Infant Baptism

[SoulFly51]

I apologize to Macrina if I upset her with my comments in her baptism thread found here: http://www.christianforums.com/t1344946-my-first-baptism-any-pastorly-advice.html

There are some things that I cannot keep quiet about and have a good conscience.

I strongly disagree with the practice of infant baptism simply because Scripture does not support it, and I would be more than happy to point out a couple of things to you.

I will start this discussion with a quote from the other thread.

In that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptised. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God - he and his whole family.
Acts 16:33-34

Thank you for posting this Scripture. The book of Acts is one of my favorites.

Wakeup2god, your stance on the issue is that Acts 16:33-34 supports the baptism of infants because it says "immediately he and all his family were baptized."

So because it says the jailer's entire family was baptized, this means that there were infants that were baptized in the household? Where does it say the jailer had infants in his household? It doesn't say that at all, and based upon the rest of the Scriptures regarding baptism it is apparent you are making a false assumption.

Notice the last part of the Scripture - "he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God - he and his whole family."

Notice that - who does it say believed? "He and his whole family." Let's get serious here - how many of you have heard an infant confess belief in Christ? How many of you have heard an infant confess anything? I've never seen an infant that can speak. To use this Scripture to support infant baptism is ridiculous.

If you can give me a specific example of infants being baptized in the Bible, I will change my stance.

Was this before or after a six week course on baptism to establish if they really understood it? (sorry for the sarcasm).

I am not implying that a person go through a six week course to understand baptism. My point is that a person should be able to understand what they are doing.

Peter said 'repent and be baptised'. My concern would be with the parents not with the childs age. Have they repented like the jailer?

Have you ever met an infant in need of repenting of it's past sinful life? Do infants sin at all? Think about it.

If so they can dedicate their children to God, if this means by baptism thats cool. Maybe some churches would do it differently but I'd personally like to see more family units/households being saved.

So you're saying that I can be saved by my parents faith? Where in the Bible does it say that salvation is granted to an entire household because one or two members of that household have faith? The Bible is clear about how we are justified in the eyes of God. We are justified by our own faith - not another's faith, but a faith of our own.

And where in the world did you get the idea that people should be baptized who you aren't even sure believe? It sure wasn't from the Bible - what you are claiming to support is a doctrine of man and was never supported much less taught by the Lord's apostles. How do you know whether someone believes in God or not unless they confess to you their belief in Him? I've never seen or heard of an infant confessing a belief in God or confessing anything for that matter - infants can't talk!

What in the world are you guys doing?!? You're practicing something that is not commanded by the Word of God, and later in life when these children become adults you are telling them they don't need to be baptized! This is a direct contradiction of the Word of God. What do you value more, Scripture or tradition?

If you haven't ever though about this issue - I pray you do.

 

[wild01]

Hey Wes, would it still upset you if Macrina's denom. followed the exact same practice that it does now, but refered to the act as a child blessing and dedication rather than calling it a baptism?

Also is the actual immersion what saves us, or are we saved by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ?

 

[Macrina]

I'm afraid I'm swamped right now and don't have time to get all my thoughts down on the screen. Aside from my personal perspective offered in the other thread, I can refer you to this thread in the Reformed forum, in which the original poster explains a line of thought which is very similar to my own.

 

[SoulFly51]

Hey Wes, would it still upset you if Macrina's denom. followed the exact same practice that it does now, but refered to the act as a child blessing and dedication rather than calling it a baptism?

It wouldn't bother me if they did it to infants and called it baptism. What bothers me is the fact that churches that practice infant baptism do not baptize those same infants when they become adults citing that they have already been baptized.

Also is the actual immersion what saves us, or are we saved by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ?

We are justifed in the eyes of God by our complete faith in Jesus. As we learn from James 2, complete faith is accompanied by action (like obediance).

Obedience is proof that we have a relationship with God:
1 John 2:3-5
3 We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands.
4 The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him.
(NIV)

 

[wild01]

It wouldn't bother me if they did it to infants and called it baptism. What bothers me is the fact that churches that practice infant baptism do not baptize those same infants when they become adults citing that they have already been baptized.





We are justifed in the eyes of God by our complete faith in Jesus. As we learn from James 2, complete faith is accompanied by action (like obediance).

Obedience is proof that we have a relationship with God:
1 John 2:3-5
3 We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands.
4 The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him.
(NIV)

Hmm so what if they started refering to confirmation as baptismal confirmation? would you be happy then?

 

[SoulFly51]

Baptismal confirmation? Seeing as the first baptism doesn't do anything (in the Bible belief precedes baptism 100% of the time), why not just call it baptism.

