• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured is my infant baptism enough?

Discussion in 'General Theology' started by Neostarwcc, Oct 5, 2017.

  1. Neostarwcc

    Neostarwcc Eternal life is a free gift. Amen. Supporter

    +2,304
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Good point. I probably will consider it.
     
  2. iwbswiaihl

    iwbswiaihl Newbie

    +251
    Christian
    Married
    It is not pointless, ask yourself what scripture you have been shown to prove you need not to have your first believer's baptism. Ask yourself how getting sprinkled when you were a baby had anything to do with you making a profession of faith. Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Did you exercise faith, did you believe that He God and is a rewarder of you because you diligently sought Him? Answer those questions and do what you believe is right, but at least have scripture to back it up. It your decision. May the Lord lead you in the right decision.
     
  3. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +10,842
    Christian
    Married
    In that case, John was just making stuff up.

    without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins -- Hebrews 9
     
  4. iwbswiaihl

    iwbswiaihl Newbie

    +251
    Christian
    Married
    Has He ever went against what He has revealed in His word? He says, I change not! My word does not return unto Me void, it will accomplish that for what I send it forth, and will prosper where I send it to prosper. If we have no scripture to prove a doctrine, why would we think He would do something that would make His own word void? Ps 119:11 thy word have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against You. 2Cor5:7 we walk by faith and not by sight. Ps 119:09 How can a young man cleanse his way, by taking heed according to Your word. Ps 119:105 Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path. Instruction from the Lord will always agree with His word, Matt 24:35b heaven and earth will pass away but My word will never pass away.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2017
  5. bekkilyn

    bekkilyn Contemplative Christian Supporter

    +3,115
    United States
    United Methodist
    Celibate
    US-Others
    If God extends his grace to an infant when that infant is baptized, do we have the right to inform him later that he was wrong to do it? That he made a mistake and that he has to do it all over again in the manner we believe is appropriate?

    I agree that at some point we do need to make a declaration of faith, but the baptism itself isn't the actual declaration. The declaration is the declaration. John 3:16
     
  6. iwbswiaihl

    iwbswiaihl Newbie

    +251
    Christian
    Married
    Just show me the scripture is all I am asking that supports infant baptism. Several have reasoned but no one has shown 1 verse that mention a baby getting baptized. I am resting from this topic unless someone has scripture. Thanks
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2017
  7. bekkilyn

    bekkilyn Contemplative Christian Supporter

    +3,115
    United States
    United Methodist
    Celibate
    US-Others
    Plenty of people already posted scripture about entire households getting baptized. Households oftentimes include infants. If any of those people made their own declaration of faith at a later time, they wouldn't have gotten re-baptized because the baptism part was already done. They would have simply confirmed/declared their faith and went on their way spreading the good news.

    There is just no reason to get it re-done unless you need to do it for practical reasons, such as to join a particular church that requires their own baptism. It's not going to make you any more or less baptized in Christ than you already were though.
     
  8. ~Anastasia~

    ~Anastasia~ † Servant of God † Supporter CF Senior Ambassador

    +15,377
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    Concerning re-baptizing being a sin -

    Well I had to ask after about an hour of searching and not finding what I had remembered reading.

    I got several answers but this one was the most direct so far, from the Apostolic Constitutions. Anyone interested to read, please keep in mind that at that time there was only the Church, and various heretical groups, and that is who is being talked about.

    Apostolic Constitutions, book 6, ch 15:
    "Be ye likewise contented with one baptism alone, that which is into the death of the Lord; not that which is conferred by wicked heretics, but that which is conferred by unblameable priests, “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” and let not that which comes from the ungodly be received by you, nor let that which is done by the godly be disannulled by a second. For as there is one God, one Christ, and one Comforter, and one death of the Lord in the body, so let that baptism which is unto Him be but one. But those that receive polluted baptism from the ungodly will become partners in their opinions. For they are not priests. For God says to them: “Because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee from the office of a priest to me.” Nor indeed are those that are baptized by them initiated, but are polluted, not receiving the remission of sins, but the bond of impiety. And, besides, they that attempt to baptize those already initiated crucify the Lord afresh, slay Him a second time, laugh at divine and ridicule holy things, affront the Spirit, dishonour the sacred blood of Christ as common blood, are impious against Him that sent, Him that suffered, and Him that witnessed."
    ANF07. Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries: Lactantius, Venantius, Asterius, Victorinus, Dionysius, Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions, Homily - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

    It should be obvious that if a person committed the bolded part, they would commit serious sin. But just as I said, it is the priest who bears that sin, not the one being baptized.

