Infant Baptism, why do you reject it?

[frumanchu]

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

I didn't mean that as a derogatory personal comment, just a comment based on experience. I've encountered a lot of people who think their children really are completely innocent. From a Biblical standpoint they are ignorant of the reality of their children's sinfulness.

 

[HisKid1973]

Was Jesus circumcised? What did that symbolize and signify? What does baptism symbolize and signify?

I'm not sure what you getting at. My children knew enough when they were small to ask Jesus into their life.. Do you think that their baptism after they did that kept them from being naughty. John was baptising for the remission of sin. Thee people came because the acknowledged it..Can a baby acknowledge it?

 

[KEPLER]

I'm not sure what you getting at. My children knew enough when they were small to ask Jesus into their life.. Do you think that their baptism after they did that kept them from being naughty. John was baptising for the remission of sin. Thee people came because the acknowledged it..Can a baby acknowledge it?

His questions were pretty straight-forward.

 

[TruthMiner]

I didn't mean that as a derogatory personal comment, just a comment based on experience. I've encountered a lot of people who think their children really are completely innocent. From a Biblical standpoint they are ignorant of the reality of their children's sinfulness.

So they need salvation then too right?

 

[KEPLER]

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.

You presented an unsupported argument against infant baptism (that infants have no sin), and your argument was shown to be false.

There is a very, very strong biblical case for infant baptism, and one-liners like "babies have no sin" aren't going to cut it. You need to try and make a biblical case against it.

Cheers,

K

 

[frumanchu]

So they need salvation then too right?

Absolutely.

 

[TruthMiner]

Absolutely.

And how would a terminally ill infant be saved?

 

[tall73]

You presented an unsupported argument against infant baptism (that infants have no sin), and your argument was shown to be false.

There is a very, very strong biblical case for infant baptism, and one-liners like "babies have no sin" aren't going to cut it. You need to try and make a biblical case against it.

Cheers,

K

But Kepler, you have hardly shown this strong case either.

Here is what I see a strong case for.

a. sinful nature. No problem there, Romans 5, 8, etc. make that clear, as well as the psalms you quoted etc. But this does not mean actual guilt, according to Ezekiel 18.

b. Children sin. Yes, that is undeniable, though finding Bible verses for it might be fun. The question here though is how God treats their sin.

Since James says that the one who knows the good he ought to do but does it not sins, it seems knowledge has something to do with it.
Jesus too makes the point about the Pharisees that if He had not done the miracles among them that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin.

Combine this with texts such as the people in the exodus being divided on age lines ,etc. and it seems that there may in fact be a different standard for God's dealing with those who are ignorant.

Having said that, Romans 1-3:21 makes a pretty good case for all people being under sin. Though even there it was based on their recognition of God's power through creation, and the conviction of their conscience. Small infants are unlikely to understand either.

As to John the Baptist we already pointed out that he was quite the unusual case, having the Spirit from birth. And any manifestation of joy seems more an act of God (and therefore remarkable enough to note) than a true test of the mental skills of children.

And if you take David's musings as completely literal you have quie the dichotomy. He was conceived in sin, but cast on God from the womb. I think David was obviously getting at something else here.

1. He is sinful
2. God is always there with him.

So far the only really convincing argument made that I can see is the household one.

 

[tall73]

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.

Scripture seems to indicate it was from his mother and grandmother reading it to him.

Put these two Scriptures together ....

2Ti 1:5 I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well.

2Ti 3:14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it
2Ti 3:15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

He learned it first from his family, then from Paul, his true father in the faith.


Again though, remember his point. They read it to him from early on, and he is continuing in their steps. After all they were commanded to read them to their children when they lay down, when they get up, etc.

 

[tall73]

And how would a terminally ill infant be saved?

yeah guess those that die in delivery are bound for hell?

They sure got quite the deal there. No life, and then a life of misery.

 

[frumanchu]

And how would a terminally ill infant be saved?

By grace through faith, just like every other sinner.

 

[holeinone]

And how would a terminally ill infant be saved?

By Gods grace, there is no other means of salvation.

 

[Lynn73]

And how would a terminally ill infant be saved?

By Christ's sacrifice mercifully being applied to them, not by dunking in water. Don't you believe God will do what's right by infants? Do you really believe our God will send babies to hell just because they haven't been dunked in water? If He is just He has to apply Christ's blood to them because they are helpless to understand and accept the gospel. It isn't possible. Try witnessing to a baby about Jesus and you're likely to get a gurgl or grin in return from the sound of your voice. Why don't you get that? The God I know will do what's right and loving and just.

 

[TruthMiner]

By Gods grace, there is no other means of salvation.

So God waves his magic wand from heaven does he?

The Bible seems to say faith is a means of salvation. Perhaps you would like to reconsider.