The point I was making in my other post is that I do not believe it is sinful to baptize/sprinkle infants, but at the same time I do not believe it to do anything spiritually speaking (it simply gets the baby wet and probably makes them cry too).

Call it what you will, but immersing an infant is not a Scriptural baptism. Is it an immersion? Yes. Is it Scriptural? No.

 

[constance]

I was baptized at 8. Both my father (born a Presbyterian, rebaptized at 30) and my husband (born a Catholic, rebaptized at the age of 30) never had the chance to decide to be baptized. My husband (a minister) went through throes of prayer and crying trying to decide whether his infant baptism was enough or whether he should be baptized by immersion as an adult. He was *tortured* by it.

I believe infant baptism to be a heresy, and I feel it's a great shame that it wasn't addressed in the reformation. The arguement being that Baptism replaced Circumcision (OT Covenant vs NT Covenant) and thus was proper to be done to children. Also, this was the logic against doing it twice (and the reason for persecuting anabaptists).

The problems that I have with infant baptism are:

1) Infant baptism isn't meant to remove sin
2) Infant baptism is not a statement of the person's faith, Adult (or coherent child) baptism requires a step of faith, gospel says "Believes and is baptized" or "Repent, and be baptized"
3) Baptism needs to be a choice you make - if you can't do it more than once, and if someone does it for you, how can you choose to do it?

There are zero records of infant baptism in the Bible.

There are zero records of infant baptism in the Apocrypha.
There are zero records of infant baptism up until the second century.
Any other documents we should look at?

Three "households" are documented: Acts 16:33 (Paul's Jailer) Acts 16:14–15 (Lydia) 1 Corinthians 1:16 (Stephanas).

How likely is it that all three of these households had no children? Dunno. But the BIBLE DIDN'T SAY BABIES. Even if it did, it'd be an exceptional instance - so why do some denominations dunk them all?

Thank God for the anabaptists.
Schleitheim Confession (1527) “Baptism shall be given to all those who have been taught repentance and that amendment of life and who believe truly that their sins are taken away through Christ, and to all those who desire to walk in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and be buried with him in death, so that they might rise with him; to all those who with such an understanding themselves desire and request it from us; hereby is excluded all infant baptism...”

Constance

 

[benedictine]

As a member of a church that practices infant baptism(and will be a priest one day) CONFIRMATION is the fullfillmet of Baptism.

 

[SoulFly51]

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to when the practice of infant baptism began (since it wasn't taught or supported by the apostles).

 

[browncow]

I know I'm running the risk of getting an angry response here, because these subjects are always quite personal, but just thought I'd add a couple of comments.

Historically we can't say when the practice of baptising infants began but it was certainly in the early church. It is only in more recent times that the practice has been questioned which would suggest that the early church (and even for much of the history of the church) infant baptism has been practiced without any problems.

However it is most certainly true that the Bible does not tell us to baptise children and links baptism with faith. On the other hand the Bible does not prohibit infant baptism (which we might have thought it would if it is true that the early church is doing it and it is wrong). Also there are times in the Bible where it is suggested that the faith of one has a covering effect on another (e.g. 1 Corinthians 7:14). While a child is too young to make a choice for itself about a great many things the parents make the choices for it. As an infant the faith of the church is the important factor and that the child be brought up within the church. It is also true that Jesus talks about the kingdom belonging to children; the very children, it is often claimed, cannot make a choice of faith until they are older.

My own feeling and practice is this: I have studied the arguements in depth over a long period of time and I can see why some churches choose to baptise infants. However I feel that the image of a water baptism is so powerful that it is best reserved until the person can make their own profession of faith.

As for re-baptism: I do not think it is right to be re-baptised (sends a message to God that what He did originally was not quite good enough) however the question must be, "was the first so called 'baptism' a true baptism?" My practice is to put this question to the individual concerned and ask them to consider it. If they beleive that the baptism was valid then it is wrong to re-do it; if they think the baptism was not a true baptism then there is no problem. I know this sounds like a cop out but it is important that the person feels they have been baptised.

Ultimately I don't think whether you have been through a baptism ceremony one time or multiple times or even no times will keep you out of heaven. This smacks of legalism which I cannot subscribe to. Christ judges the heart and if a baptism has taken place with the heart being right (first or multiple times) then God will judge us on this.

Baptism is a "right" handed down by Jesus to us so that we can mark our discipleship and not as a ticket into heaven.

