What if Infant Baptism is Wrong?

[jinc1019]

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.

 

[ViaCrucis]

If Baptism is about the promises of God, not our works, efforts, deeds, etc; then God's work in Baptism is true. Then the baptizing of infants accomplishes exactly these things, even if it may be skewed in some fashion since it is God's promises, God's work, not our own. And God has attached those promises to His work of Baptism.

If Baptism is simply an act we do in order to show our own faithfulness to Christ, then it doesn't matter either way; Baptism doesn't actually do anything, and it ultimately doesn't mean anything if one is or isn't baptized, whether as an infant or an adult.

Your worry is rooted in thinking that our practices somehow play a role in God's good will toward us. They don't.

Thus the question is thus: Is God good, and gracious, willing that none perish but that all be saved? Then certainly the doors of salvation are as wide open as possible, not closed shut needing the right password. Baptism is not the "magic sesame" of salvation, it is the means God takes hold of us and brings us into Christ, and He and He alone is our salvation. You can take that and treasure it, hold fast to it, and own it. It's for you, it's yours, in Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[jinc1019]

If Baptism is about the promises of God, not our works, efforts, deeds, etc; then God's work in Baptism is true. Then the baptizing of infants accomplishes exactly these things, even if it may be skewed in some fashion since it is God's promises, God's work, not our own. And God has attached those promises to His work of Baptism.

If Baptism is simply an act we do in order to show our own faithfulness to Christ, then it doesn't matter either way; Baptism doesn't actually do anything, and it ultimately doesn't mean anything if one is or isn't baptized, whether as an infant or an adult.

Your worry is rooted in thinking that our practices somehow play a role in God's good will toward us. They don't.

Thus the question is thus: Is God good, and gracious, willing that none perish but that all be saved? Then certainly the doors of salvation are as wide open as possible, not closed shut needing the right password. Baptism is not the "magic sesame" of salvation, it is the means God takes hold of us and brings us into Christ, and He and He alone is our salvation. You can take that and treasure it, hold fast to it, and own it. It's for you, it's yours, in Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

Crypto Lutheran,
You have written a very eloquent and persuasive post. I greatly, greatly appreciate your kind words and wisdom.

I wish, in some ways, I could refute anything you have said...but I don't think I can. I do, and have always, believed baptism is more than just symbolic, but I still always felt that we should try our best to follow God's command as closely as possible. Anabaptists in Europe were killed because they were trying to do what they thought God wanted, and although you make an incredibly persuasive argument, one I think my Roman Catholic background makes it difficult to fully comprehend on the first read, I still think that we as Christians should always try to live as Christ would have wanted us to live.

Jeremiah prophesized that God would write the law on our hearts and that we wouldn't have to "know it," and I imagine you believe that baptism is the way in which He accomplishes this. I am just not sure it is. I will pray on it. Thank you again.

 

[Lion King]

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

Forgive me, but I think you are taking that passage out of context. The promise was for Israel and his/her descendants (children).

For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour out my Spirit on your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants. Isaiah 44:3

and remember that Paul called the children of at least one believing parent "holy" in 1 Corinthians 7:14)

Again, I think you are taking this verse out of context. My parents righteousness do not make me holy (in the sense you are implying). The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them alone, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them alone.

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.

Physical circumcision availed the Jews nothing. The sign of the Covenant was not circumcision of the flesh but of the heart.

 

[jinc1019]

Forgive me, but I think you are taking that passage out of context. The promise was for Israel and his/her descendants (children).

For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour out my Spirit on your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants. Isaiah 44:3



Again, I think you are taking this verse out of context. My parents righteousness do not make me holy (in the sense you are implying). The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them alone, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them alone.

I don't believe I am taking either one out of context. Peter clearly said what he did right after telling the crowd to be baptized because of Christ...It was clear he wasn't talking about the Old Covenant but the New.

Secondly, I am not saying that my parent's righteousness makes me holy...I am saying I enter God's covenant through my parents until I am old enough to have faith on my own. This explains why Paul immediately after says that "otherwise," meaning if the child wasn't born to a Christian parent, he or she would be "unclean." The child would be "unclean" because he or she would be outside of the covenant.

Thirdly, I don't really want to get into a whole debate about these issues because things on the Internet can quickly digress...my main question is really my primary concern.

 

[louise sheinholtz]

Jeremiah prophesized that God would write the law on our hearts and that we wouldn't have to "know it," and I imagine you believe that baptism is the way in which He accomplishes QUOTE

BEING BAPTIZED BY HANDS DIFFERS FROM BEING BAPTIZED By THE HOLY SPIRIT .
A newborn has not sinned yet so why do they need to be baptized?


