Infant Baptism

[constance]

babbred, I applaud you and your husband's determination.

My sister and her husband both attend a UM church (I'm assuming that's what you are as well) and they just had a child. They do not want to have the child baptized, but would like to dedicate the child to God.

The pastor of the church REFUSES to perform any service but infant baptism and is strongly pressuring them.

Of course, they can do a dedication somewhere else (my husband would be able to do one, for example, at a family function), but she wants to do it IN CHURCH.

The last I heard the pastor might be willing to do a quiet dedication AFTER church with no announcement to the congregants (i.e. still family only).

Constance

 

[Father Rick]

A couple of thoughts regarding infant baptism..

First, the most common argument here against infant baptism is the question of whether a infant's faith is necessary as part of the process. In the OT, we see the pattern of circumcision, whereby a child was circumcized on the 8th day and thereby brought into covenant with God. The decision was made by his parents, on his behalf, as was commanded by God. When the child grew old enough to fully understand what that coventant meant he celebrated his 'bar mitzvah' (literally 'son of the covenant'). This is EXACTLY the same pattern followed by those churches that practice infant baptism then confirmation.

Now there has also been debate as to whether a child can 'ride the coattails' of his/her parents faith/covenant with God. Scripture says:

I Cor. 7:14
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her F73 believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy

so obviously, in at least some capacity the covenant of the parents can extend to their children.

Now, coming from a little bit different slant, consider this-- the argument AGAINST baptizing children states that they should wait until they are old enough to understand salvation before they are baptized. Inherent in this logic is the thought that if for some reason they were to die before they reach some nebulous 'age of accountability' --by that is meant an age in which they can understand (a concept CLEARLY not in scripture)-- then they automatically go to heaven. Are you implying that one does NOT inherit sin and therefore is free of it's punishments (in that case each of us have the ability to live sinless life in our our ability without the work of Christ)? Or are you saying that ignorance of the sinfulness of one's actions makes one free of the consequences of that sin? Or are you saying that ignorance of the need for salvation automatically grants salvation?

This concept of an 'age of accountability' violates MANY different clearly outlined scriptural principles. This principle assumes that there is no such thing as original sin, for it holds a child is free from the consequence of sin until he is old enough to know better. That would imply that all one needs to do is to remain ignorant of sin, and one is granted automatic entry to heaven. If this were true, then the best thing that could happen for the whole world is to destroy all Bibles, all current believers keep their mouth shut, and all those who have never heard the Gospel to never ever hear the message of God's grace and salvation-- for then they would be accountable, but now they have a 'free ride' straight to heaven. Heck, if you really want to go there-- this line of thought could even argue that abortion is the best thing ever invented, since it spares the child all the difficulties of this life and sends them straight to the joys of heaven.

So then, if we truly believe that ALL need the grace of Christ and that one can ONLY be saved through the atoning work of Christ on the cross, then one MUST deal with the issue of the sinfulness of infants. And if one acknowledges their sinfulness, then God certainly was smart enough to provide a means of redemption for them as well... if not baptism as a means of entering God's covenant (as seen in scripture), then what alternative do you propose?

 

[babbred]

And you're saying that unbaptized children go to hell if they die?


As for circumsision, I believe that was a Jewish ceremony. Jesus said that He was the new covenant. The NT teaches that His followers are not to be marked by outward signs, but by professions of faith.

 

[babbred]

babbred, I applaud you and your husband's determination.

Thank you. We don't make a big deal about it; in fact, we haven't told anybody else. But if anyone ever asks us directly, we will simply explain what we believe and why. (And yes, we're UM)

My sister and her husband both attend a UM church (I'm assuming that's what you are as well) and they just had a child. They do not want to have the child baptized, but would like to dedicate the child to God.

The pastor of the church REFUSES to perform any service but infant baptism and is strongly pressuring them.

Of course, they can do a dedication somewhere else (my husband would be able to do one, for example, at a family function), but she wants to do it IN CHURCH.

The last I heard the pastor might be willing to do a quiet dedication AFTER church with no announcement to the congregants (i.e. still family only).

Constance

That's terrible, and I would leave that church if I were your sister. Fortunately, my father is a pastor in a denomination that only does dedications, so dh and I won't have that problem when we have kids.

 

[constance]

In the OT, we see the pattern of circumcision, whereby a child was circumcized on the 8th day and thereby brought into covenant with God. The decision was made by his parents, on his behalf, as was commanded by God. When the child grew old enough to fully understand what that coventant meant he celebrated his 'bar mitzvah' (literally 'son of the covenant'). This is EXACTLY the same pattern followed by those churches that practice infant baptism then confirmation.

