Infant Baptism

[Polycarp1]

Anathema ! Anathema ! Burn him at the stake !

What ? , oh .. wait ... nevermind ... :o

I always thought that Anna Thema would be an excellent name for a lady Christian poster!

 

[Judilyn]

I belive that it is best to be baptised when you are older because then you are making the choice to do it and you are able to understand why it is you are choosing baptism.

 

[Benedicta00]

Infant baptism is not about personal sin, it is about being born with original sin, being cut off with out God's life of grace.

Baptism gives us God's life of grace free and unmerited. We can not earn justification, it is freely given so why can't we give this to infants? Are they not born into the human race which cut itself off from God and in need of reconciliation to him?

 

[MikeMcK]

I have no problem with christening or dedicating a child by sprinkling, but it's not baptism.

As much as I disagree with it, it's a non-essential and something that believers of good conscience have the liberty to disagree over.

 

[water_ripple]

Water Ripple, I think I grasp your point. But if baptism is specifically for the remission of sins after repentance as an adult, then Jesus, not being a sinner, had no sins for which to repent, and hence did not need baptism.

With all due respect this is not my position.

Unless, of course, “repentance” means “turning to God” and not “turning from sin” – a teaching that I rarely if ever see as part of evangelical Protestantism. In that case, Jesus “repented” in the sense that He set His human will to be at one with the divine will (and I know I will have a drove of hostile Orthodox down on me for phrasing that wrong! )., and went for baptism in token of that repentance.[/

QUOTE]

In the case of Jesus being baptized He was the only person who was devoid of sin. God asked this of Him. Jesus complied graciously. He did not doubt this or ask questions. God commanded and Jesus obeyed. In my view this demonstrates to God's followers that even Christ sumbitts to the will of God. In Jesus' days as flesh not only did he resist the temptations of satan, He also submitted to God. I feel that this is an important lesson used to teach us that we must submit to the will of God and resist the temptations of satan. On the same note, God also commands that we repent from wickedness. Submission to the will of God glorifies Him. It makes His followers trust in His will. Jesus sets the examples for us to follow. Jesus set all the examples for us to follow. The bible is filled with His examples.

But if you’ll do me the honor to reread my post on page one of this thread, you’ll see that historically the Church has taught baptism at least partly as an act on God’s part (through the ministry of the clergy acting in His behalf), not as an act of a human being in response to Him. I’d welcome your reviewing that post and then responding to what it says.

I read your post, and this of course makes sense. Never did I say that I think infant baptisim is wrong. I believe parents who have their babies baptized are doing it with good intentions. They are hoping that the child will lead a life pursing God. However, (in my opinion) when a person accepts Christ this is a very deep and spiritual choice. It is God's will that every human come to him by their own choice. He wants this of us. He expects this of us. He has asked for this. It is a clear choice. The freewill of humans is never hindered. It is our job to submit to His will. He is our Father, and infinitly wise in His omnipotence. He is a living God. His life experience greatly out masses that of humans. Sometimes parents just know best even if the child does not fully comprehend.

 

[WesleyJohn]

I have no problem with christening or dedicating a child by sprinkling, but it's not baptism.

As much as I disagree with it, it's a non-essential and something that believers of good conscience have the liberty to disagree over.

I have a major problem with a dedication that uses water. That simply confuses the issue for the parents, on an issue that may already confuse them.

If it is a baptism, use water. If it is not a baptism...then DON'T USE WATER! Sorry...got a little carried away!

Peace,

WJ

 

[Benedicta00]

I have no problem with christening or dedicating a child by sprinkling, but it's not baptism.

As much as I disagree with it, it's a non-essential and something that believers of good conscience have the liberty to disagree over.

Then how do you get to be born again, how would a baby get to be born again if it is not through baptism?

Jesus said, No one goes through unless it is by him and he said that unless you are born again you will not see heaven. He did not say all accept children, they have a pass, so...last time I knew, babies were people to, and they to are in need of Jesus to, in order to see heaven.

 

[water_ripple]

Then how do you get to be born again, how would a baby get to be born again if it is not through baptism?

Jesus said, No one goes through unless it is by him and he said that unless you are born again you will not see heaven. He did not say all accept children, they have a pass, so...last time I knew, babies were people to, and they to are in need of Jesus to, in order to see heaven.

I would have to beg to differ with your position. I have lost a child to miscarriage, and I believe that child's soul is in heaven. Our child may have never been born into the world, but that child definetly had a soul. If a child is considered to be a human being while in the womb and not to be murdered by abortion this child has a soul. While in the womb does a fetus not move? Does a fetus not cry? Does a fetus not dream? (this is a scientific theory) Does a fetus not hear? Does a fetus not sense light? Does not a fetus respond to the emotions of the mother? Does a fetus not suck it's thumb? (yes, and I have two ultra sounds to prove it) With all of these human tendencies does a fetus not have a soul?

 

[Kakadu]

I like this thought, to me personally I think it says that children go to heaven. It leads a good debate too...
2 Sam 12:22-23
22 He answered, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, 'Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.' 23 But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."
where is David talking about going? btw, if you don't know this story I encourage all of you to open your Bibles and read it, it's a goodie. David is a great person to read and think about.

