Infant Baptism, why do you reject it?

[Oblio]

but for the most part Baptism to many protestants is looked at as a believers entrance into the church, and one cannot be a believer until one understands what they believe.

Which leads to the question (and there are other questions too): how much and of what type and quality of this belief (actually faith) is necessary to enter the Church ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

MY opinion...

but for the most part Baptism to many protestants is looked at as a believers entrance into the church, and one cannot be a believer until one understands what they believe.

To which was responded...

Which leads to the question (and there are other questions too): how much and of what type and quality of this belief (actually faith) is necessary to enter the Church ?

In the opinion of this Protestant...

I see Baptism as passive on the receivers part (I slept through the whole thing), but active on God's part. I see the receiver as a receiver, not as to giver. It's a Sacramental rather than Ordinance view. I see it as a "Means of Grace."

I believe that we become a part of His church when we become a Christian and therefore His child. I believe that happens by grace through faith in Christ. So, it's faith in Christ that is "necessary" for "entrance" into His church.

Check out my Testimony thread (especially the "Theology of the Cross" post) for more on this. There's a link in the signature line of this post.


MY $0.01...


Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[nephilimiyr]

MY opinion...




To which was responded...





In the opinion of this Protestant...

I see Baptism as passive on the receivers part (I slept through the whole thing), but active on God's part. I see the receiver as a receiver, not as to giver. It's a Sacramental rather than Ordinance view. I see it as a "Means of Grace."

I believe that we become a part of His church when we become a Christian and therefore His child. I believe that happens by grace through faith in Christ. So, it's faith in Christ that is "necessary" for "entrance" into His church.

Check out my Testimony thread (especially the "Theology of the Cross" post) for more on this. There's a link in the signature line of this post.


MY $0.01...


Pax.


- Josiah


.

I totally agree, here's the next question then
Does God give infants faith in Christ so that they may be baptised and enter into His Church?

 

[MikeMcK]

And BTW, you'd do well not to excuse her as a "child"...she's smarter, better educated and more biblically literate than you and I put together, pal.

Cheers,

Kepler

Speak for yourself. I'm able to study those verses out and see that they have nothing to do with the meaning she's poured into them.

And, for the record, a sixteen year old is a child.

 

[KEPLER]

I did make reference to the fact that I see no evidence in scripture for the command that infants be baptised, this is true but it is not the main reason why I reject infant baptism. I reject it because all reference's to baptism shows one has to make a conscious choice to be baptised...no one in scripture is ever forced to be baptised or is unknowingly baptised. In fact, all the times when the Bible is talking about Baptisim, the belief in Jesus Christ is always present first in the people first before they are baptised. It's part of the definition, first you believe, then you are baptised.

Circular reasoning. Try again.

 

[KEPLER]

[/size][/font]Great! Now let's see how consistent you are with this principle...

Oops! Where do you find this in the Bible?

WELL DONE!

 

[Oblio]

So, it's faith in Christ that is "necessary" for "entrance" into His church.

Which still leaves the question: How much faith ?

If one must have a rational faith to enter the Church, then are children outside the church ? Mentally retarded ? Autistic ? Alzheimers ?

Just how much faith is required, and how do you determine if the faith one has is sufficient ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Which still leaves the question: How much faith ?

IMO...

"Faith the size of a mustard seed..."

I'm very uncomfortable with an emphasis on the quantity of our faith rather than the sufficiency of Christ's work. It's the object of faith that's important, not the quality of faith. The question, IMO, is not "how much" but "in whom?"

But even here, I see that faith travels not so much from the head to the heart as from the heart to the head.

Just how much faith is required, and how do you determine if the faith one has is sufficient ?

Luther called this, "A terror of the conscience." IMO, faith in Christ is sufficient because Christ is.


MY $0.01...


Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[Borealis]

None of us here were engaging in such tactics. We were asked why we reject infant baptism in which we gave answer. I have not attacked catholic doctrine here, I'm only showing why I don't agree with it.

Many people here attack Catholic doctrine by falling back on the sola scriptura argument. This isn't the only thread on GT.