If your infant baptism is an exact (i.e. literal) transferrance of the commandment for circumcision, why then do you not always baptize on the eigth day?
Why do you baptize girls?
Why do you baptize those who are not descendents of the Jews?
That is the covenant.

A baptism is an appeal to God for a clean conscience - how can a baby do that?

Mark 16:16, Jesus says the one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.

The Bible says "believe and be baptized" and "repent and be baptized". A baby can do neither. Can your parents repent for you? If so, when does that end? Can my dad repent for me?

The Great Commission says "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit"

Why does the Bible tell us to grow faith FIRST and then baptize?

There is NO instance of infant baptism in the Bible. Surely if it was common, the norm, or even a rarety that God wanted us to follow He would have mentioned it.

Constance

If you weren't really saved when you got in the water, you weren't really baptized, you're just all wet!

 

[Father Rick]

If your infant baptism is an exact (i.e. literal) transferrance of the commandment for circumcision, why then do you not always baptize on the eigth day?
Why do you baptize girls?
Why do you baptize those who are not descendents of the Jews?
That is the covenant.

Actually the connection between circumcision and baptism was Paul's writing

Colossians 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

And as to baptizing on the 8th day, that is actually how the Eastern Orthodox still do it today-- as they have since the first days of the church.

A baptism is an appeal to God for a clean conscience - how can a baby do that?

Show me scripture that baptism is an 'appeal for a clean conscience'.

Mark 16:16, Jesus says the one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.

The Bible says "believe and be baptized" and "repent and be baptized". A baby can do neither. Can your parents repent for you? If so, when does that end? Can my dad repent for me?

The Great Commission says "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit"

Why does the Bible tell us to grow faith FIRST and then baptize?

The pattern of both the Old and New Testaments show that the covenant of God extends to not only those who believe but also to their household.

1 Corinthians 10:1-5

1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

In this passage, ALL of the children of Israel were considered baptized when they crossed through the Red Sea. This includes EVERY Israelite-- which would include those just born. Now, there are several NT passages referring to the WHOLE household

Ac 16:31 - Show Context

30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. 32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway..



Ac 16:15 - Show Context

And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.



1Co 1:16 - Show Context

And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.



Acts 18:7-11

7 And he departed thence, and entered into a certain man's house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue. 8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.

but since some argue that since it cannot be proven from scripture alone that there were any infants in these particular households (regardless of what Tradition teaches us) that these verses must be discarded. The 1 Cor. 10 passage is clear however that ALL Israel was baptized.

There is NO instance of infant baptism in the Bible. Surely if it was common, the norm, or even a rarety that God wanted us to follow He would have mentioned it.

Constance

At the time of Christ (and still today) it was a standard practice for someone who was considered to be ritually unclean to be "mikveh'd" ( a ritual water bath symbolizing spiritual cleansing). This occurred for many different reasons, including but not limited to converting to Judaism from a pagan religion, preparing to enter the temple ( the golden laver), coming to Jerusalem to worship for one of the feasts of Israel, or... a general sign of repentance. This is why John the Baptist was baptizing before Jesus ever started His ministry-- and why the Jews understood the significance of baptism as a sign of repentance/cleansing. It was and still is common practice for the entire family to be "mikveh'd", including infants. This was the norm for those first Christians to whom scripture was written. You say if God wanted it, He would have specifically included it-- but in this case actually the opposite is true. They were ALREADY baptizing infants, so if God had not wanted it He would have prohibitted it.

If you weren't really saved when you got in the water, you weren't really baptized, you're just all wet!

Actually, your own arguments would say that being baptized is the act/sign of repentance/being saved so this statement, while it may be a cute quip, is just that --- nothing but a quip.

 

[SoulFly51]

I do not believe an infant is guilty of anything. There is a difference between a consequence and condemnation. We will all die as a consequence of Adam's original sin, but that does not mean that we are all condemned to hell because of Adam's original sin.

Consider this Scripture:

Ezekiel 18:20
20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
(NIV)

This Scripture plainly says "the son will not share the guilt of his father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son." Explain to me how an infant might sin? This passage makes it clear that the infant is guilty of nothing besides it's own individual sin - so if it's not another person's sin causing the infant to be guilty, how in the world does an infant sin?

