What if Infant Baptism is Wrong?

[PaladinValer]

I disagree.

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

Well, yes...but it isn't morally or spiritually wrong

 

[ancientsoul]

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.

my thoughts are that this is another moot arguement ... is infant Baptism wrong ... how can it be ... it's for the Lord ... it might be misunderstood and misguided in it's importance ... dedicating the child to the Lord would be a better scenario ... but wrong, no ... there was no ill intent or desire to go against the Lord ... it was done in love ...

 

[Albion]

my thoughts are that this is another moot arguement ... is infant Baptism wrong ... how can it be ... it's for the Lord ... it might be misunderstood and misguided in it's importance ... dedicating the child to the Lord would be a better scenario ... but wrong, no ... there was no ill intent or desire to go against the Lord ... it was done in love ...

That's a good point that is rarely discussed. If infant baptism is "wrong," it is wrong only to the extent that it is ineffective. And then, after a person is baptized as a child, he has to actually become a Christian at some time later in life, virtually in the same way that a Baptist would say his own children must do in order to be saved.

 

[ancientsoul]

That's a good point that is rarely discussed. If infant baptism is "wrong," it is wrong only to the extent that it is ineffective. And then, after a person is baptized as a child, he has to actually become a Christian at some time later in life, virtually in the same way that a Baptist would say his own children must do in order to be saved.

yes ... and hmmm ... i'm reminded of this verse ...

Mark 16:16 ... He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

he that believeth not ...

not: he that is baptized not ...

John 4:18 ... He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Romans 5:8 ... But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Acts 2:38 ... Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall recieve the gift of the Holy Ghost.


John 12:48 ... He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

these are the verses i think most fit what i want to say ...

salvation is from the Lord ... not from baptism ... bptism is NOT required for salvation ...

however, to truly experience the Holy Spirit ... i do believe Baptism is a requirement ... it brings the spirit of Elijah ... imo ... i speak from personal experience on this one ... and offer you the verse in Acts to show it and to show how salvation and baptism are TWO things ... not one and the same ...

 

[Albion]

yes ... and hmmm ... i'm reminded of this verse ...

Mark 16:16 ... He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

he that believeth not ...

not: he that is baptized not ...

John 4:18 ... He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Romans 5:8 ... But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Acts 2:38 ... Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall recieve the gift of the Holy Ghost.


John 12:48 ... He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

these are the verses i think most fit what i want to say ...

salvation is from the Lord ... not from baptism ... bptism is NOT required for salvation ...

however, to truly experience the Holy Spirit ... i do believe Baptism is a requirement ... it brings the spirit of Elijah ... imo ... i speak from personal experience on this one ... and offer you the verse in Acts to show it and to show how salvation and baptism are TWO things ... not one and the same ...

Other than for the Elijah part, which I cannot comment on, I agree with you and think that most Christians do also.

The "baptism is necessary for salvation" charge is mainly a red herring. While there are some people who take that literally, they are relatively few. Yet we hear that allegation from devotees of "Believers' baptism" all the time, whenever they want to denigrate those churches that practice infant baptism. The churches that do, however, normally think of it in the way you have described and definitely not as something that saves in and of itself or unfailingly must be accomplished or else there can be no salvation!

 

[ancientsoul]

Other than for the Elijah part, which I cannot comment on, I agree with you and think that most Christians do also.

The "baptism is necessary for salvation" charge is mainly a red herring. While there are some people who take that literally, they are relatively few. Yet we hear that allegation from devotees of "Believers' baptism" all the time, whenever they want to denigrate those churches that practice infant baptism. The churches that do, however, normally think of it in the way you have described and definitely not as something that saves in and of itself or unfailingly must be accomplished or else there can be no salvation!

agreed ... on the spirit of Elijah ... what i mean by this is it brings an intense fire for the Lord ... or it did in my case ... not just a desire for knowledge of Him ... but a burning fire of love to serve Him and stand for Him ... not to mention operating in the gifts of the Holy Spirit ...

 

[ViaCrucis]

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?

Anamnesis. When gathered for the Passover, the Passover Meal was an act of anamnesis--remembrance, recall--not merely to say, "this happened to them back then" but "this happened to us". To share in the Passover was to actually share in the Passover.

When Christ says, "Do this in remembrance of Me", that is Paschal language, this Meal of Bread and Cup is our Paschal Meal, it is anamnesis. We don't merely say in it, "This happened two thousand years ago" but rather, "This is Christ's body and blood for us".

St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 10, even draws the parallel between this Supper and the Temple sacrifices of the altar: "Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?" (verse 18)

This isn't simply mental recall, it is a dynamic partaking of Christ, what Christ has done for us by His death and resurrection is distributed to us in the elements of bread and wine; it is the very body of Christ broken for us, it is the very blood of Christ shed for us. This is our Passover, our Paschal Feast.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Edial]

For some odd reason some folks cannot accept the fact that Supernatural and Natural CAN and DO co-exist together in a common item.

Out bodies are the best example of it - flesh (physical) and spirit and soul (spiritual) co-existing together as one.

Same principle applies to Baptism or Communion.

There IS something in Baptism ITSELF.
What exactly is IN this Water that is combined with the Word - not many of us can fully explain. True.
We can quote however that the Word as alive and active (Heb.4)
Well is it alive or is it not alive?

There IS something in Communion elements themselves.
Christ used plain language to say this is his body. Go figure.
I did not say it, He did.

If we believe that our OWN bodies are a combination of spiritual and physical ... why can't we believe that the same principle applies to the Communion ... or Baptism.

SAME PRINCIPLE.
Supernatural and Natural are combined in the same object.

Why would Christ INSIST in the Great Commission to baptize all nations, if baptism is just an identification with Christ?
Why baptize in water and not oil, as an example if identification with Christ is purely symbolic?
If we want a symbol of identification with Christ, there are many more convenient things outside of Baptism that can remind us of it.
And if some claim that Baptism is a testimony to others, like to non-believers, why were there many secret baptisms?

Baptism cannot be JUST a symbolic identification with Christ or testimony to others.
There is something more to it than just that. And it is very real.

... in my opinion.

Thanks,
Ed