True God writes the Law on our heart, but, after sincere
repentance for our sins and transgressions against others.
Few hunger and thirst for righteousness, they prefer to hunger and thirst for worldly things to fill them instead and the law becomes ineffective.

 

[Lion King]

I don't believe I am taking either one out of context. Peter clearly said what he did right after telling the crowd to be baptized because of Christ...It was clear he wasn't talking about the Old Covenant but the New.

Yes, I understand all that. However, you are misusing the word "children" in Acts 2:39 to mean specifically infants, when actually it's referring to the descendants of those people who were present. As I said before, the promise was given to Israel and her descendants...her children.

Secondly, I am not saying that my parent's righteousness makes me holy...I am saying I enter God's covenant through my parents until I am old enough to have faith on my own. This explains why Paul immediately after says that "otherwise," meaning if the child wasn't born to a Christian parent, he or she would be "unclean." The child would be "unclean" because he or she would be outside of the covenant.

For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 1 Corinthians 7:14


Does a believing wife make an unbelieving husband holy before God?

 

[jinc1019]

Yes, I understand all that. However, you are misusing the word "children" in Acts 2:39 to mean specifically infants, when actually it's referring to the descendants of those people who were present. As I said before, the promise was given to Israel and her descendants...her children.



For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 1 Corinthians 7:14


Does a believing wife make an unbelieving husband holy before God?

Honestly, I appreciate the debate and everything, but I am not going to get into it here. It's not the place for it. I totally disagree with your understanding of the passages.

 

[jinc1019]

Jeremiah prophesized that God would write the law on our hearts and that we wouldn't have to "know it," and I imagine you believe that baptism is the way in which He accomplishes QUOTE

BEING BAPTIZED BY HANDS DIFFERS FROM BEING BAPTIZED By THE HOLY SPIRIT .
A newborn has not sinned yet so why do they need to be baptized?


True God writes the Law on our heart, but, after sincere
repentance for our sins and transgressions against others.
Few hunger and thirst for righteousness, they prefer to hunger and thirst for worldly things to fill them instead and the law becomes ineffective.

If being baptized by the Holy Spirit is different than being baptized by hands, how does that make infant baptism invalid? It doesn't...One could be baptized by hands as an infant and baptized by the Holy Spirit through faith later...it's an argument that doesn't help either side.

 

[christianmomof3]

It depends on what you think baptism means and does.
Do you see it as merely symbolic?
Or do you think it actually does something to a person?
Or, perhaps a combination of both?
Comparing baptism to the Jewish covenant is like comparing apples to oranges because Jews don't have a belief in "salvation" like Christians do. To be Jewish, is because you are born that way - mainly in the OT and even now - conversion is the exception, not the rule.
So, an infant is born Jewish and circumcision - which is only done to boys, not to girls is not seen as doing anything to the child to make him Jewish, but rather a sign of his parents' faith for him and a sign to himself and others of what he is.

Baptism is entirely different. It is, if seen symbolically, a sign that one believes - and that one has actually entered into the Body of Christ. The Bible clearly says to believe and be baptized and while some Christians like to claim that they have no idea what an infant believes, that is just really stretching things. An infant is baptized based on it's parents belief, not on it's own belief which it cannot express.
Some Christians believe that baptism actually does something - it actually puts a person into the Body of Christ and that unless they are baptized, they are not in - which is why they do infant baptisms and deathbed "emergency" baptisms because somehow they see the baptism as transporting the person into the Body of Christ and they think that God is so narrow minded and unforgiving that He won't accept anyone who has not been dunked or sprinkled while hearing the correct words.

So, you need to consider what you think baptism is and what it does to determine how you see it.

 

[Serpentslayer]

Which adult in their rightful mind, would say beyond a reasonable doubt that a baby infant, has not confessed with their hearts to faith in Christ?

There is a presumption by some Christians that infants to begin with, don't have faith in Christ and therefore cannot be baptised until they do believe and confess with their mouths.

This hypocritical statement has no basis , because it is the Christ who brings the child into the world and his thumb print as the author of life is in the infant's soul.

In fact the infant calls out to him BABA BABA, meaning ABBA ABBA that is a calling of an infant soul to the Father who gave him/her life. In fact in all nations and tongues all babies make this calling upon the Heavenly Father who brought them into this world. This is not babbling as western people would have you to believe.

So a child is already calling out to the Father. If the infant happens to grow up in a Christian family, then it is the obligation of the Christian parents to baptise the infant immediately, because of the infants faith in Christ that already was imprinted into his soul at birth.