Infants can't sin. They are innocent. Tradition and false teaching has caused you to believe a lie as well as to teach it. The sources I've researched have shown that the first recorded case of infant baptism occured long after the apostles established the church.

Infant sin is a joke, and a bad one at that.

 

[constance]

Actually the connection between circumcision and baptism was Paul's writing

Colossians 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Of course Paul makes this connection - this is the circumcision of the heart of which the Prophet spoke.

Jer. 4:4
Circumcise yourselves to the LORD
And remove the foreskins of your heart,
Men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem,
Or else My wrath will go forth like fire
And burn with none to quench it,
Because of the evil of your deeds

Show me scripture that baptism is an 'appeal for a clean conscience'.

1 Peter 3:20-22
who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

The pattern of both the Old and New Testaments show that the covenant of God extends to not only those who believe but also to their household. In this passage, ALL of the children of Israel were considered baptized when they crossed through the Red Sea. This includes EVERY Israelite-- which would include those just born. Now, there are several NT passages referring to the WHOLE household but since some argue that since it cannot be proven from scripture alone that there were any infants in these particular households (regardless of what Tradition teaches us) that these verses must be discarded. The 1 Cor. 10 passage is clear however that ALL Israel was baptized.

The passage actually says, "ALL OUR FATHERS" - so Paul is specifically NOT proving infant baptism here. Regardless of any other meaning this passage may have, you are twisting it.
Additionally, that passage says they were "Baptized into Moses". Tell me how, please, that equates to baptism into Christ, or baptizing babies at all.

At the time of Christ (and still today) it was a standard practice for someone who was considered to be ritually unclean to be "mikveh'd" ( a ritual water bath symbolizing spiritual cleansing). This occurred for many different reasons, including but not limited to converting to Judaism from a pagan religion, preparing to enter the temple ( the golden laver), coming to Jerusalem to worship for one of the feasts of Israel, or... a general sign of repentance. This is why John the Baptist was baptizing before Jesus ever started His ministry-- and why the Jews understood the significance of baptism as a sign of repentance/cleansing. It was and still is common practice for the entire family to be "mikveh'd", including infants. This was the norm for those first Christians to whom scripture was written. You say if God wanted it, He would have specifically included it-- but in this case actually the opposite is true. They were ALREADY baptizing infants, so if God had not wanted it He would have prohibitted it.

mickveh was done for many years before Christ as well - it is a ritual washing depicting being made clean from the gentile world. There is probably little connection - archaelogical evidence shows that early Christian baptisms didn't happen in mickvehs but in running water. Additionally, mickveh is done to oneself, baptism requires another believer.

Also, it is very clear in Matthew 3 that John was about a new tack. He was wandering about, dressed in penetential clothing, and preaching repentance.

If baptism was so normal and commonplace, why then was John called "the Baptist"?

But seriously - if all of the scripture passages say, "Believe and be Baptised" or "Repent and be Baptised" - why would you ignore that in favor of some loosely based second century tradition...reliant more upon ceremony than scripture.

Why were John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nanziansus, Basil the Great, and Jerome all baptised as adults? They all had at least one Christain parent...

Where do I think infant baptism came from? A priest, facing the bereaved parents of a dying infant...terrified that their child was going to go to Hell. A little bit of magic to help them sleep at night. Didn't really hurt much....did it?

Constance

 

[babbred]

I do not believe an infant is guilty of anything. There is a difference between a consequence and condemnation. We will all die as a consequence of Adam's original sin, but that does not mean that we are all condemned to hell because of Adam's original sin.

Consider this Scripture:

Ezekiel 18:20
20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
(NIV)

This Scripture plainly says "the son will not share the guilt of his father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son." Explain to me how an infant might sin? This passage makes it clear that the infant is guilty of nothing besides it's own individual sin - so if it's not another person's sin causing the infant to be guilty, how in the world does an infant sin?

Infants can't sin. They are innocent. Tradition and false teaching has caused you to believe a lie as well as to teach it. The sources I've researched have shown that the first recorded case of infant baptism occured long after the apostles established the church.

Infant sin is a joke, and a bad one at that.

Thank you so much. My father has been a pastor for most of my life. I remember as a child, a couple in our church had their baby die in the delivery room. It happened so fast (there had been complications with the birth) that there was no way my father could have gotten there in time to baptize it. The thought that a loving God would condemn that precious baby to hell is one of the most repugnant things I've ever heard.

 

[SoulFly51]

You're quite welcome.