Infant Baptism

[biblelighthouse]

Did you know that the Nazarene Manual permits infant baptism? I think that is excellent!

I believe the infant baptism argument is very strong when based upon Covenant Theology, and the church’s identity with the Abrahamic covenant. However, in this paper, I took the more “baptistic” approach of just looking up the word “baptism” in multiple portions of Scripture, in order to demonstrate that every method of approach, properly done, still leads to the same Biblical truth.
Here is the article:
http://www.biblelighthouse.com/sacraments/baptism-ot.htm

Let me know your thoughts.


Thank you!
In Christ,
Joseph M. Gleason

 

[gtsecc]

In the Didache, written about 50AD, the Apostles who knew Jesus personally affirm infant baptism.

 

[biblelighthouse]

In the Didache, written about 50AD, the Apostles who knew Jesus personally affirm infant baptism.

Really? That's cool. I have looked at the Didache before, but I don't remember seeing that. I would love to see it, though! Do you have an internet link to that, so I could take a look?

Thank you!

Joseph

 

[5stringJeff]

What on earth is the Didache?

 

[ClementofRome]

In the Didache, written about 50AD, the Apostles who knew Jesus personally affirm infant baptism.

Please quote your source.

 

[ceedaisy]

What on earth is the Didache?

here is the definition I found:

(dĬd´ek&#275 [Gr.,=teaching], early Christian work written in Greek, called also The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Dates for its composition suggested by scholars have ranged from AD 50 to AD 150. Discovered in 1875 by Bryennios, Greek Orthodox metropolitan of Nicomedia, it is an invaluable primary source for the primitive church. The first part is a collection of moral precepts, perhaps based on rabbinical teachings (there are many quotations from the Old Testament); the second portion gives directions for baptism and the Eucharist; the third contains directions for bishops and deacons. The Didache may be of composite authorship. A short work, it has been published in English translation in collections of patristic literature.

 

[Linnis]

My church does dedications which I took as something similar to a Christening. In that ceremony the babies are baptized, and those babies can he baptised again when they are older. I was told by my Senior Pastor it's a promise by the parents, family and church to raise the child the right away and hpefully with the power of God once the child is old enough they will choose a Christian life.

 

[Diane_Windsor]

Really? That's cool. I have looked at the Didache before, but I don't remember seeing that. I would love to see it, though! Do you have an internet link to that, so I could take a look?

Thank you!

Joseph

Didache

I just skimmed through thr Lightfoot translation, and only found this on baptism:

7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize.
7:2 Having first recited all these things, baptize {in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit} in living (running) water.
7:3 But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water;
7:4 and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.
7:5 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
7:6 But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able;
7:7 and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.

Diane

 

[Diane_Windsor]

What on earth is the Didache?

Wikipedia Article on the Didache.

Diane

 

[Fellowship]

Wouldn't infant baptism lead some people into getting a second baptism who may not have known about the first? As an adopted child who just recently got baptised that thought just popped into my head.

 

[Davis]

Our Free Methodist Church does not baptize infants but will do a dedication service. They will not baptize till they are old enough to make there own decision. I agree with this as well.

 

[Linnis]

May I ask why it's bad to be baptised twice?

 

[Fellowship]

May I ask why it's bad to be baptised twice?

Besides tradition, I don't really know.

 

[Davis]

I guess they just want the person to be able to make there own choice. Like I said. They dedicate the child to Christ but we believe that to be born again by the water and spirit that you should make that choice.

 

[biblelighthouse]

May I ask why it's bad to be baptised twice?

It is bad to be baptized twice for a number of reasons:


1) The Bible provides absolutely no support for being baptized more than once. Every time you see it, it is only done once. And Paul said that we all have "one baptism", not two (Ephesians 4:5).

2) Baptism is an outward picture of regeneration. And you cannot be regenerated twice. God regenerates you once, and that's it. If you later prove yourself to be unregenerate, that just shows that Christ never knew you in the first place (Matthew 7:21-23), and that you were never really a true member of His church in the first place (1 John 2:19).

3) Baptism replaces OT circumcision (cf. Col. 2:11-12). And you certainly couldn't be circumcised twice!

