Infant baptism

[Adventist Heretic]

Please elaborate on your assessment.

you seem to be starting with a premise that baptism is about choice and repentence. so you seem to be beating your head on the stone of infant baptisim because it does not meet this requirement. Well have ever considered that it is not about either of them. Start with the purpose of circumcision and baptism. What are they therefor, what is there purpose.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

you seem to be starting with a premise that baptism is about choice and repentence. so you seem to be beating your head on the stone of infant baptisim because it does not meet this requirement. Well have ever considered that it is not about either of them. Start with the purpose of circumcision and baptism. What are they therefor, what is there purpose.

Baptism is about choice and repentance.
I'm not beating my head on any stone regarding infant baptism, it is what the thread is about.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Friend, it most certainly is about a choice.
Legal transactions???

no it is not about choice, it may or may not include choice. that is where you are tripping yourself up. In order to go from the kingdom of the world to the kingdom of God you must under go a legal transaction. in the O.T. that ment being circumcised. When you had violated the term of the Covenant and need reconciliation you had to under go another legal requirement, Sacrifice. being out side the covenant ment being out side the blessings and favor of God. circumcision was that way you had a legal right to the blessing that God bestowed on His people. it stands to reason that since baptism replaces circumcision that it should be applied to children as well. This qualifies them for the blessings of the Covenant and transfers then for the kingdom of this world to the kingdom of Christ.

 

[twin.spin]

Just curious for those that believe in infant baptism, sprinkling, etc where did this idea come from since Jesus himself was not baptized until he was around 29-30?

1) Where and why infants ?
A: From Scripture
Matthew 28:19 Infants are a part of "all nations" and, therefore, are included among those Jesus commands to be baptized.

Acts 2:38,39 Infants are a part of: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you,"
--------------- Just as the promise is: The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

Why include infants?
Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Ephesians 2:3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and
following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.

John 3:5,6 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit, Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit."
__________________________________________________

2) The word "baptize" in Greek as used in New Testament times, was not limited to just immersion. It also means "to apply water in various ways: immerse, wash, pour, or sprinkle"

Mark 7:3,4 ---- the last word used in the Greek in 7:4 is κλινῶν (klinōn) ---

• couches for dining
• utensils

There is no reason to believe that the Pharisees and all the Jews immersed the couches as they observed many other traditions.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Baptism follows one accepting Christ as Saviour.
Infants are not capable of making the decision to accept or reject Christ.
Therefore one can conclude that infant baptism wouldn't be legit.

However, Christ is capable of making the decision to accept them, and that is what matters.

 

[anna ~ grace]

However, Christ is capable of making the decision to accept them, and that is what matters.

That is an awesome response.

 

[Alithis]

Where does the Bible say that he was fully immersed?

Where does it say he wasnt ?

Being fact that it says "when he..came up out of the water"

 

[Bruce Leiter]

Just curious for those that believe in infant baptism, sprinkling, etc where did this idea come from since Jesus himself was not baptized until he was around 29-30?

I was christened in the name of the Triune God when I was an infant and immersed fully when I was confirmed at the age of 12. I didn't become a believer until the age of 16.

Official Catholic teachings, I believe, say that their baptism saves a baby. However, Protestant beliefs say that the ceremony doesn't cause a baby to receive God's new birth. So what does it mean, according to Protestants? Well, Reformed Protestants believe that God has made a covenant or personal and communal relationship with his church. For all the reasons and Scriptures on this thread, the two sides of that covenant are God's side and his people's as his community and individuals.

In infant baptism, God is welcoming the infant into his family of faith, and the parents are committing themselves to raising the child in the Christian faith by praying and working for God's salvation
.

 

[Bruce Leiter]

Where does it say he wasnt ?

Being fact that it says "when he..came up out of the water"

We don't know whether John the Baptist sprinkled, poured water, or immersed repentant people. Please don't argue from what the Scriptures don't say.

 

[Alithis]

1) Where and why infants ?
A: From Scripture
Matthew 28:19 Infants are a part of "all nations" and, therefore, are included among those Jesus commands to be baptized.

