What if Infant Baptism is Wrong?

[jinc1019]

Totally fair. I think you're right: if credobaptists are wrong, they're good, but if paedobaptists are wrong, they're, well.. can I say that word on CF?

But the fact is, paedobaptists are right. The vast majority of the church, and the vast portion of the church throughout history, has baptized infants, and in the end what really matters is whether those infants stay in the faith. If they are appropriately catechized, one should certainly hope they can look back on their baptism in hope.

Take me for example. I was baptized as an infant. Later, I became an evangelical/Baptistic charismatic. I rejected my infant baptism, and was "baptized" again. Later, I came to accept the truth that it is God, not humans, who works in infant baptism, and that therefore my infant baptism was valid. Was I at any point not baptized? No! I was always baptized, even despite my repudiation of my infant baptism, because at no point did I repudiate Christ. And it is Christ that really matters.

So thank God that Christ brought be back to him, renewing my original baptismal vows, and drawing me back into the embrace of Mother Church.

I greatly appreciate this!

Just as a side note, I admire Lutherans very much. The majority that I speak to really know their stuff. I am leaning more and more towards your view of baptism as a certainty, but of course I don't think it will ever get there. Still, perhaps I should just trust in God that a baptism will be made valid by Him, not by any choice I make.

If it weren't for the Lutheran view of the Real Presence, I would probably have joined a Lutheran church already.

 

[PaladinValer]

I greatly appreciate this!

Just as a side note, I admire Lutherans very much. The majority that I speak to really know their stuff. I am leaning more and more towards your view of baptism as a certainty, but of course I don't think it will ever get there. Still, perhaps I should just trust in God that a baptism will be made valid by Him, not by any choice I make.

If it weren't for the Lutheran view of the Real Presence, I would probably have joined a Lutheran church already.

Except that the Lutherans are right about the Real Presence just like we Anglicans and the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Vatican Catholics, Old Catholics, Moravians, and the Continuing Churches are right about it.

 

[Tangible]

Sounds like it's time for another RP thread.

 

[ebia]

Totally fair. I think you're right: if credobaptists are wrong, they're good,

Are they? They've:
Gone around denying a lot of what God has done.
Enacted spurious (re)baptisms
Denied a lot of children full participation in the people of God, some of who have died before reaching maturity
...


Doesn't sound at all good to me

 

[WithLoveFromAlyssa]

A newborn has not sinned yet so why do they need to be baptized?

dont babies inherit adams sin? how are they innocent

 

[Second Phoenix]

Of course there is. One is done by man and is visib le and does not save. The other is done by Jesus, is invisible and does save.



Where does the Bible say the baptism of the Holy Spirit is through water. We are baptized wiwth the Holy Spirit before any wte is appliwed, not matter how much is used(Eph 1:13)



The baptism of the Holy Spirit with water is not is not Biblical. In fact John the baptist separates water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism in Mt 3:11.

kermit

This is so incoherent that I cannot respond to it.

 

[Second Phoenix]

Your view of history is, in my humble opinion, wrong. Many religious groups were persecuted and as a result BECAME political, that doesn't mean minority groups were always political. To suggest all of these minority religious groups had a political agenda driving them really tears down what a lot of honest people (whether they were theologically right or wrong) died for.

You have your opinion and I have facts. The separation of Church and state is a mental invention, a concept that was only recently introduced to the western mind. It has become like the concept of gravity, that no one can imagine that someone had to realize it.

To oppose the faith was the oppose the state. Every aspect of life revolved around faith. People didn't say "September 28", they said a week after Matthew-Mass.

 

[PaladinValer]

dont babies inherit adams sin? how are they innocent

All people participate in the Fall due to human nature being corrupted by the Fall. Thus, we have a broken nature, a injured soul, impaired spirit, and the inclination to sin, but we aren't guilty of these because we didn't do anything to cause it.

So yes, in sins are we conceived, but not guilt. Original sin doesn't mean guilt, or at least doesn't have to.

You have your opinion and I have facts. The separation of Church and state is a mental invention, a concept that was only recently introduced to the western mind. It has become like the concept of gravity, that no one can imagine that someone had to realize it.

To oppose the faith was the oppose the state. Every aspect of life revolved around faith. People didn't say "September 28", they said a week after Matthew-Mass.

I'm personally rather glad there is now a separation.

 

[jinc1019]

You have your opinion and I have facts. The separation of Church and state is a mental invention, a concept that was only recently introduced to the western mind. It has become like the concept of gravity, that no one can imagine that someone had to realize it.

To oppose the faith was the oppose the state. Every aspect of life revolved around faith. People didn't say "September 28", they said a week after Matthew-Mass.