And what if I don't come back to your church? Go ahead and say it, I'll go to hell or my chances of going to hell have greatly improved, you won't be the first Catholic to have told me this and you won't be the last.

What, now I'm supposed to be God? I don't make judgements on who's going to Hell. That's God's job, not mine. Sorry, but I'm not going to satisfy your martyr complex.

And it isn't in the Bible, we are right about that.

Entire households were baptised. That includes children.

 

[jckstraw72]

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

people always say it doesnt meant that, but in the real world that is what it turns out to be. theres only a few thousand Protestant denoms, right?

 

[MikeMcK]

people always say it doesnt meant that, but in the real world that is what it turns out to be. theres only a few thousand Protestant denoms, right?

Yes, there are hundreds of Christian denominations. So what?

 

[mark75]

Maybe I can shed some different flavor into this conversation. This is a long thread; I have seen a lot of great info and I have seen much misinfo as well. I'm going to make a couple of propositions about this whole discussion from a minister and seminary prof's point of view.

First, regarding salvation. The Scriptures leave no doubt as to what constitutes salvation. We have passages like Eph 2:8-9 to tell us that salvation is through faith w/o any kind of works, lest anyone be able to boast. (i.e. We can't say "I was saved because I was baptized," or "because I kept all the commandments," etc.) Then Eph 2:10 and practically most of the book of James tell us that because we are saved, there should be good works as proof of that salvation. We are further told in Rom. 1:16 that the power of Gospel is what saves. It is the object of our faith described in Eph. What is the Gospel? 1 Cor. 15:1-4: "that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. There is no mention of baptism here regarding the Gospel "by which you all are saved," (v.2). Also, we can't leave baptism in the formula for salvation, otherwise we have to do conclude that Jesus couldn't take the theif on the cross to Heaven with Him because he hadn't been baptized.

So what is baptism? Here's a tid-bit I haven't seen on this thread, unless I've overlooked it somewhere. Let me to go back to the translation of the Scriptures into English - the Authorized Version and then the King James Version. If you look at what happened in history during the Reformation, we see that James I of England, having been denied a divorce by the Pope, decided to separate from the Pope and declare himself to be head of the church of England (later the Anglican) via the Edict of Divine Right. However, there was a sizeable faction of Separatists and Protestants in England which really wanted James to go even further and denounce many of the practices of the Catholic Church, one of the big ones being infant baptism. (BTW, don't take my word on this, look it up and research these things for yourself. I felt the same way the first time I heard all this as a student.) One of the things King James did to try and satisfy the masses was to give them a translation of the Bible in English. A problem arose when the translators encountered the Greek word "baptizo" and wanted to know what to do with it. The problem was that the word meant "to dip, dunk, immerse, etc" but the practices of the Anglican church were effusion, or pouring/sprinkling. So to avoid controversy, the King instructed the translators to simply transliterated the word over into English and not define it in their translation, and that is how it has been since that time because people used the word so much that it because a borrowed word from the Greek. The point of all this is that first of all, the actual meaning of the word is "to dip or immerse" which is not what the practice of infant baptism consists of.

Next, we must consider the motive of the baptism. Those who practice infant baptism do so because they think it removes the original sin of the infant so that if it should die in infancy, it will go to Heaven. That's a rather interesting view, because if our original sin could be removed by baptism, then there would be no sins committed later in life; afterall, that is why we are sinners, or committers of sin, we have original sin, or a predisposition to sin from birth - however you wish to word this. David tells in Ps 51 that from the womb, he was conceived in iniquity. Also, if we didn't bear the sin of Adam, we also wouldn't bear the consequences of his sin, which is death. But last time I checked, everyone is still dying.