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

It is blatantly clear that God rears up infants into his creation and when they are infants their soul knows who their Father the Christ is, yet when they grow old and become acquainted with the world they forget about their childhood Father who reared them up and go after the ways of the world along with the false religions of their earthly parents.

Isaiah 1:2-3
2 Hear me, you heavens! Listen, earth! For the Lord has spoken: “I reared children and brought them up, but they have rebelled against me.
3 The ox knows its master, the donkey its owner’s manger, but Israel does not know,my people do not understand.”

 

[Second Phoenix]

Anabaptists in Europe were killed because they were trying to do what they thought God wanted

Which included insurrections and attempts to overthrow governments and social systems... which is what got them killed. A fact that is often forgotten. That is because the western world has a very different view of religion than people back then.

The idea of religious pluralism, peaceful coexistence, separation of Church and State were foreign concepts to all Christians at the beginning of the Reformation. Each side believed they were right, fighting for God, and the salvation of souls justified any behavior.

Without concepts of pluralism and separation of Church and state, society and religion were the same thing. Dissatisfaction with the status quo meant opposing society- religion and state. England resolved the issue by trying to compromise between each side. It just didn't occur to them to allow more than one faith.

Eventually the other groups realized they didn't have a fighting chance and choose peace - which was responded in kind. The United States, scared of offending any groups, decided it was best if the state did not merely tolerate other groups, but chose not to endorse any form of Church.

 

[louise sheinholtz]

If being baptized by the Holy Spirit is different than being baptized by hands, how does that make infant baptism invalid? It doesn't...One could be baptized by hands as an infant and baptized by the Holy Spirit through faith later...it's an argument that doesn't help either side.[/quote]

 

[Second Phoenix]

Being baptized is "by hands", through water and the Holy Spirit. There is no 'baptism by the Holy Spirit" that is different from that of water.

The reason there are two forms mentioned in scripture is because the people at the time had been baptized, but only by water by John. Christians began being baptized by the Holy Spirit THROUGH water, not as opposed to it.

The concept of a baptism by the Holy Spirit outside of water was never practiced in early Christianity, but was made up by radical groups during the Reformation.

 

[Albion]

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.

If you agree with the Baptists, be a Baptist.

By the way, you said "If credobaptists are wrong, their baptisms are completely valid." But that would be true only if these people had never been baptized previously. If you become a Baptist, you'll probably be witnessing many of these invalid baptisms.

 

[Jig]

Honestly, I appreciate the debate and everything, but I am not going to get into it here. It's not the place for it. I totally disagree with your understanding of the passages.

Huh? This IS the place for it. Your understanding of these verses has tremendous implication on how this issue is resolved.

I believe he gave you very rational explanations for why you are reading too much into those verses.

 

[Tangible]

If infant baptism is wrong, then God does not do what he has promised to do and the Word of God is broken.

 

[football5680]

The Bible and Church fathers both support infant baptism. The apostles would baptize entire households of people and they never said you had to be at an age where you can choose to accept or reject Jesus.

This has support from the Old Testament as well because the infants were not given the choice if they wanted to enter the Covenant people of God with the sign being circumcision. They were circumcised on the 8th day. Baptism is the new Circumcision so this makes sense.

Origen
"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

Irenaeus
"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

 

[PaladinValer]

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....

False Dichotomy. The issue isn't immature vrs. mature baptism, but baptism by faith or baptism by knowledge.

No paedobaptist thinks adult baptisms are wrong. Baptism is Baptism. The issue is whether we must understand. If we do, we leave Christianity and embrace Gnosticism. That's not acceptable, so we must acknowledge the truth of paedobaptism's orthodoxy.

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.

The other side is wrong because it is non-Christian Gnostic theology. Such theology is quite contrary to Christianity, which rejected Gnosticism and its distinctive theologies as heresy early in the 2nd century ce.

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.

Infants can profess faith since faith is trust. Infants can be seen trusting their mothers; how much more can they trust God who gives them the grace and faith to do so?!

There have been three household baptisms and the Holy Writ makes it clear faith is something that isn't tangible or understood but is a gift. Look at what happened to St. Thomas after Jesus' Resurrection.

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.

That's works salvation, basing God's ability to bestow faith on our ability to comprehend. That's also Gnostic. It is a very non-Christian idea.

 

[Rev Randy]

Being baptized is "by hands", through water and the Holy Spirit. There is no 'baptism by the Holy Spirit" that is different from that of water.

The reason there are two forms mentioned in scripture is because the people at the time had been baptized, but only by water by John. Christians began being baptized by the Holy Spirit THROUGH water, not as opposed to it.

The concept of a baptism by the Holy Spirit outside of water was never practiced in early Christianity, but was made up by radical groups during the Reformation.

Indeed. One baptism. Not two.