 

[KEPLER]

This analogy may help people understand the more biblical view of Baptism -- the applies most directly to Reformed Theology, but even I as a Lutheran find it useful... Here goes (and apologies to any non-Maericans reading this; just substitute the name of your own country):

My son will come into this world on or about May 28 (8 weeks hence). When he arrives, his mother and I will do two things: we will give him a name, and a get him a social security number. The government of the United States, however, will do something that she and I cannot: it will make him a citizen of this country.

Now, some of you may argue that a child can't be a citizen of the USA until you can recite the Pledge of Allegiance, or the Preamble to the Constitution. At the very least, he needs to know the Star Spanglesd Banner. "Knowledge first, then he can take the oath of citizenship."

"But, what if he grows up to be a communist?! Then his citizenship didn't take!"

Ah, no.

Our country grants citizenship regardless of what future decisions our children may make. We EXPECT them to grow up to be good Americans, knowing that some of them will not. We do not wait around, waiting for them to "make a decision for America".

Some may grow up and stray, and then come back. That's fine. They're still Americans.

Now there are other people who are NOT born here, but who at some time later in their lives wish to come here and become Americans. For whatever reaons, they have been drawn to America and wish to be one of us. Unlike our children who are born here, however, these people do indeed have to learn a few things before they are given citizenship. Get the skinny on the rules and regs, repsonsibilities and rights. Once they've got, they're in.

Now back to my son. As I said, this is not something his mother and I do...it is something the Government does. It's bigger than us.

And just so in our Baptisms....

It is not the mother, or father, or minster who is the acting agent: it is God. God (in the person of the Holy Spirit) is the Baptizer. He grants us our citizenship in heaven. We are adopted. We clothed with Christ. God doesn't wait for a child to reach to mythical age of accountability to inlcude the child in His kingdom.

Yes, a child may stray at a later date. That says nothing about the efficacy of baptism. All it says is that the child turned his back on God. Perhaps he will come back, and Glory be to God if he does. And there is no need to re-baptize him if he does, the first one is still in effect. (In fact, it is a most grievous sin to re-baptize).

Sure, it's only natural that adult converts have to believe first. But a child of Christian parents no more has to express belief in the Triune God than a child in the Old Testament had to express belief in the God of Abraham before being circumcised.

Balderdash!

If God can include a Hebrew child in His covenant at eight days, then so can He include a Christian child in the New Covenant as an infant.

It is God's work; it is God's promise.

Here endeth the lesson.

Kepler

 

[Catholic Dude]

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.

Im not sure how many would go as far as to say its "a meaningless ritual" though many unknowingly believe that. Anyway, if its meaningless then why does it matter if the person understands or not before they get Baptized?

 

[Catholic Dude]

This analogy may help people understand the more biblical view of Baptism -- the applies most directly to Reformed Theology, but even I as a Lutheran find it useful... Here goes (and apologies to any non-Maericans reading this; just substitute the name of your own country):

My son will come into this world on or about May 28 (8 weeks hence). When he arrives, his mother and I will do two things: we will give him a name, and a get him a social security number. The government of the United States, however, will do something that she and I cannot: it will make him a citizen of this country.

Now, some of you may argue that a child can't be a citizen of the USA until you can recite the Pledge of Allegiance, or the Preamble to the Constitution. At the very least, he needs to know the Star Spanglesd Banner. "Knowledge first, then he can take the oath of citizenship."

"But, what if he grows up to be a communist?! Then his citizenship didn't take!"

Ah, no.

Our country grants citizenship regardless of what future decisions our children may make. We EXPECT them to grow up to be good Americans, knowing that some of them will not. We do not wait around, waiting for them to "make a decision for America".

Some may grow up and stray, and then come back. That's fine. They're still Americans.

Now there are other people who are NOT born here, but who at some time later in their lives wish to come here and become Americans. For whatever reaons, they have been drawn to America and wish to be one of us. Unlike our children who are born here, however, these people do indeed have to learn a few things before they are given citizenship. Get the skinny on the rules and regs, repsonsibilities and rights. Once they've got, they're in.

Now back to my son. As I said, this is not something his mother and I do...it is something the Government does. It's bigger than us.

And just so in our Baptisms....

It is not the mother, or father, or minster who is the acting agent: it is God. God (in the person of the Holy Spirit) is the Baptizer. He grants us our citizenship in heaven. We are adopted. We clothed with Christ. God doesn't wait for a child to reach to mythical age of accountability to inlcude the child in His kingdom.

Yes, a child may stray at a later date. That says nothing about the efficacy of baptism. All it says is that the child turned his back on God. Perhaps he will come back, and Glory be to God if he does. And there is no need to re-baptize him if he does, the first one is still in effect. (In fact, it is a most grievous sin to re-baptize).