    However, the part in blue explains why someone who has received a valid baptism should not go on to receive another baptism by those who have wrong beliefs (again, at this time, it was leaving the Church and joining oneself to heretics). It is an annulment of their first baptism. It does bear careful thought.

    These things I know were discussed st different times and places and there are various documents, but I'm sharing this one a priest sent me in answer to my request for a link to demonstrate that rebaptism is considered a sin by the Church.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  9. ~Anastasia~

    ~Anastasia~ † Servant of God † Supporter CF Senior Ambassador

    +15,377
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    I actually find the rest of that writing of interest to the conversation.

    Continued ...

    Nay, he that, out of contempt, will not be baptized, shall be 457condemned as an unbeliever, and shall be reproached as ungrateful and foolish. For the Lord says: “Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven.”3238 And again: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”3239But he that says, When I am dying I will be baptized, lest I should sin and defile my baptism, is ignorant of God, and forgetful of his own nature. For “do not thou delay to turn unto the Lord, for thou knowest not what the next day will bring forth.”3240 Do you also baptize your infants, and bring them up in the nurture and admonition of God. For says He: “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not.”3241
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  10. Wordkeeper

    Wordkeeper Newbie

    +460
    Christian
    Married
    As I've mentioned in my last post, baptism edified, prepares people for testing and setting apart, in order to be a blessing to the world.

    Paul was very keen that the believers in Ephesus receive the Holy Spirit, to be built up, as was Peter:

    Acts 8-14-16
    14Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, 15who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

    It's possible that they had been baptised by Christians, with John's baptism, which would enable them to drink from the Rock, be shown God's ability and willingness to take them into the Promised Land, a state of sufficiency, where they would drink from wells others dug, eat from fruit others planted. However, we know that those who entered this state hadn't entered Rest, and being ministered by the Holy Spirit WAS entering Rest. Which would explain Paul and Peter's desire to give the Holy Spirit to believers.

    Now many of us also have not received the Holy Spirit, as indicated by not having the truth, so what baptism did we receive?

    • Did we or our family head turn away from the works of the devil/Mammon/Egypt/the world (the only condition for receiving baptism)?

    • Did the baptiser recognise this turning away from the world, indicated by the laying on of hands?

    Don't forget, the Egyptians tried to follow the Israelites and were vomited out. Like Judas, Ananias.
     
  11. ~Anastasia~

    ~Anastasia~ † Servant of God † Supporter CF Senior Ambassador

    +15,377
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    We agree on some things, perhaps not on others.

    i am happy to discuss, but not interested in arguing. My concern is that a discussion of who has the Holy Spirit, who has truth, who does not ... or even what the truth is, where we might not agree, might run into a bit of a dead end.

    But receiving of the Holy Spirit was an expected part of the baptisms into the faith.

    Btw, I meant the disciples near Ephesus found by Paul - I think that is in Acts 19. They state that they received the baptism of John.

    The case of those in Acts 8 you quote is actually interesting alongside the ones I meant for other reasons. Early Christian baptisms were Trinitarian. So whoever they were baptized by, it wasn't a proper Christian baptism. And no Holy Spirit as a result.
     
  12. Wordkeeper

    Wordkeeper Newbie

    +460
    Christian
    Married
    It's only a dead end because we have set up creeds to be filters.

    The only filter prescribed by Scripture is Scripture.

    Which is in turn filtered by the Holy Spirit.

    Be perfect.

    Where the Spirit tells us perfect means rested, completed, arrived, teleios.
     
