Infant baptism

[Not David]

Ok, but not baptism.

Baptism starts the process because salvation is one.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

Baptism starts the process because salvation is one.

Process???
Please expound upon this.

 

[ripple the car]

This is just me talking.... when one kind of lets go and stops trying to figure out what the Bible says / means on every possible topic for themselves, and begins to trust what the Church has always taught about these things (Mary, baptism, Saints, salvation, what Church is and means...) it's a lot less exhausting. The brain and soul can rest.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

infant baptism is the administration of the covenant sign which in the new covenant baptism represents(colossians 2:11). the precedent for the covenant sign being administered to infants was given to us in genesis 17. the burden of proof would fall on opponents of infant baptism to show that the new covenant abrogated such an administration.

why was Jesus given the covenant sign of circumcision and not baptism as a child? simply because he was born under the mosaic law(galatians 4:4) and john the Baptist's ministry hadn't taken place yet.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

This is just me talking.... when one kind of lets go and stops trying to figure out what the Bible says / means on every possible topic for themselves, and begins to trust what the Church has always taught about these things (Mary, baptism, Saints, salvation, what Church is and means...) it's a lot less exhausting. The brain and soul can rest.

It isn't about what the Church teaches, but rather what the Word of God states.
We are to trust in Jesus Christ.
Not traditions or rituals.

 

[Hank77]

Christ's death and resurrection liberated us from the bondage of death, sin and the devil.

He is also the lamb without spot or blemish sacrificed for the atonement of sin.

Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

 

[Albion]

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?

This must set some kind of record for efficiency around here. You post a reasonable question, then posts #2 and #3 give all that needs to be said in answer to it!

(not withstanding the fact that scores of other posts followed and will continue to follow them)

 

[ml5363]

So is the unbelieving husband but your church wouldn't consider baptizing him. Why not? The wording is exactly the same for both.

Why would he want to be baptized if he wasn't a believer?

Baptism is a picture that we are saved, not that it saves us

 

[ml5363]

Act 2:38 - Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Act 2:39 - “For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

I read this as you and future generations

 

[Tutorman]

"Personal acceptance" isn't the standard that God set for us in the past, and we have no reason to believe that He has changed His mind.

Which makes a good question of just where the idea of "Personal acceptance" came from since the Bible does not have it.

 

[chilehed]

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?

Baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision, and circumcision was normally received as an infant.

Also, what makes you think that the baptism described in the gospels was the first one Jesus had? It doesn't say anything that would imply that, and in fact it's certain that Jesus had had been through the mikveh quite a number of times prior to that.

 

[Tutorman]

Maybe , maybe not.
Regardless it isn't Scriptural.

Where does it say everything must be in Scripture.

 

[Not David]

He is also the lamb without spot or blemish sacrificed for the atonement of sin.

Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

It is talking about Communion.

 

[fhansen]

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?

Jesus instituted and commanded baptism, so it doesn't really matter what age He was baptized; Christians simply followed Him in doing it from then on. And the ancient churches in both the east and west practiced infant baptism from time immemorial. Anything else is pretty much personal opinion.

 

[Not David]

Baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision, and circumcision was normally received as an infant.

Also, what makes you think that the baptism described in the gospels was the first one Jesus had? It doesn't say anything that would imply that, and in fact it's certain that Jesus had had been through the mikveh quite a number of times prior to that.

Good point, baptism is the New Covenant circumcision so it is logical that babies could be circumcised without their consent but adults had to convert in order to be circumcised.

 

[Hank77]

infant baptism is the administration of the covenant sign which in the new covenant baptism represents(colossians 2:11).

Col 2:11 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:
Col 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.

The circumcision of Christ is the circumcision of the heart.
Deu 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

Baptism being an outward sign of that circumcision of the heart, dying and raising up with Christ.

Through faith that is given by God.
How can an infant do this by faith?

the precedent for the covenant sign being administered to infants was given to us in genesis 17.

This is the circumcision made with hands spoken of in Colossians 2. The anti-type of circumcision of the heart.

the burden of proof would fall on opponents of infant baptism to show that the new covenant abrogated such an administration.

First is there a scripture that says the baptism is the anti-type of the circumcision made with hands?

If baptism is the anti-type of circumcision in the flesh why didn't Paul or Peter just say so when there was the big debate about it in Jerusalem in Acts 15. Some of the Jews were saying that the Gentiles must be circumcised. After some discussion James said no to circumcision and gave the few prohibitions. He never said one word about baptism and this certainly would have been the time to do it. "Baptism is the new circumcision." that would have been the answer if it were true.

 

[mark46]

Where does it say everything must be in Scripture.

Much of what Jesus did was not transcribed in Scripture. (see John 20:30-31 and John 21:25)

Much of the teachings were by Jesus to the disciples who pass these teaching on through His Church.

Many affirm that all that is necessary for salvation is contained in Scripture (the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture). That does not mean that all things are in Scripture. No teaching of the Church could contradict Scripture.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Then why didn't Jesus set the example and get baptized when He was an infant?

He set the example by getting baptized. Infant or adult is not the point. That's basically the answer to the OP's question. It does not follow from Jesus being baptized as an adult that infant baptism is somehow invalid.

Please provide examples of infants being baptized in the Scriptures.

You're the one arguing that the validity of baptism is dependent on age, so the burden of Scriptural proof is on you. Nobody here is challenging the validity of adult baptism - you are challenging the validity of infant baptism, and hence the baptism of the vast majority of Christians throughout church history. If you're going to do that, your Scriptural case needs to be very solid; an argument from silence isn't going to cut it.

 

[Hank77]

It is talking about Communion.

Yes it is and it says the the blood of Christ is what gives one remission of sin, not baptism.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Baptism being an outward sign of that circumcision of the heart.

simon the sorcerer as well as ananias and sapphira would refute this idea as they were baptized, but they were made a part of the covenant community based on their profession of faith and their baptism, which is an example of baptism being the anti-type of the circumcision made with hands.

If baptism is the anti-type of circumcision in the flesh why didn't Paul or Peter just say so when there was the big debate about it in Jerusalem in Acts 15.

that debate wasn't about defining the covenant sign but about whether or not a particular part of the mosaic law should continue to be observed. judaizers and the validity of gentile believers were a big issue for the church at that time.