Sure, it's only natural that adult converts have to believe first. But a child of Christian parents no more has to express belief in the Triune God than a child in the Old Testament had to express belief in the God of Abraham before being circumcised.

Balderdash!

If God can include a Hebrew child in His covenant at eight days, then so can He include a Christian child in the New Covenant as an infant.

It is God's work; it is God's promise.

Here endeth the lesson.

Kepler

 

[Jig]

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.


Kepler

You can not possibly be serious...

You think I'm making an assumption when I say the mental capacity of a newborn infant is not yet devoloped or refined enough to completely understand the world around them.

"Understand" defined (American Heritage): To perceive and comprehend the nature and significance of, grasp.

Now, you're trying to trap me and say infants have a type of faith, though.

Well, faith means a few different things...

"Faith" defined (American Heritage):

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

It is the natural instinct that infants find comfort and trust in their parents. Not in any known truth, value, or idea. Such as faith in Jesus Christ to be their Savior.

Just because an infant can form simplistic trust in a parent, doesn't mean they can hold a more complex faith in a certian truth or idea of something they can not see or touch. (And if they could it would be impossible to comunicate that fact to them.)

Anyhow, you completely jumped over my last scriptural proof in 1 Timothy, where young children and one's household are held seperate from each other...

 

[HisKid1973]

Im not sure how many would go as far as to say its "a meaningless ritual" though many unknowingly believe that.

I have to agree with CD here.. Look at the ethiopian..He wanted baptised right away after he believed.. I'm not saying it was required as he would have died from a roadside robber attack before he was babtiesed. he would have been welcomed to heaven because he heard and believed..pax..kim

 

[tall73]

This analogy may help people understand the more biblical view of Baptism -- the applies most directly to Reformed Theology, but even I as a Lutheran find it useful... Here goes (and apologies to any non-Maericans reading this; just substitute the name of your own country):

My son will come into this world on or about May 28 (8 weeks hence). When he arrives, his mother and I will do two things: we will give him a name, and a get him a social security number. The government of the United States, however, will do something that she and I cannot: it will make him a citizen of this country.

Now, some of you may argue that a child can't be a citizen of the USA until you can recite the Pledge of Allegiance, or the Preamble to the Constitution. At the very least, he needs to know the Star Spanglesd Banner. "Knowledge first, then he can take the oath of citizenship."

"But, what if he grows up to be a communist?! Then his citizenship didn't take!"

Ah, no.

Our country grants citizenship regardless of what future decisions our children may make. We EXPECT them to grow up to be good Americans, knowing that some of them will not. We do not wait around, waiting for them to "make a decision for America".

Some may grow up and stray, and then come back. That's fine. They're still Americans.

Now there are other people who are NOT born here, but who at some time later in their lives wish to come here and become Americans. For whatever reaons, they have been drawn to America and wish to be one of us. Unlike our children who are born here, however, these people do indeed have to learn a few things before they are given citizenship. Get the skinny on the rules and regs, repsonsibilities and rights. Once they've got, they're in.

Now back to my son. As I said, this is not something his mother and I do...it is something the Government does. It's bigger than us.

And just so in our Baptisms....

It is not the mother, or father, or minster who is the acting agent: it is God. God (in the person of the Holy Spirit) is the Baptizer. He grants us our citizenship in heaven. We are adopted. We clothed with Christ. God doesn't wait for a child to reach to mythical age of accountability to inlcude the child in His kingdom.

Yes, a child may stray at a later date. That says nothing about the efficacy of baptism. All it says is that the child turned his back on God. Perhaps he will come back, and Glory be to God if he does. And there is no need to re-baptize him if he does, the first one is still in effect. (In fact, it is a most grievous sin to re-baptize).

Sure, it's only natural that adult converts have to believe first. But a child of Christian parents no more has to express belief in the Triune God than a child in the Old Testament had to express belief in the God of Abraham before being circumcised.

Balderdash!

If God can include a Hebrew child in His covenant at eight days, then so can He include a Christian child in the New Covenant as an infant.

It is God's work; it is God's promise.

Here endeth the lesson.

Kepler

It expresses the view well. A few critiques:

a. You said that there was a strong BIBLICAL basis. But the household evidence and arguments from circumcision are the only ones I see so far that are biblical arguments. Analogies are helpful for undersatanding, but not for evidence.

b. The government makes citizens. But this is a legal right that is granted in the constitution. We see no such indication in print in the Bible. Now you could say in later Christian writings we do. That is of course not authoritative to some, and it is to others. The point is that the goverment says it will do the one, but we have no direct word from God that he will do the latter.

c. Circumcision too is spelled out and specific regulations are given for children. This is again, not the case for baptism.