Infant Baptism - Is It Wrong?

[ksen]

MOD HAT ON:

*Important* Forum Specific Rules *Important*



1) This forum is open to all Christians. Non-Christian members are not allowed to post here.

2) Baptist/Anabaptist, as well as all members of the Congregational Forums can post fellowship threads here. Only Baptist/Anabaptist members are allowed to debate threads to discuss various doctrines to do with their own denomination and other denominations (including the Catholic church), as long as they are within our rules.

3) Non-Baptist/Anabaptist members (eg. Catholic,Charasmatic, Weselyan, Lutheran, etc... members) can only post fellowship posts here or posts to ask a question regarding Baptist/Anabaptist doctrine. Once the question is answered, there shall be no debate over the answer in this forum by the Non-Baptist/Anabaptist members. Any debate posts by Non-Baptist/Anabaptist members will be deleted or moved to the appropriate forum. In other words, only Baptist/Anabaptist members can debate here.

4) No posts that denigrate a Christian denomination or Christian group will not be tolerated - these will be deleted and the poster will be warned.

Basically, we do NOT allow accusations that a particular Christian denomination or group is non-Christian. That is the bottom line. Debates regarding doctrine is allowed (for Baptist/Anabaptist members only). Accusations are not.

These rules are in addition to the original Christian Forums rules that have been written and set out before you by the Owner and Webmaster, Erwin.



MOD HAT OFF.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

You are true at saying that I can only surmise.
But there are two other things we must consider.

Scripture does not say the Apsotles refused infant baptism in any household, and it is also written that baptism is equated to circumcism.

There is NO scripture that states that water baptism is ANYTHING like physical circumsision. Now, if you want to say baptism of the Holy Spirit is like circumsision then, yes I can agree with you. There is confirmation of this in the book of Colossians. HOWEVER, if YOU Agree with this, then you would also HAVE to agree that once some one is spirtually circumsised or physically circumsised, then there is NO possible way that they could become "uncircumsised". You cannot uncircumcise anyone spirtually or physically, this of course is another thread.

AS this is true, then an infant may be baptised by the parental consent. Since they are equated in the same light, I would think both are important decisions made by parents.
Consider the fact that we don't circumsize, would it not be painful later at age 13?
And is it not true then, if that is physical pain, would not baptising early on be painful to the child?
We do not know, but it could hinder their growth to God in spirituality

Ok, lets get this straight. God COMMANDED the Jews to circumsise thier children in the OT as a convent from them to Him. It is written several times in scriptures because God wanted to be clear. He was specific about how it was done, when it was done, and who did it and WHY. There is NO verse, none whatsoever dealing with infant baptism about when, how, who should or WHY. Therefore, your theroy is going downhill even more so.



.

I know this much, my husbands parents did not believe in infant baptism, and so he never got baptised. Now at his age, he is still raking it over the coals. This has become his choice, and not one he feels compelled to do anything about.

Then he is directly disobeying God. Is he saved? Has he accepted Christ as his saviour? If he died tommorrow, it would not matter if he was baptized because baptism comes after salvation as I posted in my previous posts.

.

Why is baptism the same as circumcism then?

It is NOT the same.

I understand that you cannot reply to my posts because you might then get a warning. If you care to conclude in PM's I would be more than happy.

GEL

 

[novcncy]

And infants aren't children?

Diane

Yet another stretch?

Of course, all infants are children, but it does not fall through that all children are infants. You can not even begin to try to equate a six year old to a six month old. Although they are both children, only one is an infant. In the case of the disciples forbidding the children, the children were coming, not being forcibly brought, to Jesus, and that....is the very difference.

It seems ill advised to base an entire doctrine, such as infant baptism, on three instances of the word "household" in association with baptism. I already showed how the meaning can depend on the connotated meaning of the word, and since there is absolutely nothing else in the Bible to support infant baptism, it seems rather simple.

As many other posters have put quite plainly, infant baptism implicates a multitude of perilous doctrines into play. The associations with these clear contradictions to God's word are the reasons we should avoid infant baptism. As someone related, their spouse doesn't want to be baptised because his parents didn't deem it important to have him baptised as a baby. This reveals an ignorance of the ordinance, putting more value on it than it should have, and seeing it as more than simple obedience and a stymbol of belief. That's just one example of how MOST people see infant baptism.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

Yet another stretch?

Of course, all infants are children, but it does not fall through that all children are infants. You can not even begin to try to equate a six year old to a six month old. Although they are both children, only one is an infant. In the case of the disciples forbidding the children, the children were coming, not being forcibly brought, to Jesus, and that....is the very difference.

.

This is HUGE novcny! You are so right. The children DECIDED on thier OWN to go to Jesus, no one forced them on Christ. They were walking to him, not being brought forth. Man, that is a VERY good point!

GEL

 

[Diane_Windsor]

I've seen these counter-arguments time and time again, and I still disagree. I disagree even more so now after reading your posts.

