What is the significance of infant baptism?

[New Birth]

You say it is not found in the scriptures, (just as communion being received by women is not found in scripture either, but that is not a valid argument for disallowing either practice by the church). Your use of scripture, treating it as a rule book for either allowing or forbidding what the church can do, (according to your less than comprehensive understanding of it), is crude and ill reasoned.

There are two classes of people to whom baptism is applied, namely adults and infants
a. Adult baptism: Baptism is intended for believers and their seed. In the words of the institution Jesus undoubtedly had in mind primarily the baptism of adults, for it was only with these that the disciples could begin in their missionary labours. His instruction implies that baptism had to be preceded by a profession of faith, Mark.16:16. On the day of Pentecost those that received the word of Peter were baptized, Acts.2:41; cf. also Acts.8:37 (Auth. Ver.); 16:31-34. The Church should require a profession of faith from all adults seeking baptism. When such a profession is made, this is accepted by the Church at its face value, unless there are good reasons to doubt its sincerity.

b. Infant Baptism: Baptists deny the right of infant baptism, since children cannot exercise faith, and since the New Testament contains no command to baptize children and does not record a single instance of such baptism. Yet this does not prove it un-biblical. Since the Jewish nation had previously understood infants to be included with their parents under The Old Covenant, it would be unreasonable to exclude them under the New, especially since the New is a 'Better Covenant' and 'More Gracious' than the old. Jews would have continued to believe their infants were covenant bound from birth and would have continued to circumcise 8 day old males even under the New Covenant. Circumcision was replaced by baptism, as scripture attests, yet there is not a single word of Apostolic disapproval anywhere in the New Testament against the baptizing of an infant. If it were frowned upon there should be objections in the NT, but there are none. There are examples of whole families being baptized though, and though infants are not specifically mentioned, it is unlikely that there were none or that Jews who entered the New Covenant would have allowed them to be excluded. There are also no recorded incidences of an adult or adolescent child of believing parents being baptized, anywhere in the new testament, yet we know that infant baptism was not only widely practiced in the church within 150 to 200 years of the Apostolic church, and well before the closing of the canon of scripture, and there are no objections raised by any authority against its practice.

(1) The scriptural basis for infant baptism: Infant baptism is not based on a single passage of scripture, but on a series of considerations. The covenant made with Abraham was primarily a spiritual covenant, though it also had a national aspect. Rom.4:16-18; Gal.3:8, 9, 14. This covenant is still in force and is essentially the same as the "new covenant" of the present dispensation, Rom.4:13-18; Gal.3:15-18; Heb.6:13-18. Children shared in the blessings of the covenant, received the sign of circumcision, and were reckoned as part of the congregation of Israel, 2 Chron.20:13; Joel.2:16. In the New Testament baptism is substituted for circumcision as the sign and seal of entrance into the covenant, Acts.2:39; Col.2:11, 12. The "New Covenant" is represented in scripture as more gracious than the old, Isa.54:13; Jer.31:34; Heb.8:11, and therefore would hardly exclude children. This is also unlikely in view of such passages as Matt.19:14; Acts.2:39; 1 Cor.7:14. Moreover, whole households were baptized and it is unlikely that these contained no children. Acts.16:15; 16:33; 1 Cor.1:16.

(2) The ground and operation of infant baptism. In reformed circles some hold that children are baptized on the ground of a presumptive regeneration, that is, on the assumption, (not the assurance), that they are regenerated. Others take the position that they are baptized on the ground of the all comprehensive covenant promise of God, which also includes the promise of regeneration, (immediately or in due course). This is my preferred view. The covenant promise affords the only certain and objective ground for the baptism of infants. But if the question is asked, how infant baptism can function as a means of grace to strengthen spiritual life, the answer is that it can at the very moment of its administration strengthen the regenerate life, if already present in the child, and can strengthen faith later on when the significance of baptism is more clearly understood. Its operation is not necessarily limited to the very moment of its administration.

Having gone to the trouble of explaining to you the scriptural case for baptizing infants of believing parent(s), I hope you are not expecting any further response from me if you try refuting it or arguing the toss. Just admit that you do not understand everything there is to know about baptism but at least you now know a bit more. I suggest that you actually take the time to look up all the scripture references to confirm that they are indeed actually there and thus expand your understanding of the subject.
.

Although I reject the reasoning behind infant baptism and am fully persuaded that baptism ONLY applies to those who have repented and believe in Jesus. I surely appreciate your response.