 

[Benedicta00]

I would have to beg to differ with your position. I have lost a child to miscarriage, and I believe that child's soul is in heaven. Our child may have never been born into the world, but that child definetly had a soul. If a child is considered to be a human being while in the womb and not to be murdered by abortion this child has a soul. While in the womb does a fetus not move? Does a fetus not cry? Does a fetus not dream? (this is a scientific theory) Does a fetus not hear? Does a fetus not sense light? Does not a fetus respond to the emotions of the mother? Does a fetus not suck it's thumb? (yes, and I have two ultra sounds to prove it) With all of these human tendencies does a fetus not have a soul?

First I am sorry for your loss.

I think you misunderstood me, I agree with you, we believe that God shows the innocent souls of infants and pre-born children mercy and Jesus himself says to let the children come to him, the kingdom of heaven is theirs, so we believe he provides salvation for them but we can not say this is a theological fact because the bible does not say explicitly what happens to the unbaptized infants, the bible just says that we must be baptized and born again. The infants who are who are perfectly innocent and who have committed no evil themselves, we are free to hold to a pious belief that God in his mercy saves them.

 

[water_ripple]

I like this thought, to me personally I think it says that children go to heaven. It leads a good debate too...
2 Sam 12:22-23
22 He answered, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, 'Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.' 23 But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."
where is David talking about going? btw, if you don't know this story I encourage all of you to open your Bibles and read it, it's a goodie. David is a great person to read and think about.

Much agreed indeed! I think there are very valuable lessons to learn from the story of David's life. David passed judgments and called on rigteousness of God to carry out punishments. After reading the whole II Samuel chapter 12, clearly God is the one true judge. David got what he asked for and more. Justice was served due to his calling upon it. He received his punishment from the same things he asked God to punish others for. This is a very vauable lesson of why it is important for people not to pass judgement on others. Lest the accusors be judged the same.

 

[water_ripple]

First I am sorry for your loss.

I think you misunderstood me, I agree with you, we believe that God shows the innocent souls of infants and pre-born children mercy and Jesus himself says to let the children come to him, the kingdom of heaven is theirs, so we believe he provides salvation for them but we can not say this is a theological fact because the bible does not say explicitly what happens to the unbaptized infants, the bible just says that we must be baptized and born again. The infants who are who are perfectly innocent and who have committed no evil themselves, we are free to hold to a pious belief that God in his mercy saves them.

Perhaps I have misunderstood you. And I understand that the bible says we must be baptized and born again. I never disagreed with this. I never disagreed with infant baptisim. I believe parents and churches who practice this do it with all good intentions. I simply stated in my opinion that accepting Christ into one's life and submitting to the will of God is a deeply spiritual choice. Infants have no choices. Their parents make the choices. Neither in this respect am I condemming infant baptisim. I simply feel that a choice is made by those with more life experience.

 

[WesleyJohn]

Dr. Rob Staples writes:

From the moment of baptism, as the baptized child grows and develops toward maturity, the parents and the Church are under solemn obligation to use every means available to communicate to the young person this Good News: "When you were too young to walk, we carried you in our arms. Likewise when you were too young to choose to be a part of the Body of Christ, we chose for you. We brought you into the fellowship, and you were incorporated into the Body. JNow you will need to decide whether you will choose for yourself that which was chosen for you. We pray that you will choose it and not reject it."

Rob L. Staples, Outward Sign and Inward Grace (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1991), 180.

 

[Philip]

I simply feel that a choice is made by those with more life experience.

This is a choice that we must make every moment of our lives. We do not just submit to God once. We must continually do this.

 

[water_ripple]

This is a choice that we must make every moment of our lives. We do not just submit to God once. We must continually do this.

I most definetly agree with this. We must continually choose to follow the will of God and to submit to Him.

 

[water_ripple]

P.s.
I apologize if this was not projected in my previous statements.

 

[HappyGiraffe]

I made some quick responses to some of the pro-padeobaptists remarks on this thread ( but being new and all ) posted it in another thread on this topic. Im apparently not allowed to link to "external sites" yet however the thread is called " Baptizing babies."

 

[CrossMovement]

Simply question to answer


was Jesus a baby when he got baptized ? No. Did Jesus has been baptized as a baby because people were scared that he might lose is salvation ? No.

