I don't think it's wrong nor a sin to baptize infants. But is this contradictory to scripture? Can I baptize my infant (when I have kids)?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Infant Baptism
- Thread starter Elife3
- Start date
- Status
themuzicman
Senior Member
Depends on whether you think they're "saved" or not when you do. If so, then you've stepped outside the bounds of "sola fide" as the basis of salvation.
Muz
Muz
Upvote
0
Sola Fide means Faith alone.
There is a split among believers concerning the effect of water baptism. Some, like myself, think it is symbolic and does not accomplish anything in the spiritual realm.
Others think that water baptism is necessary for salvation (unless there was no opportunity). Now as a logical offshoot of this view, some believe babies should be water baptized, thus ensuring the spiritual protection of the infant, so if the baby should die, they would still go to heaven.
I believe such a view is wrong. Now what is consistent with scripture is a baby or child dedication, where the parents make a public pledge to raise the child according to the Law of Christ, teaching him all that Christ commanded.
Now the question arises, what if a child dies before they receive the gospel and place their faith in Christ. Does the child undergo eternal torment in Hell? To avoid this awful outcome, some folks think baby baptism protects the child. But such a view says salvation is not based on grace alone through faith alone, for the baby never heard with understanding the gospel, let alone received it.
A better answer is to say God is a God of mercy and He will receive the child's spirit and deal with the child with perfect justice and mercy. Or in other words, trust in Christ and not a works based scheme of our own.
There is a split among believers concerning the effect of water baptism. Some, like myself, think it is symbolic and does not accomplish anything in the spiritual realm.
Others think that water baptism is necessary for salvation (unless there was no opportunity). Now as a logical offshoot of this view, some believe babies should be water baptized, thus ensuring the spiritual protection of the infant, so if the baby should die, they would still go to heaven.
I believe such a view is wrong. Now what is consistent with scripture is a baby or child dedication, where the parents make a public pledge to raise the child according to the Law of Christ, teaching him all that Christ commanded.
Now the question arises, what if a child dies before they receive the gospel and place their faith in Christ. Does the child undergo eternal torment in Hell? To avoid this awful outcome, some folks think baby baptism protects the child. But such a view says salvation is not based on grace alone through faith alone, for the baby never heard with understanding the gospel, let alone received it.
A better answer is to say God is a God of mercy and He will receive the child's spirit and deal with the child with perfect justice and mercy. Or in other words, trust in Christ and not a works based scheme of our own.
Upvote
0
Concetta
Veteran
Question please...
I understand the discrepancies above regarding infant baptism, but it makes me wonder about the issue of the second baptism... the baptism via the Holy Spirit (different from water baptism). Could it possibly be that, the sola fide is entwined with the (second) baptism of the Spirit?
Is the water baptism out of obedience, like circumcision... because we are told to be baptized... and the spirit baptism out of faith?
I apologize for wording this in such a scatterbrained manner. God bless.
I understand the discrepancies above regarding infant baptism, but it makes me wonder about the issue of the second baptism... the baptism via the Holy Spirit (different from water baptism). Could it possibly be that, the sola fide is entwined with the (second) baptism of the Spirit?
Is the water baptism out of obedience, like circumcision... because we are told to be baptized... and the spirit baptism out of faith?
I apologize for wording this in such a scatterbrained manner. God bless.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2007
- 3,263
- 771
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Baptizing infants does not contradict scripture, since no where in scripture does it explicitly command not to. Some would argue (from sola fide theology) that infants cannot have faith, and therefore shouldn't be baptized (this is most common amongst those who hold to a "symbolic" view of the sacraments).
It goes like this: if baptism is meant as a declaration of one's faith - a public demonstration of an inward change - then one shouldn't baptize and infant as they cannot have made a personal decision for Christ (so it can't be proclaiming anything).
The other side of the coin is, in my humble and biased opinion, more biblical. Scripture no where tells us that baptism is only a symbol. What it says is that we are baptized into Christ's death so that we rise in His resurrection, that baptism is "putting on Christ," and that it is for the remission of sins. A child does not have any sins to remit, but I certainly want my kids to be "in Christ." Christ says "let the little children come unto me," and "you must be born again of water and the spirit" and "whoever does not become as one of little children can by no means enter the Kingdom of God." If God wants little children to come to Him, and says that infants ought to be an example to us, can we deny them baptism? What says that a child cannot be born again of water and spirit?
Another line often taken in favor of infant baptism is that it is the mark of the New Covenant. The mark of the Old Covenant was performed on infants (circumcision) - and so should the mark of the New Covenant.
Additionally, if we are to withhold baptism from infants, we must also withhold it from the mentally challenged. If the ability to hold and coginitively understand sin and faith in Christ is the criteria for being elligable for baptism, then many many people would be left unbaptized. Since most people don't want to go in that direction, baptizing infants is more consistent with the way we approach baptism for other people who haven't reached cognitive maturity. Either that or the criteria would have to be altered (for those wishing to deny infant baptism).
