• 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.

Infant Baptism, why do you reject it?

Status
Not open for further replies.

KEPLER

Crux sola est nostra theologia
Mar 23, 2005
3,513
223
3rd Rock from the Sun
✟19,898.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married

Ahh, Jig, thank you. If I didn't laugh, I'd cry. This (ahem...erm...) "exegesis" really makes my morning.

Here's the root problem with your "exegesis" (in legal-speak): you are assuming facts which are not in evidence. Namely, you ASSUME that infants can't have faith, and the entirety of your objection rests on this single assumption.

Please prove to us that an infant cannot have faith. (And in the meantime, I will attempt to prove to you that dead bodies don't come back to life. )

We wait with baited breath. Until then your exegesis is worth about as much as this pile of used kleenex sitting in the trash can next to me.

Cheers,

Kepler
 
Upvote 0

KEPLER

Crux sola est nostra theologia
Mar 23, 2005
3,513
223
3rd Rock from the Sun
✟19,898.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
qh93536 said:
Because it is a meaningless ritual. It is impossible for a person to be successfully baptized if that person does not understand the meaning and connotations of the process. It is a devotion from the heart, not the water.

"meaningless ritual" ... ???

"forgiveness of sins"
"washing of regeneration"
"buried with Christ"
"clothed with Christ"
"clears our conscience"
 
Upvote 0

Lynn73

Jesus' lamb
Sep 15, 2003
6,035
362
70
Visit site
✟30,613.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
KEPLER said:
Which is precisely why Ethan_Fetch believes in baptizing them, Lynn!

Cheers,

Kepler

They don't need to be baptized for Him to love them or take them to heaven. And you say in another post that how do we know babies can't have faith. Well, give us an example of a gurgling infant in diapers expressing his or her understanding and acceptance of the gospel. In my opinion, the whole thing is being made a lot more comlicated and illogical than it really is.
 
Upvote 0

KEPLER

Crux sola est nostra theologia
Mar 23, 2005
3,513
223
3rd Rock from the Sun
✟19,898.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married

Luke 1:39-41 said:
In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb

The baby leaped in the wound when it's mother was greeted by the Mother of God.

Pace Jig's histrionics, this is clear evidence of a baby greeting someone.

Shall we go on to the Psalms? Shall we go on to Timothy, who knew the scriptures as an infant?

Cheers,

Kepler
 
Upvote 0

KEPLER

Crux sola est nostra theologia
Mar 23, 2005
3,513
223
3rd Rock from the Sun
✟19,898.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
TruthMiner said:
So are you claiming 1 year old Timothy was reading Leviticus?

How or in what manner he knew them, I cannot say, because Scripture does not say.

But he knew them from infancy. That is a Scriptural absolute.
 
Upvote 0

frumanchu

God's justice does not demand second chances
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2003
6,719
469
48
Ohio
✟85,280.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian

As a Calvinist, I've found that most often the reason it is rejected is based upon inductive reasoning and the fact that there is not a clear explicit example of infant baptism or command to baptize infants. At the same time, there are also no commands not to baptize infants.

The most common error I see is in pointing to verses that say "believe and be baptised" as proof that baptism should only follow a profession of faith. These verses are quite obviously directed at adults undergoing a conversion, not people who are already members of a covenant community. To the first century Jews who first received the command to be baptized, the expectation absolutely would have been to baptize their entire household, children included, as such has always been the covenant practice among the people of God.

I disagree to a great extent with the Catholic and Orthodox views of exactly what infant baptism involves and the implications, but I fully affirm the practice.
 
Upvote 0

KEPLER

Crux sola est nostra theologia
Mar 23, 2005
3,513
223
3rd Rock from the Sun
✟19,898.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married

Well said, Fru. (Although of course, I agree with the Orthodox and mostly agree with the Catholics). But sometimes there's a small bit of comfort in orthopraxy.

Cheers,

Kepler
 
Upvote 0

Borealis

Catholic Homeschool Dad
Dec 8, 2003
6,906
621
54
Barrie, Ontario
✟10,009.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
CA-Conservatives
qh93536 said:
Because it is a meaningless ritual. It is impossible for a person to be successfully baptized if that person does not understand the meaning and connotations of the process. It is a devotion from the heart, not the water.
So why was Jesus baptized? Was He into meaningless rituals? Why were thousands baptized on Pentecost? A meaningless ritual? Please. And here I thought you people actually believed what was in the Bible. Apparently the correct term should be 'sola Scriptura, unless it contradicts with what I believe.'
 
Reactions: KEPLER
Upvote 0
W

woman.at.the.well

Guest

I myself was baptized in the Lutheran church as an infant but do not accept it (as you say it) myself personally now for this reason: because babies do not sin. They don't even understand what sin is. So how can they repent and be baptized for the remission of sins they do not know exists?

Having read through some of the posts I agree with those who say nowhere in scripture is there examples of infant baptism. I don't condemn religions that practice this. I think of it as a dedication of the child to the Lord but not the same baptism Jesus told His followers to take part in.
 
Upvote 0

KEPLER

Crux sola est nostra theologia
Mar 23, 2005
3,513
223
3rd Rock from the Sun
✟19,898.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
A certain guy named David disagrees with you:

Somewhere along the way, my guess is that someone or something told you that sin is primarily an action. It is not.

Sin is a condition. Like a disease. And we are born with it, as David says. We are born terminally ill.

How nice. Not a shred of biblical support, but nice.
 
Upvote 0

TruthMiner

Veteran
Mar 30, 2006
1,052
33
✟1,382.00
Faith
Christian

You must be careful though.... people often mistakenly think sin is a bodily pollution like black spots on an otherwise clean linen. It isn't. And that is where all sorts of confusion regarding the incarnation occurs.
 
Upvote 0

frumanchu

God's justice does not demand second chances
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2003
6,719
469
48
Ohio
✟85,280.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I've always said that any person who claims children do not sin either has none or is ignorantly biased. I am the father of three children whom I love dearly, and I learned very early on that they are every bit as in need of a Savior as I am.
 
Upvote 0
W

woman.at.the.well

Guest
frumanchu said:
I've always said that any person who claims children do not sin either has none or is ignorantly biased. I am the father of three children whom I love dearly, and I learned very early on that they are every bit as in need of a Savior as I am.

seeing as how I am "igonorant." Thank you for straightening me out frumanchu I really do appreciate it.

I did not supply biblical support for my statement because it was not requested in the OP and also because there is no biblical support for infant baptism. Is this a debate forum? If not I'd suggest putting your claws back in girls. Not a nice way for non Christians to see believers speak to one another, ya think?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.