Acts 2:38,39 Infants are a part of: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you,"
--------------- Just as the promise is: The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

Why include infants?
Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Ephesians 2:3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and
following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.

John 3:5,6 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit, Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit."
__________________________________________________

2) The word "baptize" in Greek as used in New Testament times, was not limited to just immersion. It also means "to apply water in various ways: immerse, wash, pour, or sprinkle"

Mark 7:3,4 ---- the last word used in the Greek in 7:4 is κλινῶν (klinōn) ---

• couches for dining
• utensils

There is no reason to believe that the Pharisees and all the Jews immersed the couches as they observed many other traditions.

actually it is ..baptize simply.means ..to Dip.

 

[notreligus]

baptism is not about having a choice or repentence. in may or may not. include that but it is not about that. It is a legal transaction. That take you from one state and places you into another state.

To the Jews, in the Second Chapter of Acts, it represented their having turned away from the Law and Moses and having turned to Jesus Christ, the Messiah, and the New Covenant.

Acts 2:36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.

 

[Alithis]

baptism is not about having a choice or repentence. in may or may not. include that but it is not about that. It is a legal transaction. That take you from one state and places you into another state.

To repent means to change your mind about which way your living and go Gods way.
Thus repentance always precedes water baptism.
Without repentance its just pretense to get baptised.

For this simple reason alone .Infant baptism is completly irrelevant .
For they can niether repent nor have they knowledgably willfuly commited a sin .

 

[YeshuaFan]

To repent means to change your mind about which way your living and go Gods way.
Thus repentance always precedes water baptism.
Without repentance its just pretense to get baptised.

For this simple reason alone .Infant baptism is completly irrelevant .
For they can niether repent nor have they knowledgably willfuly commited a sin .

True, but still have sin natures, and still sin, but the Cross of Christ has taken away their guilty standing before God!

 

[Not David]

To repent means to change your mind about which way your living and go Gods way.
Thus repentance always precedes water baptism.
Without repentance its just pretense to get baptised.

For this simple reason alone .Infant baptism is completly irrelevant .
For they can niether repent nor have they knowledgably willfuly commited a sin .

It only works with adults. Babies of Christians can be baptized.

 

[Alithis]

True, but still have sin natures, and still sin, but the Cross of Christ has taken away their guilty standing before God!

All may still unwittingly sin ..but absolutley no one who loves JESUS and is born of God willfully knowingly practices Sin .
And no obe born of God continues to practice a sin once they become aware of it they confess it are cleansed and Do NOT continue in it.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

It only works with adults. Babies of Christians can be baptized.

How did you come to this conclusion?

 

[Adventist Heretic]

To repent means to change your mind about which way your living and go Gods way.
Thus repentance always precedes water baptism.
Without repentance its just pretense to get baptised.

For this simple reason alone .Infant baptism is completly irrelevant .
For they can niether repent nor have they knowledgably willfuly commited a sin .

This misses point infant baptism is to the new covanant what circumcision is to the O.T. it is the enterence requirement to the covenant.

 

[Alithis]

This misses point infant baptism is to the new covanant what circumcision is to the O.T. it is the enterence requirement to the covenant.

Nah.it doesnt miss anything .your just trying to defend a man added non biblical tradition.

 

[Not David]

Nah.it doesnt miss anything .your just trying to defend a man added non biblical tradition.

Does that means Old Testament baby circumcision was a man tradition?

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Nah.it doesnt miss anything .your just trying to defend a man added non biblical tradition.

What I have found, in my studies of Church History. That early church was spot on in there theology and practice. They had a biblical rational for whatever they did. However, what the meaning and application they understood and intended have been twisted over time. this is especially true on things like the Sabbath, Sunday debate, Maryology, and the state of the dead, Papal Authority. Having grown up in a church that wanted to be biblical and rejected anything they did not understand as man made as heretical, I find that those who make that argument, lack the biblical training and historical knowledge to make such a bold claim. They never ask the right questions. What is the biblical basis for this action or teaching. What was the context that prompted the need to implement such a teaching. How was it originally applied. What prompted any changes in the original application of the teaching or practice. You are looking at 2000 years of History and is should be approached with humility. Not with an arrogant attitude.