Infant Baptism, why do you reject it?

[nephilimiyr]

So we can presume that you totally reject the idea of getting married in a church by a pastor?

I don't care what you might presume.

If you want to ask me a question on marriage then please do ask it, but make it clear.

Ok, LOL, that is a question. Can the two people being married make the decision themselves?

No I don't believe two people have to be married by a pastor. I am married and was married in a court house. I don't mean to shock you but God is the center of my marriage and has blessed it just as much as anybody being married by a pastor in a church. In fact, my wife and I will be celebrating our 22nd aniversary this May.

 

[nephilimiyr]

I know I'm doing alot of editting, I'm sorry, but I'm watching the nascar race and my man Matt Kenseth is running in second with 5 laps to go!!!!

Another edit:
DANG IT! Kenseth came in second. Oh well, that's ok because he actually did pretty darn good considering that he had blown the engine he qualified in, which means he had to start at the very end at the start of the race with his back up car. Still, if he would've won it I would be jumping up and down right now and screaming!

Kimber1 where are yah?

 

[TruthMiner]

I don't care what you might presume.

If you want to ask me a question on marriage then please do ask it, but make it clear.

Ok, LOL, that is a question. Can the two people being married make the decision themselves?

No I don't believe two people have to be married by a pastor. I am married and was married in a court house. I don't mean to shock you but God is the center of my marriage and has blessed it just as much as anybody being married by a pastor in a church. In fact, my wife and I will be celebrating our 22nd aniversary this May.

I just hope you don't ever suggest anyone else should do so. There are no examples of this in the Bible. You should perhaps also contest this with your pastor.

The doctrine of the Trinity is not stated in the Bible either. It must be inferred. Perhaps you could try the same approach on this baptism matter and see what happens.

 

[nephilimiyr]

I just hope you don't ever suggest anyone else should do so. There are no examples of this in the Bible. You should perhaps also contest this with your pastor.

The doctrine of the Trinity is not stated in the Bible either. It must be inferred. Perhaps you could try the same approach on this baptism matter and see what happens.

Blah, blah, blah. If I wanted to live a religious life I would've stayed Roman Catholic.

Actually, it's you religious types I try to shield non-believers from...

 

[KEPLER]

I know I'm doing alot of editting, I'm sorry, but I'm watching the nascar race and my man Matt Kenseth is running in second with 5 laps to go!!!!

NASCAR??!! I thought you said you were non-religious!

 

[nephilimiyr]

NASCAR??!! I thought you said you were non-religious!

LOL, I didn't say I wasn't passionate about things.

I'll also jump and shout when worshipping my Lord and King Reguardless of how many religious people think it is disrespectful.

 

[HisKid1973]

Careful Bro. that is just what got David in trouble!

 

[nephilimiyr]

Careful Bro. that is just what got David in trouble!

Brother, actually it was Michal, who scolded him, that recieved the reproof from God.
Otherwise, anyone who may over do it will always get into trouble with people, believers and non-believers alike.

 

[FallenDaughter]

Why do some groups hold to the historical Christian teaching of infant Baptism while others do not?

The Catholic Church has always held to this important teaching as have groups like Anglicans, Lutherans and Calvinists but for some reason other groups reject it.

If you reject it, on what grounds do you reject it (especially considering other groups accept it)?

because Christ was baptised as an adult, and baptisum is a step that shows you are following Christ. A baby hasn't that ability to accept Christ so is still innocent.

 

[HisKid1973]

Brother, actually it was Michal, who scolded him, that recieved the reproof from God.
Otherwise, anyone who may over do it will always get into trouble with people, believers and non-believers alike.

Yes, she thought he was exposing himself becausing he was leaping for joy of the Lord..I was just getting your leg about being seen as foolish in mans eyes..shalom..kim

 

[HisKid1973]

because Christ was baptised as an adult, and baptisum is a step that shows you are following Christ. A baby hasn't that ability to accept Christ so is still innocent.