 

[Radagast]

What is the significance of infant baptism for the children of believers?

I was baptised as an infant, both my parents were Christians.

I am reading an article about this and it says its wrong to presume regeneration,

"As there is no promise in the Bible that God will regenerate all of our natural offspring, or all those externally in the Covenant, we ought not to go further than the Word of God and presume this."

Presumptive Regeneration

What does it mean to be externally in the Covenant of Grace?

There are several perspectives in infant baptism. Roughly:

• baptised infants are saved, but can lose that salvation (Catholic view)
• baptised infants are saved and cannot lose that salvation (obviously false)
  
• "covenant parents are to presume that their covenant children are regenerate until they give prolonged and conscious evidence in their mature years that they are unregenerate" (Presumptive Regeneration)
• baptised infants are brought into the Covenant, and a series of promises apply (so that they are saved if they die in infancy), but they are not necessarily regenerate (Covenant Theology)

There are further points of view within those 4 groups, leading to heated debate in Europe in the early 1900s and in America in the late 1900s.

 

[ExTiff]

There are several perspectives in infant baptism. Roughly:

• baptised infants are saved, but can lose that salvation (Catholic view)
• baptised infants are saved and cannot lose that salvation (obviously false)
  
• "covenant parents are to presume that their covenant children are regenerate until they give prolonged and conscious evidence in their mature years that they are unregenerate" (Presumptive Regeneration)
• baptised infants are brought into the Covenant, and a series of promises apply (so that they are saved if they die in infancy), but they are not necessarily regenerate (Covenant Theology)

There are further points of view within those 4 groups, leading to heated debate in Europe in the early 1900s and in America in the late 1900s.

I personally believe that your last bullet point is the most likely to be the case and therefore preferable to all the others from a scriptural perspective.

The key difference between being 'externally in the Covenant of Grace' and 'actually regenerate' is whether the covenant bound individual has willingly committed themselves to keep the terms of the Covenant of Grace which they entered at birth as their birthright, by virtue of the Covenant God had made with their believing parent(s).

The terms of the Covenant are simple:

(1) Acknowledge Jesus Christ as both Lord and Saviour, following His leadership in the power of The Holy Spirit, in word and deed, relying solely on Him and His Atoning sacrifice for the sins of all mankind, for your salvation, turning to Him and serving Him faithfully for the rest of your life.

(2) The practical application and result of this is: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. You shall also love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

Baptists should notice a great similarity here with their own requirements of 'true believers'. This usually involves a 'conversion' of some kind in which the individual discovers God's Amazing Grace by personal experience and usually involves being chosen for a ministry of some kind, on Christ's behalf, in the world. It is also when we become 'entrusted with the message of reconciliation'.
.

 

[Radagast]

I personally believe that your last bullet point is the most likely to be the case and therefore preferable to all the others from a scriptural perspective.

Well, so do I, tbh.

 

[ExTiff]

Although I reject the reasoning behind infant baptism and am fully persuaded that baptism ONLY applies to those who have repented and believe in Jesus. I surely appreciate your response.

I'm glad you appreciated the information. I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just hoping to improve it by offering you information from scripture you seemed previously unaware of. Just give it due consideration when considering the long established practices of The Church.

A story I heard goes like this: An aged Anglican Bishop was once approached by a Baptist after a baptism service at which an infant had been baptized. The young Baptist said, over coffee, "Of course you realize that any fool can see by reading the Bible for just one day, that infants cannot be baptized". To which the Bishop replied. "I quite agree, there is truth in what you say, but even a old fool may come to a different conclusion when they have read the Bible every day for as many days as I have".
.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

Infant baptism = baby getting wet.
Nothing more , nothing less.

 

[SkyWriting]

Actually I do understand the infant baptism thesis and the thought that it is based upon the patents faith and position.

Unfortunately you do not understand the Bible teaching on baptism my friend. You have copied and pasted a wonderful "Denomination Position" but it is just that and has no grounds in Scripture.

I have no desire to argue this with anyone and you are welcome to accept your faith denominational teachings but the concept of infant “baptism” is totally foreign to the Holy Scriptures. This practice stems from the erroneous teaching of “original sin.”

The Bible does not give one single example or command of any baby being baptized anywhere.

That's not a fair statement. It assumes very unlikely details.
We would have to assume that babies were not present or excluded below and both are very unlikely.

Acts 18:8
Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household.

Acts 16:33
And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.

1 Corinthians 1:16
I did baptize also the household of Stephanas.

Acts 16:15
And after she was baptized, and her household as well...

