Infant baptism

[ml5363]

No where does Scripture teach that baptism is a sign that we have accepted Christ.

Also, biblically, we don't choose Christ, we are chosen by Christ. We are saved by grace alone, not our works.

Whether an infant or an old person, it's the same: Salvation is by the grace of God alone, through faith, on Christ's account alone. Decisionism is unbiblical.

-CryptoLutheran

If that is the case everyone is a Christian and all will go to heaven

Christ offers his free gift to all...but us having will, can choose to accept and follow him or not...I agree works do not get us to heaven...accepting Christ

 

[ViaCrucis]

If that is the case everyone is a Christian and all will go to heaven

Not everyone is a baptized Christian, no.

Christ offers his free gift to all...but us having will, can choose to accept and follow him or not...I agree works do not get us to heaven...accepting Christ

A work is, by definition, doing something.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Just_a_Christian]

Does Scripture anywhere say that infants are not to be baptized?

And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. - Matthew 18:3
According to Jesus, He says 1st unless we become like little children. So, children must be blamelees or without sin, therefore children have no need for baptism. Except ye be converted (believe) and become as little children (sinless, blameless) this is in complete harmony with the rest of scripture.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. - Mark 16:16
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. -
Acts 2:38
Baptism for children is completely foriegn to Biblical teaching, as is sprinkling or pouring. Pouring was always associated with anointing.

 

[MrRoy]

I have noticed that much of this discussion on the baptism of infants focuses on the silence of the scriptural record regarding infants either way - and how one is inclined to fill it with their individual systems of theology. If you lean more toward continuity, infant baptism and its tie with circumcision becomes the rubric by which the practice is justified. A lean toward discontinuity produces the opposite effect - infant baptism is unscriptural. A missing part of this argument however, lies in the realization that arguments from silence in this instance do not work the same way for each stance. In fact, the Baptist position does not stand on the "does not say that you can/should baptize infants" half of the argument at all. In this respect it must be recognized that Baptist practice is not founded on filling a void in the Bible with anything else - it actually stands in both recognition of and symmetry with the missing witness on this particular topic. How? Because nothing is being done to infants sacramentally. In other words, refraining from a practice that has no scriptural mention is not the same thing as filling this void with something else (like circumcision from the Old Testament), and we need to make this distinction clear in our conversations. Now, filling this void with circumcision may indeed represent a valid way to accomplish paedobaptist goals, but this approach is not at all the ironclad argument it is made out to be. In fact, I have written a book on just this subject ("Circumcised By Water") that would make a rather fruitful addition to this conversation.