Yes there was a reason that He was baptised at that age and the the dove coming..pax..kim

 

[Oblio]

Yes there was a reason that He was baptised at that age and the the dove coming..pax..kim

A that reason was ?

 

[Borealis]

because Christ was baptised as an adult, and baptisum is a step that shows you are following Christ. A baby hasn't that ability to accept Christ so is still innocent.

What, should John have baptized Jesus while both were in infancy for you to accept infant baptism? There are historical records of infants having been baptized in the earliest days of the Church. If it was accepted by the Apostles, as it clearly must have been since otherwise people wouldn't have done it, why wouldn't you accept it yourselves? Because there's no verse that specifically states that children are to be baptized?

Let's run down a brief list of things that aren't in the Bible, shall we?

Let's see...the Trinity, that's obvious. No mention of the Trinity in the Bible. You can infer it, but you can also argue against it.

The ban on polygamy. Nope, not there. There's nothing that suggests men can marry more than one woman. Common sense dictates he'd be a fool to want to in the first place, but it's not in the Bible, so...

What else? Abortion. Not condemned in the Bible. Guess all you sola scriptura pro-lifers better get off the bandwagon, because the Bible doesn't clearly support your position.

The Biblical table of contents? Nope, no chapter of any book in the Bible tells us what is and is not sacred Scripture. Neither do any Gospel authors identify themselves; why do we say that the authors were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, when none of them are identified as such in Scripture?

Any others? Marriage was already pointed out. Nothing in the Bible states that God wants you to get married by a priest in a church or chapel. Besides, it's one of those nasty Catholic unbiblical sacraments, so you definitely don't want to get involved with that, do you?

Let's get a little more specific, shall we? Who can tell me, without referencing anything but Scripture, who Jannes and Jambres are? Paul mentions them as opposing Moses. Anyone? The Bible doesn't say, but obviously Paul's audience knew who they were, or he wouldn't have used them as an example.

What about the Jewish Festival of Lights? Jesus followed that, as did all Jews of the time. Not mentioned in Scripture, so what was Jesus, of all people, doing following a 'man-made' tradition?

Do you sit down when you go to Sunday service? Why? That's not biblical, is it? Celebrating Christmas and Easter aren't biblical, are they? Altar calls aren't biblical, are they? The word 'Bible' isn't in the Bible either, is it?

What you're really saying is, 'it has to agree with my beliefs and have some plausible backing in Scripture for me to accept it.' Welcome to sola scriptura, the reality version.

 

[nephilimiyr]

What you're really saying is, 'it has to agree with my beliefs and have some plausible backing in Scripture for me to accept it.' Welcome to sola scriptura, the reality version.

That's not what sola scriptura is or means and I wish you Catholics would stop misrepresenting it every chance you get even though many sola scriptura proponants here have time and time again explained it.

Sola scriptura is a means of norming, it does not mean one can believe whatever they want or on however they feel.

FallenDaughter, please disreguard Borealis's post.

 

[Mskedi]

I'm glad that I was baptized after I made the decision to do so, and should I have children, I would also want them to want to be baptized before actually being baptized.

That said, I have nothing against those who choose to baptize their children as infants. The child still needs to confirm his or her baptism later, so the same steps are taken, just in a different order.

 

[NHB_MMA]

If you reject it, on what grounds do you reject it (especially considering other groups accept it)?

Excellent question!

I don't reject it. It was clearly practiced in the early church, so apparently some theologians today think they know something the early church leaders taught by the apostles did not figure out.

The diminishing significance of baptism is one of my complaints against many Protestant denominations. It amazes me how so many say the verses suggesting the necessity of baptism are "misinterpreted" by the churches mentioned in the original thread. Yet, somehow they supposedly found that the Bible says I'm sinning if I play Texas Hold'Em. Nothing like focusing on the essentials (much sarcasm intended).

 

[Mea Culpa]

An infant has no idea what he/she is doing in that situation. When they get older and are old enough to decide for their own, they may reject Christianity all together and their baptism means nothing.