First of all, I am well aware of everything you are saying...I never said what you are saying is wrong in general...what I am saying however, is that the political motivation you are tacking on to a HUGE group of people is incorrect, factually. The Anabaptists weren't a political group that wanted credo baptism and other church reforms, they were a group that wanted credo baptism and other church reforms and went head-to-head with the established church, who was intricately tied with the government, as you pointed out.

 

[jinc1019]

Except that the Lutherans are right about the Real Presence just like we Anglicans and the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Vatican Catholics, Old Catholics, Moravians, and the Continuing Churches are right about it.

Lol, I appreciate your confidence! Just think about this though...Were the Apostles and virtually everyone in the early Christian movement Jews? If they were, how would this belief fit into a Jewish understanding of God in the 1st century?

Why is it that in the Didache, as well every single other Jewish/Christian source (as opposed to Gentile/Christian), there is no mention of the changing of bread and wine into body and blood?

If you can find me ONE Jewish-Christian source that describes what you are saying, I would be willing to believe it. But you can't. Every single source you will cite is from a Gentile-Christian who comes from a background outside of Judaism, and typically from a Roman/Greek one...

Don't you think it's strange that the New Testament writers never once explicitly say anything (I know you will quote one passage from Paul, but it doesn't at all say anything explicit). If they truly thought they could turn bread into flesh and wine into blood, why the heck wouldn't they talk about it all the time???!!! This would be the most important selling point!

The idea that the early church unanimously believed in a physical real presence is a myth established by the Catholic Church, where 99% of the proof texts come, at the VERY earliest, 200 years after Christ died.

I don't deny something spiritual and miraculous is happening, but to say there is an actual physical transformation of bread and wine into body and blood would have been ABSURD to ANY Jew living at the time of Christ and is nowhere specifically stated in the New Testament or early Jewish writings.

 

[jinc1019]

All people participate in the Fall due to human nature being corrupted by the Fall. Thus, we have a broken nature, a injured soul, impaired spirit, and the inclination to sin, but we aren't guilty of these because we didn't do anything to cause it.

So yes, in sins are we conceived, but not guilt. Original sin doesn't mean guilt, or at least doesn't have to.



I'm personally rather glad there is now a separation.

As am I!

 

[PaladinValer]

Lol, I appreciate your confidence! Just think about this though...Were the Apostles and virtually everyone in the early Christian movement Jews? If they were, how would this belief fit into a Jewish understanding of God in the 1st century?

Who cares what Jews think? Jews are Jews; we're Christians.

Why is it that in the Didache, as well every single other Jewish/Christian source (as opposed to Gentile/Christian), there is no mention of the changing of bread and wine into body and blood?

That's not true. Most Apostolic Witnesses that bring up the Holy Eucharist mention it in some sort of sacrificial aspect and/or identify it to be the Flesh and Blood of Christ.

Furthermore, Judaizerism is not a valid form of Christianity. It was condemned a heresy in the 1st century. No following the Torah; that constitutes an abandonment of Christ. No adhering to Jewish feasts; that constitutes an abandonment of Christ.

We can eat all the shellfish and cheeseburgers we want
We can mix all the beef and dairy all we want
We can wear as much polyester as we so desire
Ladies, your menstrual cycle doesn't make you all one bit unclean whatsoever
Burying the biologically deceased doesn't make anyone unclean

If you can find me ONE Jewish-Christian source that describes what you are saying, I would be willing to believe it. But you can't. Every single source you will cite is from a Gentile-Christian who comes from a background outside of Judaism, and typically from a Roman/Greek one...

I don't give a darn what Judaizers think. And mind you, Jesus Himself told the crowd in St. John 6 what they had to do. They took Him literally, and He told them essentially "tough nuggets." When Nicodemus misunderstood Jesus and thought Him speaking literally in chapter 3 of the same Gospel, Jesus corrected him. He didn't correct the crowd. They abandoned Him. The Apostles did not.

There's 12 Hebrews right there. Need anymore?

Don't you think it's strange that the New Testament writers never once explicitly say anything (I know you will quote one passage from Paul, but it doesn't at all say anything explicit).

Who says it must be explicit? That's not a Christian idea. We may as well throw out the Dogma of the Holy Trinity too going by that sort of non-Christian illogic.

If they truly thought they could turn bread into flesh and wine into blood, why the heck wouldn't they talk about it all the time???!!! This would be the most important selling point!

Fallacy of Appealing to Pity. Null and void.

The idea that the early church unanimously believed in a physical real presence is a myth established by the Catholic Church, where 99% of the proof texts come, at the VERY earliest, 200 years after Christ died.