The final biblical claim, although this one is not so solid in my mind as the others (since it requires the acceptance of an un-stated implication of scripture) is that infants were baptized in the book of Acts. There are records of "whole households" being baptized. We may assume that there were children or infants in those households. That would mean the apostles practiced infant baptism and so should we - for the putting on of Christ, the entering into His death/resurrection (the New Covenant).
In Christ,
Macarius
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2007
- 3,263
- 771
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Why couldn't an infant have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? What would disqualify them?
Upvote
0
nobdysfool
The original! Accept no substitutes!
- Feb 23, 2003
- 15,018
- 1,006
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Upvote
0
Hi Concetta, yes much of our confusion concerning baptism is that we are not clear whether we are talking about a water baptism, performed in the physical realm by the will of men out of obedience to God, or spiritual baptism, performed in the spiritual realm, by the Holy Spirit by will of God. So a suggestion you might follow is to ask, anytime you see the word baptism, is to ask yourself, water baptism or spiritual baptism?
Next, lets consider the relationship of faith to baptism. Because we believe in Christ, because we have faith in Christ, we follow Christ's commands, including undergoing water baptism. So water baptism is the result of our faithful obedience to Christ. And this act by the will of men in the physical realm we believe is symbolic of a prior spiritual baptism perform by the Holy Spirit, whereby we are baptized into Christ's death, undergo the circumcision of Christ, and arise in Christ a new creation, born again by the will of God.
John 3:16 tells us that whoever believes shall not perish, but it is God who knows our hearts and accepts our faith in Christ, and then spiritually baptizes us into Christ. So our spiritual baptism into Christ is the result of God crediting our faith as righteousness (Romans 4) and not a result of any work of merit on our part. Thus salvation is by grace alone, we do not deserve or merit salvation, through faith alone, God credits our faith as righteousness, and not by any works which we have done. (Ephesians 2:8-9.)
Scripture tells us that after we are born again, spiritually baptized into Christ, we are indwelt forever with the Holy Spirit. So the order given by scripture is (1) God reveals Himself to us, (2) we affirmatively respond to the gospel, (3) God credits our faith as righteousness if we fully believe from the heart, (4) God spiritually baptizes us into Christ, and then (5) we are indwelt with the Holy Spirit such that we are in Christ and Christ is in us.
So our best answer to the question, "why couldn't a baby be indwelt" is that it possible, for all things are possible with God, but that we can find only support for indwelling after God accepts our faith in scripture. There is a wide gap between what might be because scripture does not preclude something, and what scripture actually teaches. Conservative believers like to think we stick with what scripture actually teaches, and we bash liberal believers for holding to beliefs not taught by scripture, but not precluded by scripture. However, scripture also tells us not to judge another man's (Christ's) servants! God bless
Next, lets consider the relationship of faith to baptism. Because we believe in Christ, because we have faith in Christ, we follow Christ's commands, including undergoing water baptism. So water baptism is the result of our faithful obedience to Christ. And this act by the will of men in the physical realm we believe is symbolic of a prior spiritual baptism perform by the Holy Spirit, whereby we are baptized into Christ's death, undergo the circumcision of Christ, and arise in Christ a new creation, born again by the will of God.
John 3:16 tells us that whoever believes shall not perish, but it is God who knows our hearts and accepts our faith in Christ, and then spiritually baptizes us into Christ. So our spiritual baptism into Christ is the result of God crediting our faith as righteousness (Romans 4) and not a result of any work of merit on our part. Thus salvation is by grace alone, we do not deserve or merit salvation, through faith alone, God credits our faith as righteousness, and not by any works which we have done. (Ephesians 2:8-9.)
Scripture tells us that after we are born again, spiritually baptized into Christ, we are indwelt forever with the Holy Spirit. So the order given by scripture is (1) God reveals Himself to us, (2) we affirmatively respond to the gospel, (3) God credits our faith as righteousness if we fully believe from the heart, (4) God spiritually baptizes us into Christ, and then (5) we are indwelt with the Holy Spirit such that we are in Christ and Christ is in us.
So our best answer to the question, "why couldn't a baby be indwelt" is that it possible, for all things are possible with God, but that we can find only support for indwelling after God accepts our faith in scripture. There is a wide gap between what might be because scripture does not preclude something, and what scripture actually teaches. Conservative believers like to think we stick with what scripture actually teaches, and we bash liberal believers for holding to beliefs not taught by scripture, but not precluded by scripture. However, scripture also tells us not to judge another man's (Christ's) servants! God bless
Upvote
0
truthlvr
Member
- Jul 6, 2007
- 15
- 2
- 61
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Well it is that "un-stated" reference that is shown multiple times throughout the NT that leads me to believe that it does have a lot of significance. When someone chose to believe they and their entire households were baptized, slaves and all. It doesn't say everyone of the age of accountability was baptized.... it says "entire household". I do also believe that it is the sign of the new covenant and the first Christians obviously were adults because Christianity was born in their generation so logically the only reports of baptism would be with the adults. But why discount the fact that once they were baptized the entire household was as well? That IS significant.
