Infant Baptism

[Albion]

Some folk are "buried" at sea

But they are not actually buried, not in the sense that our friends want when they compare baptism to an internment six feet under.

 

[MoreCoffee]

But they are not actually buried, not in the sense that our friends want when they compare baptism to an internment six feet under.

Well, that is true.

Those folk want baptism to be all sorts of things that it isn't.

For example they want baptism to be

• by submersion
• in a pool
• of still water
• heated in winter
• with the folk to be baptised clothed in a white garment
• as a sign of something not quite specified
• and as a public testimony of one's faith

They also like to dedicate babies born to couples in their denomination.

Is that a public profession of something?

Anyway, where is all that stuff found in the bible?

I mean; where does the bible specify all that about submersion and pools and heating and white garments worn for baptism and the public testimony of one's faith?

 

[Albion]

Well, that is true.

Those folk want baptism to be all sorts of things that it isn't.


For example they want baptism to be

• by submersion
• in a pool
• of still water
• heated in winter
• with the folk to be baptised clothed in a white garment
• as a sign of something not quite specified
• and as a public testimony of one's faith

They also like to dedicate babies born to couples in their denomination.

Is that a public profession of something?

Anyway, where is all that stuff found in the bible?

I mean; where does the bible specify all that about submersion and pools and heating and white garments worn for baptism and the public testimony of one's faith?

As others have said, if Jesus' baptism were a model for us, we would actually be modeling our baptisms after it. We wouldn't think that being submerged is the only thing about it that is to be imitated.

Quite obviously, we'd use "living water" at the least.

I wonder what percentage of Christians who oppose baptism by any method other than total immersion have themselves been baptised in a river?

 

[MoreCoffee]

As others have said, if Jesus' baptism were a model for us, we would actually be modeling our baptisms after it. We wouldn't think that being submerged is the only thing about it that is to be imitated.

Quite obviously, we'd use "living water" at the least.

I wonder what percentage of Christians who oppose baptism by any method other than total immersion have themselves been baptised in a river?

Probably not too many.

But "living water" means moving and although rivers are the natural place for moving water a pond with inlet and outlet would also be moving water (provided the water is not simply circulated by a pump).

Do you reckon pouring water makes it living?

I've seen baptisteries with inlet and outlet.

 

[Rev Randy]

Peter converted 3000 people in Jerusalem, and they were all baptized. Jerusalem does not have an abundant water supply, and baptizing 3000 people, plus their families, would render the water supply undrinkable for a very long time. Do we really think they were all immersed?

If someone in a desert converts and wants to be baptized, and all that's available is a cup of water, does he have to wait until he can be immersed?

I'd say that cup or even a thimble full could get the job done just fine in that situation.

 

[shturt678]

If you were baptized in the Trinitarian formula, you're validly baptized. No need to get rebaptized, though I supposed you could get dunked if the spirit moves you to do so...

Been trying to get my friend MoreCoffee to raise the bar and grasp that one is baptized in the NAME of the Triune God, ie, makes a big difference, ie, NAME. Maybe you could explain it to him as he does care about the Word and is my friend....one of the few that I have on the threads. Maybe I have to speak Latin to him? Thank you Root of Jesse for your understanding. Just ol' old Jack.

 

[Jipsah]

Tis interesting. I'm eagerly awaiting that "age of accountability" spoken of in the Epistle of Waldo.

No, no, no, it's in the 3rd chapter of Jude.

 

[Rev Randy]

No, no, no, it's in the 3rd chapter of Jude.

Betcha made some look.

 

[Jipsah]

As others have said, if Jesus' baptism were a model for us, we would actually be modeling our baptisms after it. We wouldn't think that being submerged is the only thing about it that is to be imitated.
Quite obviously, we'd use "living water" at the least.
I wonder what percentage of Christians who oppose baptism by any method other than total immersion have themselves been baptised in a river?

I was baptized in Mansker's Creek, just north of Nashville, quite a long time ago, but then I'm a paedobaptist so the fact that I was dunked probably doesn't signify.

During an interval where I was dragooned into attending a Baptist church, I told my kids that I wanted to put some bluegill and maybe a catfish or two into the baptismal tank. It annoyed some folks, who thought I was being sacreligious, but I figure there were probably fish in the Jordan where our Lord was baptized, and i was about 95% sure there were fish, or at least crawdads, in Mansker's Creek.

I had a buddy who joined the Korean Presbyterian Church where I was SS superintendent (he wasn't Korean, but you kinda go where the Lord sends you), and was baptized in due and (fairly) ancient Presbyterian form. He had been brought up Baptist, though, and wasn't sure if sprinkling counted. I suggested that he go down to the Church of Christ a mile or so from his house and see if they'd do the honors. He did, and they did, and everyone went home happy. Any soteriological significance there? I very much doubt it.

I just realized that I've written three paragraphs and haven't actually said anything. I'll stop now. God bless all here!

 

[narnia59]

Babies are unable to make intelligent decisions, except to cry. How can they then made a decision to serve God?

Really? They're smart enough to figure out that when they cry, people respond. That's quite an intelligent decision. But since when is faith a matter of intelligence? Christianity is not a religion exclusive of children (or anyone) because they're not smart enough.

Jesus made a mistake in waiting as long as He did? Why was He not baptized as a child? How come we always know better than God?

John's baptism is not the same thing as Christian baptism. That is why those who had been baptized into John's baptism still had to be baptized into Christ. Different baptisms. Different purposes. Moot point.