What a load of psuedohistorical nonsense. Yes, let's just ignore the Apostolic Witnesses as well as the second generation of Christian adherents and skip right to the third and fourth.

Sorry; that's not Christianity.

I don't deny something spiritual and miraculous is happening, but to say there is an actual physical transformation of bread and wine into body and blood would have been ABSURD to ANY Jew living at the time of Christ and is nowhere specifically stated in the New Testament or early Jewish writings.

I'm a Christian; I don't give a darn what a Jew thinks of Christian theology. They follow a false religion; I follow the true one.

 

[Alvis]

Why would baptizing a baby be "wrong?" How is this even a moral issue to begin with? : /

 

[Edial]

...

Take me for example. I was baptized as an infant. Later, I became an evangelical/Baptistic charismatic. I rejected my infant baptism, and was "baptized" again. Later, I came to accept the truth that it is God, not humans, who works in infant baptism, and that therefore my infant baptism was valid. Was I at any point not baptized? No! I was always baptized, even despite my repudiation of my infant baptism, because at no point did I repudiate Christ. And it is Christ that really matters.

...

I should sue you for plagiarizing my testimony ...
... ...

 

[Edial]

I greatly appreciate this!

Just as a side note, I admire Lutherans very much. The majority that I speak to really know their stuff. I am leaning more and more towards your view of baptism as a certainty, but of course I don't think it will ever get there. Still, perhaps I should just trust in God that a baptism will be made valid by Him, not by any choice I make.

If it weren't for the Lutheran view of the Real Presence, I would probably have joined a Lutheran church already.

Don't forget that Lutherans are also unbelievably cute individuals.

But this is nothing compared to what they would look like in Heaven.

 

[Edial]

Why would baptizing a baby be "wrong?" How is this even a moral issue to begin with? : /

... common sense, right?

Why can't God's grace fall upon an individual who cannot comprehend it?
The mentally incapable, comatose, ...or infants?

I did become a moral problem in today's circles.

Why then the disciples of the disciples were not screaming bloody murder when infants were routinely getting baptized in 200 AD?

 

[Messy]

I am really torn on infant baptism vs. believer's baptism...After a long and difficult study, I came to the conclusion that based on history, the scriptures, and an understanding of Jewish theology (the Apostles were Jews remember!), it's completely possible that either side is correct....

I know a lot of people claim that their position is right and the others are wrong, but honestly, I just don't see how anyone who studies the issue fairly can come to an honest conclusion on either side.

With that in mind then, I have come to the conclusion that I would lean slightly on the side of infant baptism based on the argument that infants are within the new covenant (remember that Peter promised that the new promise was for "you and your children" in Acts 2:39 and remember that Paul called the children of at least one believing parent "holy" in 1 Corinthians 7:14) and that for Jews in the Old Testament, infants were given the sign of the covenant despite not being able to profess faith in what the covenant sign stood for.

HOWEVER, because I think it's almost impossible to be sure, the only way to KNOW one has had a valid baptism is to have a Believer's baptism. In other words, if infant baptism people are wrong, then their baptisms are invalid. If credobaptists are wrong, their baptisms are completely valid, just a little bit late. So for that reason, I am thinking of becoming a Baptist. (there are other Baptist distinctions I like as well by the way, but there are also things I disagree with them about, which is true for all denominations)

Thoughts? Is this position completely ridiculous? I honestly don't know where to go from here.

I think they baptized kids, but baby's I don't know. It's not in the Bible. Some say they did. Baptism is after being reborn, so if it is possible for a baby to be reborn immediately and stay it all it's life, infant baptism is good. I don't know. Are there people baptized as a baby who didn't get reborn later and have been reborn all their life? My kids made a decision and asked Him in their heart when they were 4 or 5.

 

[Albion]

Are there people baptized as a baby who didn't get reborn later and have been reborn all their life? My kids made a decision and asked Him in their heart when they were 4 or 5.

Of course! Most of us, in fact, were baptized at several weeks of age with parents and sponsors who promised to rear us in the faith and then proceeded to do exactly that. At some point, we understood enough to be able to make a personal commitment to the Lord, just as your kids did.

 

[Messy]

Of course! Most of us, in fact, were baptized at several weeks of age with parents and sponsors who promised to rear us in the faith and then proceeded to do exactly that. At some point, we understood enough to be able to make a personal commitment to the Lord, just as your kids did.

Then actually I don't see what's wrong with it. Why should a child that's raised as a christian all his life wait until he's in his twenties to get baptized?

 

[Rev Randy]

We can wear as much polyester as we so desire

I disagree.

This is entirely too much polyester for any man to wear.