4) Church history is powerfully against re-baptism. Throughout both the early church and the medieval church, people were baptized once. It is not really until the anti-Trinitarian Anabaptists of the 16th century came along that you start to see a lot of "rebaptisms" going on. And even then, the only reason they rebaptized is because they thought the first baptism (as an infant) was no baptism at all. So even for them, they treated it as a one-time baptism, rather than as a rebaptism. So as far as I know, there has really been NO major church movement at any time in history that has campaigned for there being more than one baptism.

 

[Davis]

Yeah what he said lol.
I have not been baptized as an adult yet.
I was when I was a child. Do I remember giving myself to the Lord at 4months old? Nope.
Do I consider that as a true baptisim? Nope, because I didnt proclaim to the Lord myself that I was giving myself up to him and having my sins washed away. I agree that its fine to dedicate an infant to God. But baptisim should be a personal choice, not one forced upon you by your parents.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Yeah what he said lol.
I have not been baptized as an adult yet.
I was when I was a child. Do I remember giving myself to the Lord at 4months old? Nope.
Do I consider that as a true baptisim? Nope, because I didnt proclaim to the Lord myself that I was giving myself up to him and having my sins washed away. I agree that its fine to dedicate an infant to God. But baptisim should be a personal choice, not one forced upon you by your parents.

Circumcision had the same meaning in the OT that baptism has in the NT.

And circumcision was given to the infant children of believers then, just as baptism is given to the infant children of believers now.

Baptism, like circumcision, simply demonstrates that you are BORN in covenant with God, by virtue of your parents being in covenant with God. Of course, that DOES NOT mean that you are automatically saved. It just means that you are in covenant with God, and are responsible to be obedient to what God commands in His covenant with you. Break the covenant, and get judgment. Keep the covenant (through faith) and receive great blessings.

All children of Christians were automatically in covenant with God in the OT (cf. Genesis 17). And likewise, the children of Christians are still in covenant with God today.

Thus, it is something that automatically happens to you at birth, because of how GOD has set things up . . . it is not something "forced on you by your parents".

Was circumcision "forced on Isaac by his parent (Abraham)"? Of course not. Abraham was just being faithful to God when he circumcised his infant son.

It is likewise today with baptism.

 

[Fellowship]

It is bad to be baptized twice for a number of reasons:


1) The Bible provides absolutely no support for being baptized more than once. Every time you see it, it is only done once. And Paul said that we all have "one baptism", not two (Ephesians 4:5).

2) Baptism is an outward picture of regeneration. And you cannot be regenerated twice. God regenerates you once, and that's it. If you later prove yourself to be unregenerate, that just shows that Christ never knew you in the first place (Matthew 7:21-23), and that you were never really a true member of His church in the first place (1 John 2:19).

3) Baptism replaces OT circumcision (cf. Col. 2:11-12). And you certainly couldn't be circumcised twice!

4) Church history is powerfully against re-baptism. Throughout both the early church and the medieval church, people were baptized once. It is not really until the anti-Trinitarian Anabaptists of the 16th century came along that you start to see a lot of "rebaptisms" going on. And even then, the only reason they rebaptized is because they thought the first baptism (as an infant) was no baptism at all. So even for them, they treated it as a one-time baptism, rather than as a rebaptism. So as far as I know, there has really been NO major church movement at any time in history that has campaigned for there being more than one baptism.

So what does this mean for me. I had mentioned that I'm adopted and I just recently got baptised about a year ago.

Is this bad if I had an infant baptism and didn't know about it?

 

[Linnis]

I do not understand how God will hold is against someone if they get batised twice. I mean he must know that small children really have no idea what's going on and t's the parents not the child.

I do not even really agree with young children getting baptised I mean how does a child of 6 or 7 understand truly understand any more than a baby?

 

[Discipleship]

So what does this mean for me. I had mentioned that I'm adopted and I just recently got baptised about a year ago.

Is this bad if I had an infant baptism and didn't know about it?

Noone knows the answer to this question. Don't base your feelings or emotions on how others will answer this question, since only God can ultimately know. Ask the Lord in prayer for an answer, He will guide you.