There are a couple of different contexts in which the word "baptizo" occurs in Scripture. First, there is the literal context, such as the Phillipian jailer (who, incidently would have been Roman, not Jewish, since the city of Philipi was predominantly a city of retired Roman soldiers and officials.), and the Ethiopian eunuch. Second, there are passages which speak of being baptized of the Holy Spirit, in which the word is being used more in the "immersion" sense. The Holy Spirit is often seen in Scripture as the agent of cleansing and purification, such as Titus 3:5. This is clearly an allusion back to the same principle used in the Tabernacle and later the Temple. There was a golden laver outside the Tabernacle proper where a priest had to wash and purify himself before he could enter the Tabernacle Proper to perform his ministerings. As to the order of salvation and baptism, there should be no question from Scripture. In every place where we read of someone converting another, that person is baptized immediately after conversion.

Now, I still haven't touched on the fate of the infant who dies. Perhaps the best illustration of this is in David's comment regarding the first child he had out of wedlock with Bathsheba in 2 Sam. 12:23 - "I will go to him, but he will not return to me." I don't think anyone would contend that David was speaking of hell. From this it seems that God, who btw has chosen not to reveal explicitly this doctrine, gives a special grace to children who are not yet old enough to comprehend their sinfulness.

I'm enjoying reading the conversation and look forward to more responses on this topic. Good posts here. God Bless.

Mark

 

[KEPLER]

First, regarding salvation. The Scriptures leave no doubt as to what constitutes salvation. We have passages like Eph 2:8-9 to tell us that salvation is through faith w/o any kind of works, lest anyone be able to boast. (i.e. We can't say "I was saved because I was baptized," or "because I kept all the commandments," etc.) Then Eph 2:10 and practically most of the book of James tell us that because we are saved, there should be good works as proof of that salvation. We are further told in Rom. 1:16 that the power of Gospel is what saves. It is the object of our faith described in Eph. What is the Gospel? 1 Cor. 15:1-4: "that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. There is no mention of baptism here regarding the Gospel "by which you all are saved," (v.2). Also, we can't leave baptism in the formula for salvation, otherwise we have to do conclude that Jesus couldn't take the theif on the cross to Heaven with Him because he hadn't been baptized.

Mark,

This is good as far as it goes. My initial critique is that you have made "faith" into a necessary cause rather then merely the instrumental cause which is what Scripture, of course, says. You covered yourself by using the correct wording "saved through faith" (i.e., you did not use the erroneous wording saved "by" faith, which so many Baptists often do! )... What I'm getting at, of course, is that we are saved "by Grace, through Faith". As I said, I'm not accusing you of denying this, and I doubt that you do. But leaving out the "by Grace" part is very dangerous, as I'm sure you know. Now then...

So what is baptism? Here's a tid-bit I haven't seen on this thread, unless I've overlooked it somewhere. Let me to go back to the translation of the Scriptures into English - the Authorized Version and then the King James Version. If you look at what happened in history during the Reformation, we see that James I of England, having been denied a divorce by the Pope, decided to separate from the Pope and declare himself to be head of the church of England (later the Anglican) via the Edict of Divine Right. However, there was a sizeable faction of Separatists and Protestants in England which really wanted James to go even further and denounce many of the practices of the Catholic Church, one of the big ones being infant baptism. (BTW, don't take my word on this, look it up and research these things for yourself. I felt the same way the first time I heard all this as a student.) One of the things King James did to try and satisfy the masses was to give them a translation of the Bible in English. A problem arose when the translators encountered the Greek word "baptizo" and wanted to know what to do with it. The problem was that the word meant "to dip, dunk, immerse, etc" but the practices of the Anglican church were effusion, or pouring/sprinkling. So to avoid controversy, the King instructed the translators to simply transliterated the word over into English and not define it in their translation, and that is how it has been since that time because people used the word so much that it because a borrowed word from the Greek. The point of all this is that first of all, the actual meaning of the word is "to dip or immerse" which is not what the practice of infant baptism consists of.

This is problematic for two reasons:

1. The Eastern Orthodox immerse their infants. They have always immersed their infants (three times, in fact!) .So, how does your argument work against them?
2. Your "histoircal" argument is incorrect. In Mark 7 and Luke 11, the word "baptizo" is rendered "wash". The key thing in Mark 7 is not the pharisees, but the pots, pans and the table. Do you really think they picked up a table and immersed it in the kitchen sink (or wash tub, whatever!)??? That's how the KJV translators solved the problem. When it referred to people, they used "baptize"; when it referred to inanimate objects, the used "wash". They were wrong to do so.