There are so many parallels between the old sign of the covenant circumcision and the sign of the new covenant baptism that if you really study them you could conclude one has replaced the other.
Upvote
0
G
GratiaCorpusChristi
Guest
Arrogance on the part of adults who think that we are any more capable of having authentic faith than infants.
Quite frankly, we're all ants. Babies are just smaller ants.
Upvote
0
In John 4:53 we see that a whole household believed in Jesus because they witnessed the healing power of Jesus. So this verse does not support the premise that if one person such as the head of the household believed, the others would be water baptized in the absense of belief. Everyone in the household believed.
In Acts 11:14-17, again we see the pattern of the whole household being exposed to the gospel and believing. So again, everyone saved first believed.
In Acts 16:14-15, we see that the gospel is presented to a group and then one individual is said to have her heart opened to respond to the gospel. Scripture is silent as to whether or not those of her household also believed and therefore were baptized consistent with the pattern of water baptizing those who believed. To use this passage to make an argument either way is to argue from silence, and therefore this passage does not argue either way for or against the idea of baptizing people who have not exhibited either by word or by deed some evidence of belief.
In Acts 16:31 in answer to the question, what must I do to be saved, the answer is believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, you and your whole household. What is not stated is whether by the one person's belief, others will be saved. It is perfectly sound to understand this passage to say if you or your whole household believes in the Lord Jesus Christ, you and/or those of your household who believe will be saved.
In Acts 18:8 again we have the clearly stated circumstance that the individual and his whole household believed. And we have no passage which clearly says folks who did not believe were baptized, so the conservative position is that only believers were water baptized after they demonstrated by word or deed that they were believers.
Now in Romans 16:10-11, we have two very different statements, in verse 10 everyone in the household belong to Christ, but in verse 11, it appears that not everyone in the household belonged to Christ. This is consistent with the idea that believers within the households were water baptized, and not non-believers.
In 1 Corinthians 1:16, Paul says he water baptized the household of Stephanas, but he also says they were among the first converts which indicates a change of mind and therefore supports the inference that they were believers.
In summary there is absolutely no actual support in the entire NT for the idea that anyone, let alone infants, were water baptized unless they demonstrated by word or deed that they believed.
In Acts 11:14-17, again we see the pattern of the whole household being exposed to the gospel and believing. So again, everyone saved first believed.
In Acts 16:14-15, we see that the gospel is presented to a group and then one individual is said to have her heart opened to respond to the gospel. Scripture is silent as to whether or not those of her household also believed and therefore were baptized consistent with the pattern of water baptizing those who believed. To use this passage to make an argument either way is to argue from silence, and therefore this passage does not argue either way for or against the idea of baptizing people who have not exhibited either by word or by deed some evidence of belief.
In Acts 16:31 in answer to the question, what must I do to be saved, the answer is believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, you and your whole household. What is not stated is whether by the one person's belief, others will be saved. It is perfectly sound to understand this passage to say if you or your whole household believes in the Lord Jesus Christ, you and/or those of your household who believe will be saved.
In Acts 18:8 again we have the clearly stated circumstance that the individual and his whole household believed. And we have no passage which clearly says folks who did not believe were baptized, so the conservative position is that only believers were water baptized after they demonstrated by word or deed that they were believers.
Now in Romans 16:10-11, we have two very different statements, in verse 10 everyone in the household belong to Christ, but in verse 11, it appears that not everyone in the household belonged to Christ. This is consistent with the idea that believers within the households were water baptized, and not non-believers.
In 1 Corinthians 1:16, Paul says he water baptized the household of Stephanas, but he also says they were among the first converts which indicates a change of mind and therefore supports the inference that they were believers.
In summary there is absolutely no actual support in the entire NT for the idea that anyone, let alone infants, were water baptized unless they demonstrated by word or deed that they believed.
Upvote
0
R3quiem
Senior Veteran
Jesus made it 100% clear that he wanted babies to be baptized.
Luke 18:15-17
People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."
People brought babies to Jesus for Him to babtize them. His disciples thought it was wrong, but Jesus quickly corrected them and said to not deny them. I don't see how it could get any clearer than that.
Luke 18:15-17
People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."
People brought babies to Jesus for Him to babtize them. His disciples thought it was wrong, but Jesus quickly corrected them and said to not deny them. I don't see how it could get any clearer than that.