Chris

 

[kingzjewel]

So many people I know have been baptised as babies and dont know if it really happened or remember it. it's always "i dont know, i think i got baptized when i was a baby". what significance does that have to them now? none. they dont remember it and arent even sure it happened. i have yet to meet a person who has been baptised as a baby and either remembers it or calls it a significant day in their lives. seems to me that the way the Bible teaches for us to be baptised is the most correct way. We follow the steps Jesus took. no record of Him being baptised as a baby was ever written. only the record of Him being baptised by John and that is the road we are to follow. i believe in the non-water dedication of a baby. we did that with our child. it holds the parent accountable for raising that child in the ways of God. i dont believe in all the catholic rites of passage and i have firm basis as to why i dont...but the main fact in all this is that there is no need to baptise an unknowing child who will then have to hash out what they need to do later in life and end up being tortured about the right decision to make.

 

[benedictine]

What is that firm basis?

 

[kingzjewel]

i hardly think this is the place to debate doctrine.

 

[gizmo03]

I am not sure how I feel about infant baptism. I am not going to say it's wrong and people shouldn't do because I know people that are very dear to me that believe in infant baptism and I don't want to say anything against their beliefs or anyone elses'.

I was just always raised that it needs to you yourselves decision to be baptized after salvation. At our church we have what is called Baby Deication, where the parents bring their baby infront of the church and it's just them saying that are going to raise their child with proper Godly principles and in a church family.

But I guess I may be one to lean more towards Infant baptism if I knew peoples reasoning behind it and what they base it on.

 

[SoulFly51]

I've done some research into it and the first recorded case of infant baptism took place more than 100 years after the establishment of the early church.

Baptizing babies is not something the apostles advocated or practiced.

 

[babbred]

I, too, have very strong feelings about this issue. As I mentioned in the other thread, I am enrolled in a pastoral program for a denomination that allows infant baptism. My DH is also a minister in this denomination. We have both pledged that we will NOT perform this ceremony. Wes hit the nail on the head when he said that "families baptized" does NOT mean there were infants in those families. Over and over again, the bible shows a pattern of adults confessing, repenting, believing, then getting baptized. A baby cannot do any of those things.

And no, I do not believe it's "just a sign of grace." In our denomination, the infant baptism ceremony says flat out that now the baby is receiving the grace of Christ. I consider that heresy. I would have no problem if it were merely a "dedication" ceremony. I was raised Southern Baptist and that's what they do. The parents pledge to raise the child in the knowledge of Christ and the church pledges to support them. There's no mention of the child receiving grace. My parents had my sisters and I dedicated, and DH and I plan to do that to our children someday.

I'm totally ignorant of Catholic doctrine, so if there's any Catholics reading this, please, don't be offended. However, I heard the Catholics invented this because they believed that babies couldn't go to heaven if they died without it. Something about if the baby died without being baptized, then it would go to limbo or something. Again, this is just what I've heard. If anybody knows anything about this, then please, enlighten me.

 

[reformedfan]

It's a sign of the covenant, replacing circumcision. It's not heretical to baptize a baby, it's good & proper & was done by the NT church & by the disciples.

 

[babbred]

Can you provide bible verses that say "and they baptized infants"? I don't mean the "baptized families" verses. I mean "infants." And the NT church also had no problem with slavery.

 

[constance]

It's a sign of the covenant, replacing circumcision. It's not heretical to baptize a baby, it's good & proper & was done by the NT church & by the disciples.

So you've got proof of that and will share it with us? The earliest documentation of infant baptism that I've seen is from around the year 200, well after the last NT scriptures were written.

It's a sign of the covenant, replacing circumcision.

Where does the Bible says that?
Jesus *is* the Covenant. He gave us the Cup of Communion as a sign of the new Covenant.

Constance

 

[constance]

James 3 says:
Be not many of you teachers, my brethren, knowing that we shall receive heavier judgment. For in many things we all stumble. If any stumbleth not in word, the same is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body also. Now if we put the horses' bridles into their mouths that they may obey us, we turn about their whole body also. Behold, the ships also, though they are so great and are driven by rough winds, are yet turned about by a very small rudder, whither the impulse of the steersman willeth. So the tongue also is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how much wood is kindled by how small a fire! And the tongue is a fire: the world of iniquity among our members is the tongue, which defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the wheel of nature, and is set on fire by hell.

It might only seem like an innocent baptism...what can it hurt?

***every time*** you do something because it's "tradition" and not because it's biblically based...you run the risk of leading someone astray.

Think on it - YOU are the toungue of the Body of Christ. YOU will receive a heavier judgement because by your small impulses YOU can steer the entire body incorrectly.

Constance