The associations with these clear contradictions to God's word are the reasons we should avoid infant baptism. As someone related, their spouse doesn't want to be baptised because his parents didn't deem it important to have him baptised as a baby. This reveals an ignorance of the ordinance, putting more value on it than it should have, and seeing it as more than simple obedience and a stymbol of belief. That's just one example of how MOST people see infant baptism.

:o I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence, but the vast majority of Christendom (Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheransim, Methodism, Presbys, etc.) view infant baptism as a valid practice.

Diane

 

[GreenEyedLady]

:o I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence, but the vast majority of Christendom (Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheransim, Methodism, Presbys, etc.) view infant baptism as a valid practice.

That does not make is biblical nor does it make it right.
It is still a man made tradition that IMHO can confuse an older child about thier salvation. I know it did me!

GEL

 

[Diane_Windsor]

That does not make is biblical nor does it make it right.
It is still a man made tradition

In your opinion.

Diane

 

[Ginny]

I'm not sure where you get the idea that anybody would think that the SBC expects members to agree with everything it teaches.

You keep saying "they "and "SBC"...Does the church you go to have SBC preachers preach every Sunday? There are thousands of churches that fall under the SBC... The only time I hear about the "SBC" is when our church donates some money. There are going to be beliefs, many beliefs, that people do not always agree on within EVERY denomination...but to say SBC expects you to believe a certain way does not make sense. If your preacher happens to preach against infant baptism the Sunday you come, then I would walk out.

People join different denominations for different reasons, but for the most part it is b/c they believe in the doctrine they agree with. If this is the only thing that you do not agree with, then no big deal.

The SBC is not the RCC.

Thank goodness.

So Baptists can't have different opinions on baptism? I don't know about other baptist groups, but the SBC does not have doctrinal requirements for its members. You are free to disagree with the Baptist Faith and Message.

Sure they can have different opinions. If that is the case, why do you appear so angry within your posts at the SBC?..Remember, you say they "expect" you to believe against infant baptism. You are the one that is angry at the SBC, not anyone else. Feel free to disagree.

I do find it a problem, however, for the next time you or someone you know has that baby, belongs to a Baptist church and wants it baptized. What then?

 

[Diane_Windsor]

There are going to be beliefs, many beliefs, that people do not always agree on within EVERY denomination...but to say SBC expects you to believe a certain way does not make sense.

Here is my original quote:

"Whole households were baptised, and the SBC expects me to believe that infants were not part of households?

14One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message. 15When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. "If you consider me a believer in the Lord," she said, "come and stay at my house." And she persuaded us.

8Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized.

Acts 16:14-15, 18:8

16(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.)

I Cor 1:16"

*shrug* You are misunderstanding me. I do not use the term "expects" in the sense that the SBC leadership dogmatically demands that it's members believe everything they doctrinally say. Again, the SBC is polar opposite of the RCC in this respect.

Perhaps I can say it better this way. The Baptist interpretation of Scripture bounds one to believe that infants were not part of a households:

Scripture states that households were baptised (see above). Baptists say that infant baptism is un-Biblical otherwise they would not practice credobaptism. Therefore, if infant baptism is unBiblical then that must mean that infants were not members of the NT household. Since the SBC holds that infant baptism is not Scriptural then the SBC indirectly expects others to believe that infants were not a part of NT households.

I don't know how to explain myself better than that, and don't really care to pursue this rabbit rail further.

Sure they can have different opinions. If that is the case, why do you appear so angry within your posts at the SBC?..Remember, you say they "expect" you to believe against infant baptism. You are the one that is angry at the SBC, not anyone else. Feel free to disagree.

I'm not angry at the SBC. I have simply used, as an example, a Baptist denomination of which I am most familiar with. Yes, by their interpretation of Scripture they indirectly expect me to believe that NT housholds did not have infants.

I do find it a problem, however, for the next time you or someone you know has that baby, belongs to a Baptist church and wants it baptized. What then?

I not only would support my friend, but I would stand in as a godparent if asked to do so. I am not bound by the SBC to believe the Baptist Faith and Message. I agree with some parts of it, but certainly not all. As you stated earlier the majority of people will find something about their chosen denomination that they simply cannot agree with, and for the time-being the SBC is a close fit for me.

Diane

 

[constance]

Well, that's half of 18:15 - it's
People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them.

the rest of the story:
But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."

Does it say he baptized them?

Constance

 

[GreenEyedLady]

Well, that's half of 18:15 - it's
People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them.

the rest of the story:
But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."

Does it say he baptized them?

Constance

I had reached some assumtion that infants were NOT brought before Jesus on page 6.
I made this comment

This is HUGE novcny! You are so right. The children DECIDED on thier OWN to go to Jesus, no one forced them on Christ. They were walking to him, not being brought forth

This is incorrect. The children were brought to Jesus by thier parents. They were brought to be blessed as it was a Jewish custom to bring infants to the Rabbi for a blessing.
So this is what I think he was addressing.
GEL

 

[constance]

Oh, gotcha. One of my pet peeves is a single verse used to prove a point. Sorry I hadn't grasped the flow of the conversation there.