  13. Strong in Him

    Strong in Him I can do all things through Christ Supporter

    +4,474
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Married
    No, he was baptising as he had been commanded.
    He didn't introduce an idea of his own making, go to the Jordan and baptise on his own authority; he was preparing the way for the Messiah.

    The Messiah, who John proclaimed, would die on the cross and shed his blood for the forgiveness of sins - once and for all. Until that point, they still had animal sacrifice; Jesus did away with that.

    Those who repented and were baptised that day were doing so in response to a teaching/command by God. Because being baptised was unknown for them - and possibly because the river Jordan represented death, so being immersed in it would have been a big thing - they were demonstrating their obedience to God and willingness to turn from their sin. I feel sure that had someone confessed their sins that day, been baptised and died 5 minutes later, they would have died forgiven.
    I am also certain that when Jesus said to people, "your sins are forgiven", they were forgiven at that point; when the Son of God said so. I am certain that he did not say, "your sins will be forgiven in 3 years, after I've been to the cross."

    Whether, when they sinned after that, they still went to offer the sacrifice laid down by the law, or whether they said to God, "Jesus forgave me once, please forgive me again"; we don't know.
     
  14. ~Anastasia~

    ~Anastasia~ † Servant of God † Supporter CF Senior Ambassador

    +15,377
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    This ground too has been covered many times.

    The next step is to invite you to post the Scripture stating that ONLY Scripture contains truth, and contains all truth.


    And that contrasted with Paul when he wrote (and this did make it into Scripture) ...

    "Hold fast to the traditions you were taught whether by word (in person) or epistle (Scripture)."

    Churches weren't established by sending letters. They were established by the Apostles personally teaching them everything they should be doing. The epistles are reminders, corrections. Not all-inclusive how-to manuals.

    Such manuals were written, but are often argued against because they are not bound into the Bible. But that is not the purpose of the Holy Scriptures.

    It is doubtful we would settle anything by merely repeating the same words that have been typed thousands of times.

    Peace to you.
     
  15. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +10,842
    Christian
    Married
    Baptizing as a ceremonial purification ritual was well known to the Jews.
     
  16. bling

    bling Regular Member Supporter

    +843
    Non-Denom
    Married
    God is gracious to all infants baptized or not baptized or do you feel babies not baptized and die go to hell?
     
  17. bling

    bling Regular Member Supporter

    +843
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Actually in the original first century Greek does not tell us little children were included in "household".
     
  18. bling

    bling Regular Member Supporter

    +843
    Non-Denom
    Married
    People back than did not have copies of the Bible to see if the "priests" were teaching the truth and anyone teaching something "different' was considered a heretic, so could some of these heretics been bible based Christians?
     
  19. bekkilyn

    bekkilyn Contemplative Christian Supporter

    +3,115
    United States
    United Methodist
    Celibate
    US-Others
    Absolutely not. I don't believe baptism is necessary at all for salvation, which is why all of these "my way of baptizing is the one true way of baptizing" arguments are all a bit silly in the first place.

    If someone was baptized as an infant, then great. They simply need to declare their faith at some later time when they are old enough. If someone was baptized when they were older, then also great. They can declare their faith at the same time. Both baptisms are valid.

    And we also don't know that they weren't. But when talking about household in general, it's everyone...wives, husbands, servants, slaves, children, other family members living there, etc.

    I really don't think God is all that picky here to begin with. He's not going out of his way looking for ways to condemn us, whether we be infants or adults. Instead, he attempts to give us every possible opportunity to come to him and build a relationship with him.
     
  20. Wordkeeper

    Wordkeeper Newbie

    +460
    Christian
    Married
    I have no objection to tradition. I only object to whatever obstructs believers getting into the Kingdom of God. Somewhere along the way, Jesus's prioritising the coming of the Holy Spirit, doing what He Himself hesitated to do, because it was too much for his followers to absorb, that prioritisation has slipped through the cracks.

    I'm saying no one is alarmed at the lack of the work of the Holy Spirit today. Not so at the time of Paul and Peter. It was the first item on their checklist.
     
Loading...