Matthew 28:19
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

 

[ExTiff]

I'm glad you appreciated the information. I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just hoping to improve it by offering you information from scripture you seemed previously unaware of. Just give it due consideration when considering the long established practices of The Church.

A story I heard goes like this: An aged Anglican Bishop was once approached by a Baptist after a baptism service at which an infant had been baptized. The young Baptist said, over coffee, "Of course you realize that any fool can see by reading the Bible for just one day, that infants cannot be baptized". To which the Bishop replied. "I quite agree, there is truth in what you say, but even a old fool may come to a different conclusion when they have read the Bible every day for as many days as I have".

You see, there is a distinct difference in the reasons for baptizing an adult and the reason for baptizing an infant.

The reasons for baptizing an adult are:
(1) Because Jesus told us to baptize those who have been previously taught His teachings. Matt.28:19. No exceptions, except under exceptional circumstances.
(2) If anyone is unwilling to even symbolically die to self and live to Christ, they are obviously not serious about true discipleship. Rom.6:3.

The only reason for baptizing an infant is:
Because God has promised that the offspring of believers in the Covenant God has sworn by His own name to keep eternally, shall be covered by and enjoy the same covenant provisions that their believing parent(s) enjoy, at least until such time as they are able and willing to fulfill their Covenant obligations for themselves. At which time God will accept their allegiance or if it is withheld regard them as covenant breakers and take whatever steps God deems necessary to discipline them and 'bring them into the fold'.

They are not 'without the promises', as unbelievers children are. Eph.2:12.
They are "Holy", being the covenant children of believers. 1 Cor.7:14.
The point here being that the children of believers are already declared 'Holy' in God's eyes because of His Covenant with their parent(s), (not because they actually are yet), even if the believing parent is the wife and not the husband.

As children of The Covenant, infants of believers are entitled to the sign and seal of baptism to signify their membership of The Church. Their education in the teachings of Jesus Christ and God's ways should be within the love and nurture of a Christian marriage and with the support of The Church as a community of faithful and believing people. Eventually they should come to confirmation and take upon themselves the vows their parents took on their behalf, then voluntarily continue to live the life that God ordained for them at their birth.
.

 

[ExTiff]

Infant baptism = baby getting wet.
Nothing more , nothing less.

That is your opinion, not God's.

You are of course entitled to it. Whether God agrees with you is another matter, and none of my concern.

 

[ExTiff]

That's not a fair statement. It assumes very unlikely details.
We would have to assume that babies were not present or excluded below and both are very unlikely.

Acts 18:8
Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household.

Acts 16:33
And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.

1 Corinthians 1:16
I did baptize also the household of Stephanas.

Acts 16:15
And after she was baptized, and her household as well...

Matthew 28:19
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

And in addition it also makes the erroneous assumption that scripture alone is our guide to what is ALLOWABLE to the Church. There are many things which do not appear in scripture, including many important facts about the deeds and doings of Jesus Christ Our Lord Himself. Jn.21:25.

The mere fact that there is no specific instance of an infant actually being baptized in scripture is not a valid reason for denial of its validity. Neither does the fact that scripture contains no citation of a specific event necessarily render such an event unscriptural, forbidden or invalid.

If that principle were to be universally employed, when deciding church practice, women would be disallowed receiving communion, since there is not a single instance recorded anywhere in scripture, of a single one ever actually doing so.

However I believe that there is not even one Baptist church anywhere in the world that forbids its women to receive communion though. They have never needed a specific example in scripture to get their minds round that little problem, have they. Same perverted logic though.
.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

That is your opinion, not God's.

You are of course entitled to it. Whether God agrees with you is another matter, and none of my concern.

God does not have opinions.
And if it wasn't a concern to you, you wouldn't of quoted my post.

 

[SkyWriting]

And in addition it also makes the erroneous assumption that scripture alone is our guide to what is ALLOWABLE to the Church. There are many things which do not appear in scripture, including many important facts about the deeds and doings of Jesus Christ Our Lord Himself. Jn.21:25.

The mere fact that there is no specific instance of an infant actually being baptized in scripture is not a valid reason for denial of its validity. Neither does the fact that scripture contains no citation of a specific event necessarily render such an event unscriptural, forbidden or invalid.

History is not always the only option, as well.
A "New Man" is not required to be the same
as every other new man.

