i don't want to die tomorow and going to hell because i didnt get a bath in church.
At this stage I'm only addressing the infant-baptism question. Did Moses or did he not bring all the people of God through the sea?
Yes, he did....
Was this the seal of the OT covenant? - no it was not.
Was this the OT type of the new covenant through Christ - no it was not.
They were baptised unto Moses through the Red sea; that is, to be partakers of the blessing that came through the work of Moses, (ie deliverance from captivity and slavery) they had to be baptised into Moses - come under his covering and receive 'his' blessing. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS.... ? If they were not baptised unto Moses....no deliverance........same as the NT covering through Christ......
You are confusing types with covenants.
ebia said:You do not know that it wasn't practiced in the bible - the bible is ambiguous on the issue. I have not said "it appeared 100 years later". What I've said is that we know without ambiguity that it was practiced in the 2nd century and with reasonable certainty that it was practiced in the first century. If you can't see the difference between those then there's a big problem.
You have used convenient sources of reference to confirm your church doctrine...it does not make this fact. There are other sources which refute and reject this.....so we turn to the Bible and there is no reference to infant baptism. Churches sometimes refer to circumcision (at 8 days) for the parallel. But this should only be after the person is re-born.....natural birth followed by natural circumcision, spiritual birth follwed by spiritual circumcision through Christ........!
Those tell us about converts from outside the faith. What they don't tell us is about children born into the faith, because that's not the question they are trying to address.
Pleez.....
I have made it quite clear from scripture that you had to believe, to receive Christ. You cannot be born into the faith. you have to receive Christ. Every child no matter what their upbringing, gets to a place where they decide for Christ. Its only false doctrine such as infant baptism that denies them this...
ebia said:On his own terms, yes. Unless you've turned Christianity into pseudo-Gnostism.
So an 8 day old infant can be mininstered to and can decide for Christ...? Why dont they then asked them if they want to be christened as well...clearly not!
ebia said:If they are being brought up in the people of God they are part of the people of God and therefore must be baptised.
This is the way non spiritual faiths function. Im a Catholic because my grandad was..
In Christianity you may have the blessed advantage of being taught God's ways but each child must decide for or against Christ and many reject that which they have been brought up with.
ebia said:If that meant what you are trying to force it to mean it would mean also that a non-believer is also "covered" by a believing spouse. What Paul is saying is much more down-to-earth than that in a very down-to-earth letter: that by staying with a husband or bringing up your children in the faith you make a difference to and for them. It's not some magic trick to get adult-baptisers off their major sticking point.
the scripture says the children are holy because of their parents...accept that fact and digest it. we can discuss the rest as a separate topic.
Funny how you accept that kids are recipients of their parents faith, but a spouse who has become one with their partner through marriage cannot. Not my doctrine, but just showing the inconsistancy here.
ebia said:Again, I'm not sure how you think that helps us answer the infant baptism question. Or have you swapped back to the other question?
If the children are holy because of the parents, why must they baptised. When they come of age and become accountable before God they must decide of they can sustain that holiness or come under the covering of the holiness of Christ..
A parent cannot decide for a child. While the child is under their spiritual covering they can dedicate them to the Lord, train, teach and be Christ to them, but at the end of the day each one of us, has to make that decision.
I don't agreewith it - its trying to impose a mechanism of understanding onto the narrative that doesn't fit.At this stage I'm only addressing the infant-baptism question. Did Moses or did he not bring all the people of God through the sea?
Yes, he did....
Was this the seal of the OT covenant? - no it was not.
Was this the OT type of the new covenant through Christ - no it was not.
They were baptised unto Moses through the Red sea; that is, to be partakers of the blessing that came through the work of Moses, (ie deliverance from captivity and slavery) they had to be baptised into Moses - come under his covering and receive 'his' blessing. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS.... ?
The history is quite clear - people were definitely baptising infants into the 2nd century church and pretty clearly back into the late first century church. Further back than that we can't see because we don't have any documentation with which to do so.You have used convenient sources of reference to confirm your church doctrine...it does not make this fact. There are other sources which refute and reject this.
What?!? Absolutely not - very confused.....so we turn to the Bible and there is no reference to infant baptism. Churches sometimes refer to circumcision (at 8 days) for the parallel. But this should only be after the person is re-born.....natural birth followed by natural circumcision, spiritual birth follwed by spiritual circumcision through Christ........!
No you haven't. You've given examples where the person believe and was then baptised.Pleez.....
I have made it quite clear from scripture that you had to believe, to receive Christ.
That can't be true or you screw up the whole idea of church as the people of God in continuity to Israel as the people of God. You end up throwing out the baby with the baptism-bath-water.You cannot be born into the faith.
In the end anyone can walk away - or not.you have to receive Christ. Every child no matter what their upbringing, gets to a place where they decide for Christ. Its only false doctrine such as infant baptism that denies them this...
They can know God on their own terms. It's you that are trying to turn an organic age-appropriate family relationship into an act of intellectual assent to a fact.So an 8 day old infant can be mininstered to and can decide for Christ...?
Not as some kind of relational magic trick but because Chrildren are brought up in the faith and family of their parents.the scripture says the children are holy because of their parents...accept that fact and digest it. we can discuss the rest as a separate topic.
You've got exactly the same problem. Except that the problem makes sense in my view - the influences between adults is not identical to the influence between parent and infant. On the other hand if you read your text as a magical "covering" there shouldn't be a difference.Funny how you accept that kids are recipients of their parents faith, but a spouse who has become one with their partner through marriage cannot.
Because baptism is the sacramental fulfillment of that, the act of inclusion into that holy people of God in Christ, the joining into his resurrection,...If the children are holy because of the parents, why must they baptised.
Romans 10:9 (New International Version)
9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
As you will see, no mention of Baptism.
But Romans 6 teaches us we die to law through baptism into Christ. And as we come out of the water we are no longer under the law of sin, but under the law of grace through Christ Jesus. Just as Jesus died and was resurrected, so too are we through water baptism....read Romans 6...it is very clear.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?