What if Infant Baptism is Wrong?

[frogman2x]

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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

 

[PaladinValer]

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

John Calvin and Knox would weep.

 

[Albion]

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

The problem, Kermit, is that you've treated sacramental baptism as parallel to what is called "baptism with the Holy Spirit." The latter is a baptism in a metaphorical sense only.

 

[jinc1019]

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.

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.

 

[jinc1019]

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.

I agree with this.

 

[jinc1019]

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.

I believe infant baptism is correct and that the theology makes sense, but I also acknowledge that the evidence is absolutely NOT conclusive....which worries me. If there is even a chance my own baptism is invalid, it's something I need to consider carefully. That's all I am saying.

 

[jinc1019]

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.



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.



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.



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.

I understand the theological position, and as I have already said...I definitely lean in that direction. However, how can you be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN of your position? The arguments on the other side historically, at the very least, make it virtually impossible to say that your position is guaranteed to be correct. I have read all of the ancient writings on the subject, the Bible "proofs," the theologians on both sides and it just isn't 100% clear...or even 80% clear.

 

[Tangible]

When I went from Baptist to Lutheran I did so because I found Lutheran baptismal theology to be more consistent with the whole witness of scripture and a way of holding divergent verses that were pitted against each other in Baptist theology to both be maintained as true.

 

[Jig]

I understand the theological position, and as I have already said...I definitely lean in that direction. However, how can you be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN of your position? The arguments on the other side historically, at the very least, make it virtually impossible to say that your position is guaranteed to be correct. I have read all of the ancient writings on the subject, the Bible "proofs," the theologians on both sides and it just isn't 100% clear...or even 80% clear.

If that is the case, then I would agree with your OP. The only way to guarantee a legitimate baptism (according to your personal conclusions) would be to wait and get baptized after someone has consciously come to accept Christ.

Unless you somehow become convinced that one of these positions is utterly wrong, then this is what you are stuck with.

 

[Joykins]

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.

It's a bit Pascal's-wager-ish, and carries the assumption that it's how WE baptize that makes a baptism "valid" (whatever that means) as opposed to whatever it is that God does in baptism.

 

[PaladinValer]

I understand the theological position, and as I have already said...I definitely lean in that direction. However, how can you be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN of your position?

Because I know history and theology; that's how.

The arguments on the other side historically, at the very least, make it virtually impossible to say that your position is guaranteed to be correct.

Not true.

I have read all of the ancient writings on the subject, the Bible "proofs," the theologians on both sides and it just isn't 100% clear...or even 80% clear.

It is clear; the credo-only position is simply regurgitated Gnosticism and is also works-based salvation with a god powerless to give grace without the individual being intellectual capable to receive it.

Do we have such a powerless god? Is our salvation based on knowledge and ability to comprehend? Or is our God powerful and salvation based solely on His grace which can be imparted on even vegetables?

 

[frogman2x]

The problem, Kermit, is that you've treated sacramental baptism as parallel to what is called "baptism with the Holy Spirit." The latter is a baptism in a metaphorical sense only.

I have done no such thing. John the Baptist separated them; they are 2 different things. You can't find any Scdrip;ture linking water to the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

If any baptism is metaphorical, it is water baptism. Do you really tehink everone who is baptized with water is saved?
There are 4 baptisms mentioned in the Bible: Water, Holy sp;irit, Jesus called His crcifixion a baptism and one of the Corintihaisn mentions beingbaptized into Moses.

Eph 4:5 says, "one Lord, one hope, one baptism. Which of the 4 is the one that counts?

k

 

[frogman2x]

John Calvin and Knox would weep.

Why???

kermit

 

[jinc1019]

If that is the case, then I would agree with your OP. The only way to guarantee a legitimate baptism (according to your personal conclusions) would be to wait and get baptized after someone has consciously come to accept Christ.

Unless you somehow become convinced that one of these positions is utterly wrong, then this is what you are stuck with.

Obviously we agree on that at least...I am questioning though my position on baptism. This thread has been quite helpful...Since you belong to a Calvary Chapel, you would probably disagree with infant baptism completely, but I think several posters made excellent points about what baptism does for us...I have always held a more spiritual view of baptism rather than the understanding that it is simply a symbolic ordinance.

 

[jinc1019]

When I went from Baptist to Lutheran I did so because I found Lutheran baptismal theology to be more consistent with the whole witness of scripture and a way of holding divergent verses that were pitted against each other in Baptist theology to both be maintained as true.

I think several of you Lutherans have made excellent points regarding the meaning of baptism...perhaps I was looking at it the wrong way....I think it may be impossible to believe that baptism imparts some sort of grace AND also believe in credo baptism only without endorsing a works based theology.

 

[Albion]

I believe infant baptism is correct and that the theology makes sense, but I also acknowledge that the evidence is absolutely NOT conclusive....which worries me. If there is even a chance my own baptism is invalid, it's something I need to consider carefully. That's all I am saying.

I understand...and it's a difficult question. I once set out to do the best job I could deciding this very question, using all the resources I had available. In the end, it looked like it was almost a toss-up but with a slight lean towards infant baptism.

What I was saying in the previous post, however, is that it's not the case the if the one of the sides turns out to be wrong, your bases are covered anyway. There are some serious problems either way.

Frankly, I think that there are a lot of other issues that will go into deciding your choice of denomination for you. You probably could do worse than to hold this particular issue at arm's length for the moment and see how you feel about all the other factors that differentiate the churches you have under consideration, after you study them and make church visits, etc.

 

[Albion]

I have done no such thing. John the Baptist separated them; they are 2 different things. You can't find any Scdrip;ture linking water to the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

I just got through pointing out that sacramental baptism and what is metaphorically called the "baptism" of the holy spirit are two different things.

If any baptism is metaphorical, it is water baptism. Do you really think everone who is baptized with water is saved?

Which of those two issues do you want to discuss, because the second point certainly is not a rebuttal to the first one. It's not even related to what we're discussing, as a matter of fact.

It is ridiculous to think that baptism with water is not actual, after Jesus' own baptism in the River Jordan and all the references in the New Testament to (water) baptism being for the forgiveness of sins and Jesus' command to the Apostles to baptize all nations!

 

[PaladinValer]

Why???

kermit

Because as the founders of Presbyterianism and Reformed theology, they would be upset that a Presbyterian would not actually share real Reformed and Presbyterian theology.

 

[jinc1019]

I understand...and it's a difficult question. I once set out to do the best job I could deciding this very question, using all the resources I had available. In the end, it looked like it was almost a toss-up but with a slight lean towards infant baptism.

What I was saying in the previous post, however, is that it's not the case the if the one of the sides turns out to be wrong, your bases are covered anyway. There are some serious problems either way.

Frankly, I think that there are a lot of other issues that will go into deciding your choice of denomination for you. You probably could do worse than to hold this particular issue at arm's length for the moment and see how you feel about all the other factors that differentiate the churches you have under consideration, after you study them and make church visits, etc.

Good advice as always.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

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.

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.