 

[narnia59]

Why would you expect to down into and come up out of to mean pouring. Please Please tell me why?

I didn't say going down into the water meant pouring. I simply said you can't claim it means dunking. Going 'down' into the water means simply that -- stepping down into the water. Just like Phillip went 'down' into the water in order to baptize the eunuch. If you're going to claim that it means dunking then you're out of compliance if the person being baptized doesn't dunk themselves as well.

Colossians 2:12 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.
Pouring can not represent such but Being put into the water until one is covered by the water and coming up again does.

Once again, Christ was not submersed into the ground to be buried. So why would you claim Paul means we must be submersed in water to be symbolically buried with him in baptism?

 

[Rev Randy]

Really? They're smart enough to figure out that when they cry, people respond. That's quite an intelligent decision. But since when is faith a matter of intelligence? Christianity is not a religion exclusive of children (or anyone) because they're not smart enough.




John's baptism is not the same thing as Christian baptism. That is why those who had been baptized into John's baptism still had to be baptized into Christ. Different baptisms. Different purposes. Moot point.

I couldn't think of anything smart enough to say

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm still really perplexed why the method of baptism only seems to matter to those who say it's little more than a religious ritual with no real substance anyway.

"Baptism doesn't do anything, but you better do it right."

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Strong in Him]

Hi. My question is just a simple one but with a long backstory.. I was baptized as an infant. I've always held this baptism as a true one based on this: I believe if you are baptized and later on decide to not follow God, your baptism is no longer valid. That being said, I believe in the opposite, if you decide to come to God after being baptized, your baptism is in fact, valid. I've also thought that the babies were dedicated in the Israelites' covenant after 8 days, and entire households were baptized in the New Testament. That being said, the church I belong to now believes my baptism is not valid by noting that in the New Testament, it is 'believe, then be baptized'.

Yes - when they were preaching the Gospel to non believers they urged them to believe in Jesus (accept him) and then be baptised to show they meant this. Going under the water is symbolic of dying to sin; coming out of the water is symbolic of rising to new life
A baptism that was performed in church, by a vicar or clergyman and in the name of God, Father, So and Holy Spirit, is valid, even if you can't remember it. As you rightly say, Jewish boys were baptised at 8 days old as a sign of the covenant with Abraham. They weren't/aren't old enough to have faith or understand, but their parents still took them to have it done.

I have to admit that I was rebaptised when I was at teacher's training college, because I felt I wanted to be; that I hadn't decided on baptism for myself and wasn't even a Christian when I was confirmed. I don't regret it - and even though there were people who taught that I should "renounce" my rebaptism, I never would. I wouldn't do it now, though.

Do I need to be re-baptized?

No.
You are baptised, saved, a Christian and following God. Infant baptism didn't save you; believers' baptism would neither save you nor make you any more acceptable to, holy and loved by God than you are now. It's an outward thing that would keep your church happy.
The only other baptism that's needed, and important, is baptism in the Holy Spirit.

I've always thought my baptism was valid until my pastor said it was not.

Has your pastor ever talked about this with you, listened and answered your questions - or just imposed his teaching? What does he say about infants being baptised when they were only 8 days old? If he is telling you what to do, rather than helping you understand the subject, then that is rather alarming. The things he is saying are not bringing you any peace either - you were quite happy before God in your faith, salvation and baptism, but now he, and others, are disturbing you and making you afraid. That doesn't sound good either; just one step away from "do what we say or you aren't acceptable or a Christian."

I don't believe, either, it is for humans to say whether something done before God and in his name is valid or not.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'm still really perplexed why the method of baptism only seems to matter to those who say it's little more than a religious ritual with no real substance anyway.

"Baptism doesn't do anything, but you better do it right."

-CryptoLutheran

It's a mystery

 

[Strong in Him]

As you rightly say, Jewish boys were baptised at 8 days old

Sorry - I obviously meant they were circumcised.

 

[Elder 111]

God has made a decision to help them. How can men then justify the decision to prevent that?

What are you referring to? We are talking about baptizing babies. What did Jesus do that justify baptizing babies?

 

[Elder 111]

Pick any river you know. Does it have banks or is the water level the same as the surrounding grounds? Banks, right? To go into the river you go down into the water and when you leave it, as Jesus is recorded in Scripture as doing, you have to walk UP the banks. In fact, we always go down when we walk into deeper and deeper water.



Do we "bury" anyone in water? No. It's an analogy, not the same thing, Elder.

To bury-to cover. Cover with water. Not sprinkle or pour. The comments are not about a river but a lake.

 

[MoreCoffee]

To bury-to cover. Cover with water. Not sprinkle or pour. The comments are not about a river but a lake.

Jesus wasn't covered with earth.

He was placed on a shelf in a kind of cave surrounded by air.

Yet it is Jesus' burial - entombment - that saint Paul uses as the link between baptism and death/resurrection through union with Christ.

If you take saint Paul's words at face value then nobody is covered with water (or earth).

 

[Elder 111]

Really? They're smart enough to figure out that when they cry, people respond. That's quite an intelligent decision. But since when is faith a matter of intelligence? Christianity is not a religion exclusive of children (or anyone) because they're not smart enough.




John's baptism is not the same thing as Christian baptism. That is why those who had been baptized into John's baptism still had to be baptized into Christ. Different baptisms. Different purposes. Moot point.

So our baptism is not like Jesus. Where is it stated that "christian baptism includes babies?