Next, we must consider the motive of the baptism. Those who practice infant baptism do so because they think it removes the original sin of the infant so that if it should die in infancy, it will go to Heaven. That's a rather interesting view, because if our original sin could be removed by baptism, then there would be no sins committed later in life; afterall, that is why we are sinners, or committers of sin, we have original sin, or a predisposition to sin from birth - however you wish to word this. David tells in Ps 51 that from the womb, he was conceived in iniquity. Also, if we didn't bear the sin of Adam, we also wouldn't bear the consequences of his sin, which is death. But last time I checked, everyone is still dying.

Hmmm...well there are all sorts of problems here. Where should we start?

1. Neither Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, nor Roman Catholics believe in "once saved, always saved," so your crtique really doesn't apply.
2. Presbyteraisn who baptize infants do believe in OSAS (although they define it differently (and better!) than the Baptists). BUt in their theology, infant baptism is rooted in inclusion in the New Covenant, in which case, your crtique does not apply to them either (although for differenet reasons).

I can only conlude Mark, that you do not understand the doctrine of Baptism as the EO, RC, Lutherans Presbyterians define it. (For that matter, I would further say that you also don't udnerstand baptism as the Scriptures define it...)

There are a couple of different contexts in which the word "baptizo" occurs in Scripture. First, there is the literal context, such as the Phillipian jailer (who, incidently would have been Roman, not Jewish, since the city of Philipi was predominantly a city of retired Roman soldiers and officials.), and the Ethiopian eunuch. Second, there are passages which speak of being baptized of the Holy Spirit, in which the word is being used more in the "immersion" sense. The Holy Spirit is often seen in Scripture as the agent of cleansing and purification, such as Titus 3:5. This is clearly an allusion back to the same principle used in the Tabernacle and later the Temple. There was a golden laver outside the Tabernacle proper where a priest had to wash and purify himself before he could enter the Tabernacle Proper to perform his ministerings. As to the order of salvation and baptism, there should be no question from Scripture. In every place where we read of someone converting another, that person is baptized immediately after conversion.

GNOSTICISM ALERT!!!!

I am sorry my friend, but this division between "water baptism" and the "baptism of the Spirit" is an entirely gnostic division. At it's root, this intepretation is DENYING that God can or does work through physical means. In other words, in separating the Spirit from the Water, you also deny the God worked through a serpent on a stick, a burning bush, a bog box with a couple of graven images on it, a pillar of cloud, lamb's blood on a lintel, a baby in a manger...

OOPS! That last on'e a biggie!

Here's a bible study lesson for you: Look at HOW MANY TIMES in the Scripture, the Holy Spirit works through water:

1. At creation (Gen 1)
2. At the flood
3. At Horeb
4. At the Jewish sacrifices
5. The "living water" of Zech 14, which is the "water" the flowed from Christ's side.

Tie it all up with what Peter says:

For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.

We are also deluged with water and perish in our baptisms (Rom 6), but the Spirit gives us new life in Christ.

And lastly, Acts 10 is the governing Scripture on this issue: Yes, God is capable of imparting the Holy Spirit outside the use of water, but Peter thought it was very strange, and immediately set about getting water to baptize the new believers. (And, FWIW, this takes care of the "thief on the cross" exclsusion as well).

Now, I still haven't touched on the fate of the infant who dies. Perhaps the best illustration of this is in David's comment regarding the first child he had out of wedlock with Bathsheba in 2 Sam. 12:23 - "I will go to him, but he will not return to me." I don't think anyone would contend that David was speaking of hell. From this it seems that God, who btw has chosen not to reveal explicitly this doctrine, gives a special grace to children who are not yet old enough to comprehend their sinfulness.

Strawman argument. Neither Eastern Orthodox, nor Roman Catholic, nor Lutheran, nor Presbyterian theology "decides" what happens to an unbaptized infant. They are entirely in the hands of God. In essence, (speaking for the Lutherans) we would agree with you 100% on this, so it must not be an argument against infant baptism...?