Baptism by water, in John 3 where Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus, is about natural birth. There are two births, the natural (water) birth, and being born again (spritual).

I know many people who are baptised as infants who live life like any other non-Christian person, who are not saved and in fact think that they have a free ticket to heaven when in fact they just had water sprinkled on them and their eternal position is still in question.

When one becomes a Christian, their life changes, Christ indwells, and His life is reflected in the life of the new believer. Being baptised in water doesn't do anything but show outwardly the inner reality of spiritual birth in Christ Jesus.

 

[NHB_MMA]

An infant has no idea what he/she is doing in that situation. When they get older and are old enough to decide for their own, they may reject Christianity all together and their baptism means nothing.

True.

Baptism by water, in John 3 where Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus, is about natural birth. There are two births, the natural (water) birth, and being born again (spritual).

Well yes, some do say that the references to the essential nature of baptism do not refer to water baptism. For the sake of the unbaptised (myself included as of this very minute) I hope they're right because they are numerous verses that describe the eternal consequences if they're not right. To me, take the Bible literally unless you have a clear indication otherwise.

I know many people who are baptised as infants who live life like any other non-Christian person, who are not saved and in fact think that they have a free ticket to heaven when in fact they just had water sprinkled on them and their eternal position is still in question.

Well, those individuals don't understand the faith they were brought up in. I know of a friend that was raised Catholic but hasn't been to church in over 15 years and really just went through the confirmation because his family insisted on it and he thinks the Pope decides who goes to Heaven. There will always be those that misunderstand their faith...because they weren't real interested in it to begin with. My golfing buddy was taught the doctrine of eternal security and cheats on his wife regularly with no remorse, because he feels he'll go to Heaven regardless.

Anyway, I don't know of a church that practices infant baptism without a confirmation or membership process at a later date when such a person is clearly able to understand it and embrace the church teachings.

When one becomes a Christian, their life changes, Christ indwells, and His life is reflected in the life of the new believer. Being baptised in water doesn't do anything but show outwardly the inner reality of spiritual birth in Christ Jesus.

Your position is a popular one. You may be right, but again my point is, after reading much in the New Testament, what if you're not right? And remember it was clearly practiced in the early church.

 

[winsome]

Yes there was a reason that He was baptised at that age and the the dove coming..pax..kim

The reason was that John's Baptism was a baptism of repentance, different from Christian Baptism.

While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul passed through the interior regions and came to Ephesus, where he found some disciples. He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?” They replied, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” Then he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They answered, “Into John’s baptism.” Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied—altogether there were about twelve of them. (Acts 19:1-7)

John's baptism was insufficient and of a different character, only applicable to adults who needed to repent. So Paul immediately had them baptised as Christians before he could lay hands on them (Confirmation) to call down the Holy Spirit.

It comes back to original sin, when man lost the grace of original holiness, and the control of the soul's spiritual faculties over the body. The devil acquired a certain domination over man. Baptism reverses this and restores the channels of grace, transfers us from the kingdom of Satan to the Kingdom of God.

Why deny this to infants? Of course they still have to make a personal committment to Jesus and build up a personal relationship. This is a lifetimes work. But why set them off in the spiritual life still crippled by the effects of original sin?

 

[FaithInTheWord]

Why do some groups hold to the historical Christian teaching of infant Baptism while others do not?

The Catholic Church has always held to this important teaching as have groups like Anglicans, Lutherans and Calvinists but for some reason other groups reject it.

If you reject it, on what grounds do you reject it (especially considering other groups accept it)?

First, it should be noted that no where in the New Testament a new born baby Baptized at any time.
Second, Baptismal is a form of free will, where one comes to the Lord with understanding and acceptance. A new born baby can’t make a choice like that, and is presumed innocent in the eyes of God. Though we are all born into sin, a child has no knowledge of such things and is innocent until such time of awareness of sin.