 

[Major1]

And in addition it also makes the erroneous assumption that scripture alone is our guide to what is ALLOWABLE to the Church. There are many things which do not appear in scripture, including many important facts about the deeds and doings of Jesus Christ Our Lord Himself. Jn.21:25.

The mere fact that there is no specific instance of an infant actually being baptized in scripture is not a valid reason for denial of its validity. Neither does the fact that scripture contains no citation of a specific event necessarily render such an event unscriptural, forbidden or invalid.

If that principle were to be universally employed, when deciding church practice, women would be disallowed receiving communion, since there is not a single instance recorded anywhere in scripture, of a single one ever actually doing so.

However I believe that there is not even one Baptist church anywhere in the world that forbids its women to receive communion though. They have never needed a specific example in scripture to get their minds round that little problem, have they. Same perverted logic though.
.

You would be talking of course about TRADITIONS.

You are in fact correct when you said that there is NO specific instance or example of an infant being baptized.

I wonder why that it????

Maybe it is because the Scriptures actually say that to be born again one must THINK it in his heart and SAY it with his mouth that Jesus is the Christ, that He died for me and rose from the dead on the third day.

Infants do not have the ability to do that.

Could it be that simple???? YES!!!!!!!!!

 

[Major1]

That's not a fair statement. It assumes very unlikely details.
We would have to assume that babies were not present or excluded below and both are very unlikely.

Acts 18:8
Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household.

Acts 16:33
And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.

1 Corinthians 1:16
I did baptize also the household of Stephanas.

Acts 16:15
And after she was baptized, and her household as well...

Matthew 28:19
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

But the fact is that INFANTS and BABIES are not listed. Those words are not there at all. So then we would have to add those words and when we do that we just broke God's Word in Deut. 4:2.

IMO, the people of that day understood that infants were not guility of sin because they had not reached the age of accountability for there own personal sin.

 

[SkyWriting]

But the fact is that INFANTS and BABIES are not listed. Those words are not there at all. So then we would have to add those words and when we do that we just broke God's Word in Deut. 4:2.

IMO, the people of that day understood that infants were not guility of sin because they had not reached the age of accountability for there own personal sin.

Families included babies. You loose the logic game. I'll go out on a limb and say half of all families are babies. With no exclusions listed anywhere you are altering scripture.

And all law I'm accountable for is in my heart, not in your Bible.

Jeremiah 31:33
But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

 

[Major1]

Families included babies. You loose the logic game. I'll go out on a limb and say half of all families are babies. With no exclusions listed anywhere you are altering scripture.

And all law I'm accountable for is in my heart, not in your Bible.

Jeremiah 31:33
But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Bless your heart my friend but I am NOT in a "logic" game at all.

I am a proponent of Sola Scriptura and the words INFANT and or BABIES just is not there.

It does not matter one little bit if ALL families include INFANTS. There is NO Scripture in ANYONE'S Bible that gives instructions that a Baby must be water baptized to be saved.

Now allow me to say to you that the verse you used from Jeremiah 33 does not support your theology.

Jeremiah 31 verses 31-33, talks about a new covenant forged explicitly with Jews/Israel and only with Jews/Israel, and none other.

Notice the verse YOU DID NOT POST which is #31...………..
"It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers on the day I took them by their hand and brought them out of the land of Egypt; because they, for their part, violated my covenant, even though I, for my part, was a husband to them,” says Adonai."

The “new covenant” is simply a new possibility in understanding God’s Law, and so only applies to those the original covenant was forged with, reaffirming their ancient rôle; it in no way allows for the invalidation of the original compact.

I appreciate your question and I hope this helps.

 

[ExTiff]

God does not have opinions.

So speaks an expert on God's thoughts? God does not think the way we do you know.
.

 

[New Birth]

A story I heard goes like this: An aged Anglican Bishop was once approached by a Baptist after a baptism service at which an infant had been baptized. The young Baptist said, over coffee, "Of course you realize that any fool can see by reading the Bible for just one day, that infants cannot be baptized". To which the Bishop replied. "I quite agree, there is truth in what you say, but even a old fool may come to a different conclusion when they have read the Bible every day for as many days as I have".

You see, there is a distinct difference in the reasons for baptizing an adult and the reason for baptizing an infant.

The reasons for baptizing an adult are:
(1) Because Jesus told us to baptize those who have been previously taught His teachings. Matt.28:19. No exceptions, except under exceptional circumstances.
(2) If anyone is unwilling to even symbolically die to self and live to Christ, they are obviously not serious about true discipleship. Rom.6:3.