This is about as dramatic as a Baptist Business Meeting!

Constance

 

[mortis]

Its not "wrong" in the sence of Evil or not, but I think it is wrong in terms of:


Jesus was a jew, so in accordance he was BLESSED as an infant, but was BAPTISED as an adult. I think you should dedicate your child to God, because You are promising to lead them in the Christian way. Baptise them when They are ready(spiritualy mature). Thats my two cents.

 

[Flynmonkie]

Baptism is for fellowship.
Confessing before men. I have no problems if this is what others do when they "present" their child. Even as a Baptist, I truly enjoy the fellowship of witnessing others being baptized. But if someone were to ask me if they needed to do this for salvation.....I would most certainly say no, but this is why we do this. To me it is all a part of being one body, growing and learning together. I have honestly only heard one time in my life (in the real world) that another form of faith believes that a child will not be saved if they are not baptized and they die. And I am not so sure they knew what they were talking about (not sure they could represent the denomination accurately) IMVHO

Ok now.......
Did somebody say meeting adjourned and potluck?

 

[arunma]

And I am not so sure they knew what they were talking about (not sure they could represent the denomination accurately) IMVHO

Well...technically Catholics believe that baptism is salvific (required for salvation). But they have some funny ways to take the teeth out of that doctrine; which I think is a good thing. There's "baptism by desire," which means that a Christian who desires to be baptized, but dies beforehand, is baptized merely by his desire for water baptism. Unfortunately, this doctrine is often perverted by many of the more liberal Catholics to mean that non-Christians who earnestly seek God (as if you can seek God apart from Christ) are baptized by desire. There's also baptism by blood, by which Christian martyrs who die without baptism are saved.

The only thing that's ever puzzled me is their view on unbaptized infants. I remember reading in some very old Catholic dogma: "anathema upon anyone who says that unbaptized infants are saved!" I don't know if that dogma is still valid.

 

[Flynmonkie]

Well...technically Catholics believe that baptism is salvific (required for salvation). But they have some funny ways to take the teeth out of that doctrine; which I think is a good thing. The only thing that's ever puzzled me is their view on unbaptized infants. I remember reading in some very old Catholic dogma: "anathema upon anyone who says that unbaptized infants are saved!" I don't know if that dogma is still valid.

Yes, this once had been presented and concerned me, however I was assured that I had it all wrong. Or the person whom relayed this information to me was misunderstanding the belief. In my real life I know Catholics that do not believe this. However as I have said many times, here at CF there seems to be a difference of what is written and what is being played out in real life. I don't know much about the Catholic faith other than what I ask personally, or what I see. If something comes up...I deal with it then, or shake the dust off.

 

[mortis]

They [catholics] actualy set aside separate burrial places for unbaptised infants.

Before I was saved I thought I was saved because Mom and Dad were "Christians" and got me baptised as a baby, but I was rebaptised at 17 and it made a world of change. I had be truely saved by the Lord Jesus Christ for 2 years, and then I was baptised as an outward sign of my faith and Fellowship with the chuch[ as a whole Faith].

 

[Flynmonkie]

The thing that gets me is that I made the decision of acceptance of salvation at the age of 8. And to this day I remember quite clearly the peaceful contentment of the Holy Spirit. I was not baptized for a few months after this. I believe you can have whole faith without Baptism. When studying I feel Jesus was baptized in as a man here for fellowship and example, the Holy Spirit was given to us upon His death. Indwelling within us upon that moment of our personal acceptance and understanding. Do some Baptists believe that the Holy Spirit only comes with water Baptism? (I have been asked this)My church does not teach this. We also have presentations of young children of course this is different than believers baptism.

 

[novcncy]

The thing that gets me is that I made the decision of acceptance of salvation at the age of 8. And to this day I remember quite clearly the peaceful contentment of the Holy Spirit. I was not baptized for a few months after this. I believe you can have whole faith without Baptism. When studying I feel Jesus was baptized in as a man here for fellowship and example, the Holy Spirit was given to us upon His death. Indwelling within us upon that moment of our personal acceptance and understanding. Do some Baptists believe that the Holy Spirit only comes with water Baptism? (I have been asked this)My church does not teach this. We also have presentations of young children of course this is different than believers baptism.

As far as I know, Baptists believe that the Holy Spirit comes at salvation. In fact, it is He who regenerates the soul (Titus 3:5), bringing the eternal life Jesus bought. If water had anything to do with it, we'd be working our way to heaven.

 

[Flynmonkie]

I am not sure about this one. I am sure some believe, but I am unaware of any Baptist church that actually teachs this. Its not found in the bible, therefore, its not in the doctrine.

GEL

My suspicions are that it is more of the “telephone game”. In my church, and I thought most Baptist churches you cannot be a member or function in any way until you are baptized. In addition I believe it is comments such as above without Baptism you are lacking a “whole” faith.