Upvote
0
Christianity is the greatest love story of all time.
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him might not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him" John 3:16-17.
The Sacraments are a physical means by which God declares His love for us.
In Holy Baptism we are united to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (See Romans 6) If there is a means to unite my children to Christ, I would gladly do so and I have had my two sons baptized for this reason.
An interesting passage that people often overlook concerning Baptism is I Corinthians 15:29. We are seeing an early Church where people have converted to Christianity, but their loved ones have died before having a chance to hear about Christ. What was their solution? The had themselves Baptized on behalf of their loved ones with the hope they would share in Christ's death and resurrection.
Though this practice is no longer present in any Church that I am aware of, it does show that Baptism in the early Church can be done for someone who is unable to speak for themselves. The benefits of Baptism does not rely on the person, but the love and mercy of a caring God.
In the Old Testament, infant boys were circumcised to show they belonged to the community of faith. In the same way, Baptism is the means by which the Church proclaims someone to be a member of its community of faith in Christ.
I hear that the Eastern Orthodox Church will not only Baptize an infant, it will also give the infant Confirmation and the Eucharist at the same time. The Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist are about God showing his love for us through the death of His Son and the promise of eternal life through His resurection. Since God loves infants and children, why can't they receive these Sacraments?
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him might not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him" John 3:16-17.
The Sacraments are a physical means by which God declares His love for us.
In Holy Baptism we are united to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (See Romans 6) If there is a means to unite my children to Christ, I would gladly do so and I have had my two sons baptized for this reason.
An interesting passage that people often overlook concerning Baptism is I Corinthians 15:29. We are seeing an early Church where people have converted to Christianity, but their loved ones have died before having a chance to hear about Christ. What was their solution? The had themselves Baptized on behalf of their loved ones with the hope they would share in Christ's death and resurrection.
Though this practice is no longer present in any Church that I am aware of, it does show that Baptism in the early Church can be done for someone who is unable to speak for themselves. The benefits of Baptism does not rely on the person, but the love and mercy of a caring God.
In the Old Testament, infant boys were circumcised to show they belonged to the community of faith. In the same way, Baptism is the means by which the Church proclaims someone to be a member of its community of faith in Christ.
I hear that the Eastern Orthodox Church will not only Baptize an infant, it will also give the infant Confirmation and the Eucharist at the same time. The Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist are about God showing his love for us through the death of His Son and the promise of eternal life through His resurection. Since God loves infants and children, why can't they receive these Sacraments?
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2007
- 3,263
- 771
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
It is true - we chrismate (called confirmation in the West) infants. In ancient times, so far as we can tell, there wasn't a separation between the two sacraments. I'm not certain when they became separate in the West. The East does preserve an understanding that they are distinct sacraments, but if someone is baptized, regardless of age, they will be chrismated immediately.
We also commune infants. If they have been baptized, they have put on Christ, they are part of His body, and should partake of His body.
For the record, we also fully immerse infants, refusing to ask the question of "how much water is necessary for a valid baptism?" but instead using the word itself - which means "immersion" - as a guide.
Upvote
0
It sounds to me that your practice is very consistent with the idea of being saved by grace. If we are saved by God's grace and the sacraments of initation are about receiving God's grace, why can't infants receive these sacraments?
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2007
- 3,263
- 771
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I should hope they are consistent with being saved by grace!! What else could save us?
Upvote
0
MarkTwain
Active Member
That's curious. It reminds me of when I was a youngster (maybe 8 or 10 y/o, I forget) and I decided that I wanted to become a Christian. I was watching some guy on TV, a televangelist, and it all made sense, up until where he said that all I had to do was say this prayer: which didn't seem to fit. So, I went upstairs to my parents room, where my parents were, flopped on their bed and asked them if I could be a Christian (not sure why I asked, but that's a whole other story). My mother's response (I remember this quite clearly) was: "You already are".
I'm 30 years old now, and still I don't quite know what she meant by it. I should think that I might have had the same reaction, though, if the televangelist had been a little more orthodox and had said that I needed to be baptised, and I had run upstairs to my parents and asked if I could get baptised, and they had said I already had been.
In other words, it may sound all cute and fuzzy, but that doesn't make it right.
That being said, however, I wonder how my childhood might have been different, had my parents truly believed that I had been "born" into the faith, if the "yoke" had been pressed upon me as a youth.
I'm 30 years old now, and still I don't quite know what she meant by it. I should think that I might have had the same reaction, though, if the televangelist had been a little more orthodox and had said that I needed to be baptised, and I had run upstairs to my parents and asked if I could get baptised, and they had said I already had been.
In other words, it may sound all cute and fuzzy, but that doesn't make it right.
That being said, however, I wonder how my childhood might have been different, had my parents truly believed that I had been "born" into the faith, if the "yoke" had been pressed upon me as a youth.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