The only reason for baptizing an infant is:
Because God has promised that the offspring of believers in the Covenant God has sworn by His own name to keep eternally, shall be covered by and enjoy the same covenant provisions that their believing parent(s) enjoy, at least until such time as they are able and willing to fulfill their Covenant obligations for themselves. At which time God will accept their allegiance or if it is withheld regard them as covenant breakers and take whatever steps God deems necessary to discipline them and 'bring them into the fold'.

They are not 'without the promises', as unbelievers children are. Eph.2:12.
They are "Holy", being the covenant children of believers. 1 Cor.7:14.
The point here being that the children of believers are already declared 'Holy' in God's eyes because of His Covenant with their parent(s), (not because they actually are yet), even if the believing parent is the wife and not the husband.

As children of The Covenant, infants of believers are entitled to the sign and seal of baptism to signify their membership of The Church. Their education in the teachings of Jesus Christ and God's ways should be within the love and nurture of a Christian marriage and with the support of The Church as a community of faithful and believing people. Eventually they should come to confirmation and take upon themselves the vows their parents took on their behalf, then voluntarily continue to live the life that God ordained for them at their birth.
.

There inlies the problem. You think baptism is a sign or membership. It is not, the scriptures teach it is for the washing away of sins. Infant baptism seems quite alright for those who don't understand what baptism is and does. However acording to scriptures baptism is only for the repented believer.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

So speaks an expert on God's thoughts? God does not think the way we do you know.
.

I never claimed to be a expert on The Word of God.
But , I know He doesn't have opinions .
Obviously.
Then again, apparently not.

 

[ExTiff]

Bless your heart my friend but I am NOT in a "logic" game at all.

I am a proponent of Sola Scriptura and the words INFANT and or BABIES just is not there.

It does not matter one little bit if ALL families include INFANTS. There is NO Scripture in ANYONE'S Bible that gives instructions that a Baby must be water baptized to be saved.

Now allow me to say to you that the verse you used from Jeremiah 33 does not support your theology.

Jeremiah 31 verses 31-33, talks about a new covenant forged explicitly with Jews/Israel and only with Jews/Israel, and none other.

Notice the verse YOU DID NOT POST which is #31...………..
"It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers on the day I took them by their hand and brought them out of the land of Egypt; because they, for their part, violated my covenant, even though I, for my part, was a husband to them,” says Adonai."

The “new covenant” is simply a new possibility in understanding God’s Law, and so only applies to those the original covenant was forged with, reaffirming their ancient rôle; it in no way allows for the invalidation of the original compact.

I appreciate your question and I hope this helps.

The New Covenant is a continuation of THE Covenant, the one made by God with Abraham, 400 years before The Law. Gal.3:17, its terms are better Heb.8:6, its Covenant head is Jesus Christ and Christ is the mediator of it, Heb.12:24, its requirement for adults is FAITH and it covers both Jew and Gentile, male and female.

This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, (Jer.31:33), and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised: And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. Heb. 10:16-25.

Are you trying to tell us that this speaks of a DIFFERENT covenant than THE New Covenant. Are you trying to tell us the covenant spoken of in Hebrews "only applies to Hebrews, the ones the original covenant was forged with".

What nonsense is this! If I am forced to choose between your interpretation and understanding of the ramifications of Jer. ch.31 and the Writer of Hebrews understanding of it, I will choose the writer of Hebrews explanation of it every time over yours. My salvation depends on it.

The covenant in Hebrews is the only covenant which is any use to either Jews, Israelites and Gentiles. Faith in Christ as was the faith of Abraham is its prime requirement for adults, and faith in Christ is the requirement to remain in it, for the children of believers when they have reached the age of reason.

But the children of believers are already IN IT at birth. They have no choice in the matter, God has decreed according to scripture THEY ARE HOLY. 1 Cor.7:14. i.e. set apart and belong to God as does everything else that a believer has. We have been bought with a price, 1 Cor.6:20, 7:23, lock stock and barrel. We are redeemed slaves to sin. We owe everything to Christ. We own NOTHING which does not belong rightfully to Christ. The children of believers can only either REMAIN in the covenant or try to LEAVE it.

That is not true of the children of unbelievers. They are without hope, outside the promises, outside the covenant, Eph.2:12, and can only enter it if one of their parents responds to the Gospel and becomes a believer, or they reach the age of reason and become a believer themselves. THEY can only 'ENTER the Covenant or REMAIN OUTSIDE it'.
.