I'm enjoying reading the conversation and look forward to more responses on this topic. Good posts here. God Bless.

Mark

And may Christ's Blessing be upon you, as well.

K

 

[Lynn73]

I don't deny that God can and does work through physical means but I find no biblical evidence in looking at the whole of Scripture that He saves people by water baptism when the Bible clearly says "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." One can be water baptized yet not truly believe. I'm proof of that.

 

[TruthMiner]

I don't deny that God can and does work through physical means but I find no biblical evidence in looking at the whole of Scripture that He saves people by water baptism

"Baptism saves you" - 1 Peter 3:21.

No, he does not change his mind in the next breath.

when the Bible clearly says "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."

Baptism IS how you put faith in Jesus.

One can be water baptized yet not truly believe. I'm proof of that.

No one said baptism makes you believe Lynn.

 

[Lynn73]

"Baptism saves you" - 1 Peter 3:21.

I doubt this could be meaning water baptism. If that were so, you could baptize anyone and the water would make them Christian. It tells us plainly in the passage that it isn't talking about the putting away of the filth of the flesh (water).

Baptism IS how you put faith in Jesus.

No, it isn't. When you get baptized, you're already supposed to have faith in Jesus. Being put under water won't magically instill faith in someone. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. You don't get faith by going under water. Baptism is how you obey Christ after coming to have faith and believe in Him.

No one said baptism makes you believe Lynn.

Well, you can't be saved without believing, therefore water baptism won't save someone who doesn't have a true faith in Christ. Water baptism didn't give me true faith in Christ, that happened years later. If you say that baptism saves and yet say that baptism doesn't make you believe, then you're saying that you can be saved and not believe in Christ and that contradicts Scripture.

 

[TruthMiner]

I doubt this could be meaning water baptism.

Read the preceding context. Peter is specifically talking about WATER.

If that were so, you could baptize anyone and the water would make them Christian.

No, that is an incorrect presumption.

It tells us plainly in the passage that it isn't talking about the putting away of the filth of the flesh (water).

1. Do you think Peter said "Baptism saves" and then changed his mind?

2. What are you proposing "putting away the filth of the flesh" means?

No, it isn't. When you get baptized, you're already supposed to have faith in Jesus.

No, up to this point you only believe things about Jesus to be true.

Being put under water won't magically instill faith in someone.

No one ever said it did.

Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

That's right.

You don't get faith by going under water.

No one ever said it did.

Baptism is how you obey Christ after coming to have faith and believe in Him.

Scripture please.

Well, you can't be saved without believing, therefore water baptism won't save someone who doesn't have a true faith in Christ.

You seem to think your faith is a thing that causes you to be saved. It isn't.

Water baptism didn't give me true faith in Christ, that happened years later. If you say that baptism saves and yet say that baptism doesn't make you believe, then you're saying that you can be saved and not believe in Christ and that contradicts Scripture.

No it doesn't. It contradicts your misinterpretation of Scripture.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Circular reasoning. Try again.

No, there's nothing wrong with the reasoning I used.

How do you see it as circular?

 

[jckstraw72]

Yes, there are hundreds of Christian denominations. So what?

hte point is obvious. no matter what you say about Sola Scriptura in theory, in the real world it equates to personal interpetations of the Bible.

 

[MikeMcK]

hte point is obvious. no matter what you say about Sola Scriptura in theory, in the real world it equates to personal interpetations of the Bible.

And this is a very common misunderstanding of what Sola Scriptura is. It doesn't lead to "personal interpretations".

While the Bible does teach priesthood of the believer, the believer is still bound to orthodoxy and the essential teachings of Christianity as spelled out in the historic creeds and confessions of historic Christianity.

The fact that there are so many different denominations, and yet, all are united on the essentials of the faith shows that there is not a multitude of "personal interpretations", but unity on those essential teachings of scripture and liberty on what Paul called "disputable matters", just as the Bible says it should be.