 

[PilgrimSteve]

In the Image of Christ
Colossians 3:8-11
​

“Another Gospel?”
​

“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [ man ] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:6-9
​

If the apostle Paul marveled at what he witnessed in the Galatian church two thousand years ago, what do you think his response would be if he examined the professing church today? Paul was amazed that the Galatians fell for a counterfeit gospel so quickly after receiving the true gospel. In fact, he openly doubted that they were truly saved because of the false gospel they now embraced (Gal. 4:11, 20). This tragic situation was so severe that the apostle Paul pronounced a curse on anyone teaching a false gospel, whether man or an angel from heaven.
Someone apparently came to the Galatians after they received the true gospel, and began to teach them that besides believing, they also needed to be circumcised and keep the Mosaic law in order to be saved, thus perverting the true gospel. Today we have many different so-called “Christian” denominations that in one way or another do the same.
One example of such teaching is the Belgic Confession, Article 34 on baptism. According to the Psalter Hymnal used by the Christian Reformed Church, the Belgic Confession is its oldest doctrinal standard. The Psalter Hymnal also states:
​

“The text, not the contents, was revised again at the Synod of Dort in 1618-19 and adopted as one of the doctrinal standards to which all officebearers in the Reformed churches were required to subscribe. The confession stands as one of the best symbolical statements of Reformed doctrine. The translation presented here is based on the French text of 1619 and was adopted by the Synod of 1985 of the Christian
Reformed Church” (underlining added).
​

The error in this document is quite similar to the error in which the Galatians found themselves. Near the very beginning of the document we read these words, “Having abolished circumcision which was done with blood, he established in its place the sacrament of baptism.” Yet no where is this taught in the Holy Scriptures. The proof text used to support their position is Colossians 2:11-12, which states:

“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: 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.”
​

However, please notice that these verses do not say that baptism replaced circumcision. In fact, the circumcision mentioned in these verses is not even physical circumcision, but rather spiritual circumcision. It is a circumcision made without hands, by the faith of the operation of God. Therefore, to say that physical baptism replaced physical circumcision based upon these verses, is to make a very poor and incorrect interpretation that twists the clear meaning of the text. The circumcision mentioned in these verses is what takes place today in the hearts of those who are saved by placing their trust in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Article 34 of the Belgic Confession goes on to proclaim, “By it we are received into God’s Church and set apart from all other people and alien religions, that we may be dedicated entirely to him, bearing his mark and sign. It also witnesses to us that he will be our God forever, since he is our gracious Father.” (underlining added). Again, no where in the Scriptures does it teach that being baptized places a person in the church. The church is not a building made up of brick and mortar, wood and nails, nor is it a denomination that we have joined. The church is the body of Christ. It is made up of individuals who have placed their trust in the Lord Jesus for the salvation of their souls. We gain entry into God’s church and become God’s children by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, not by being baptized as this man-made document and doctrine claims (Jn. 1:11-13, 1 Pet. 2:4-10, Eph. 1:15-3:21).
The same Article 34 teaches baptismal regeneration (salvation by baptism), for it claims that a person is received into the church of God and that God becomes our Father through baptism. Article 34 continues in its teaching of baptismal regeneration as follows: (underlining added)

“In this way he signifies to us that just as water washes away the dirt of the body when it is poured on us and also is seen on the body of the baptized when it is sprinkled on him, so too the blood of Christ does the same thing internally, in the soul, by the Holy Spirit.
It washes and cleanses it from its sins and transforms us from being the children of wrath into the children of God. This does not happen by the physical water but by the sprinkling of the precious blood of the Son of God, who is our Red Sea, through which we must pass to escape the tyranny of Pharoah, who is the devil, and to enter the spiritual land of Canaan.
So ministers, as far as their work is concerned, give us the sacrament and what is visible, but our Lord gives what the sacrament signifies - namely the invisible gifts and graces; washing, purifying, and cleansing our souls of all filth and unrighteousness; renewing our hearts and filling them with all comfort; giving us true assurance of his fatherly goodness; clothing us with the “new man” and stripping off the “old” with all its works.
For this reason we believe that anyone who aspires to reach eternal life ought to be baptized only once without ever repeating it - for we cannot be born twice. Yet this baptism is profitable not only when the water is on us and when we receive it but throughout our entire lives.”
​

This man-made doctrine claims that as a person (many of which are infants) is sprinkled with water at his baptism, so the Holy Spirit does the same thing to his soul with the blood of Christ, and that he is cleansed from his sin and transformed from a child of wrath into a child of God. Honestly friends, you would be hard pressed to come up with a more clear teaching of baptismal regeneration than Article 34 of the Belgic Confession. If the Apostle Paul announced such a severe curse on those that taught that salvation was through circumcision and law keeping, what do you think he would say to those that teach Article 34 of the Belgic Confession as holy doctrine? After all, this document makes almost the identical claim as that of the false teachers in the Galatian church. Article 34 of the Belgic Confession teaches that baptism replaces circumcision and that by it a person becomes a child of God . We can be sure that the Apostle Paul would have cursed anyone teaching this false gospel as well. He was very zealous for the true gospel, the “apostolic” gospel. Let us remember that the Apostle Paul was the one who wrote these words in the book of Romans:

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also the Greek”. Romans 1:16

The true gospel has the power to save every soul that believes it, and a false gospel has the power to doom every soul that believes it. Dear friend, I have not written to offend or incite argument, but out of concern for your soul. Let me ask you, what gospel do you believe? Only the true gospel will save you from the wrath of God.

Visit our web site for more articles and information at http://nlbchapel.org

​

PilgrimSteve

​

 

[HappyGiraffe]

Thanks for that info Steve, enjoyed it.