What is the significance of infant baptism?

[ExTiff]

Therein lies 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.

Baptism is a both a sign and a seal of membership of The Church. (In fact we, the church, are members of Christ). There is no salvation outside The Church, because only the church is the body of Christ on earth. If you are 'saved' you automatically became a member of The Church and so do your children, like it or not. The church belongs to Christ. It is His Church. He is the head of it.

 

[ExTiff]

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.

I never claimed you were! I speculated on whether you were an expert on God's thoughts. I think I got my answer.

 

[ExTiff]

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.

However according to scriptures baptism is only for the repented believer.

baptism is appropriate for anyone who believes God as Abraham did. They partake of the same covenant that Abraham was promised. Rom.4:1-25.

Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. Gal.3:6-9.

The promise to Abraham was not only for him but also for Isaac who was as yet unborn, let alone an infant. Yet the covenant was to him and all Abraham's descendants, (if they kept the covenant themselves). We are descendants of Abraham through faith. While we keep the faith we remain in covenant and so do our infants. They like Abraham's are also covenant bound by birth.

And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. Gen.17:18-19.

You do understand what God means by an EVERLASTING covenant I suppose? They don't wear out or get replaced because they are, well - EVERLASTING. So I guess this covenant we now call NEW is still going strong, unless God has broken His word as recorded in scripture. The old bits appended by Moses regarding The Law and its penalties are now old and replaced by The New Covenant, but the EVERLASTING Covenant still continues as The New Covenant, since by Apostolic Revelation in scripture we are told very clearly that faith in Jesus Christ is faith in the Covenant God made with Abraham for Abraham is 'Father of our Faith'. Rom.4:11.
.

 

[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?

I think this should have been posted elsewhere if you wanted a sensible discussion. People who don't believe in infant baptism are derailing it here.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

When we say family, we include the baby.
You've lost the argument for those of us with
children who include them as family.

Acts 18:8
Acts 16:33
1 Corinthians 1:16
Acts 16:15
Matthew 28:19

 

[ItIsFinished!]

I never claimed you were! I speculated on whether you were an expert on God's thoughts. I think I got my answer.

Do you think God has opinions?

 

[ItIsFinished!]

Baptism is a both a sign and a seal of membership of The Church. (In fact we, the church, are members of Christ). There is no salvation outside The Church, because only the church is the body of Christ on earth. If you are 'saved' you automatically became a member of The Church and so do your children, like it or not. The church belongs to Christ. It is His Church. He is the head of it.

Baptism does not provide salvation .
The Church does not provide salvation.
Individuals have choice.
They are not forced.
Jesus Christ died and shed His blood on the Cross , He was buried, and resurrected the third day .
Death had no sting and the grave no victory.
Those who place their faith in Jesus Christ and His redemptive work and resurrection are SAVED.
Amen.

 

[New Birth]

Baptism is a both a sign and a seal of membership of The Church. (In fact we, the church, are members of Christ). There is no salvation outside The Church, because only the church is the body of Christ on earth. If you are 'saved' you automatically became a member of The Church and so do your children, like it or not. The church belongs to Christ. It is His Church. He is the head of it.

One is not in the church until they are born again of water and the spirit. This places one in the body of Christ. Born again being precisely repented, baptized fully submerged in water invoking the name of Jesus Christ, and receive the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in other tongues as the spirit gives the utterance. Until the first step is done there is no need for baptism.

 

[ExTiff]

When we say family, we include the baby.
You've lost the argument for those of us with
children who include them as family.

Acts 18:8
Acts 16:33
1 Corinthians 1:16
Acts 16:15
Matthew 28:19

You have exposed the Achilles heel of the main, (and illogical use of scripture) arguing against the baptism of infants. Well done!

What is a family? Is a husband and wife a family? No! They are a couple. Is a hsband and wife with grown up children a family? Yes, but how did that 'family' get that way? Obviously by a husband and wife having children, who universally start as infants. Ipso facto all families started as at least one parent and at least one infant. A couple who have not had produced an infant cannot be technically termed 'a family'. I say only 'technically' because adoption is another alternative way to start becoming a family and adoption was common in Biblical times.

If whole families are recorded in scripture as having been baptized, the possibility of there having been an infant in at least one of those families is very high indeed. (given that most families had young adults and parents died earlier than 21st century western norms). That being the case, and if baptising an infant was theologically problematic when these events were recorded in scripture, we should expect a caveat to have been included explaining the reason why infants should have been excluded. No such caveats exist anywhere in scripture.

The reason there is no such exclusion mentioned anywhere in The Bible is because the Apostles were far more informed and far less ignorant concerning Covenant Theology than today's 'Adult Baptizm Only' adherents.

We must however be very careful not to use these 'family' references to justify the baptizing of infants. They do not offer any sure doctrinal foundation for infant baptism. The only sure and certain foundation for the baptizing of infants is the Covenant itself. That is the theological glue which holds the whole plan of salvation together. If the baptizing of infants exclusively of believing parents is a practice in the church, then it must conform to the Apostolic tradition, which is based entirely upon the terms God has ordained within The Covenant. These terms can be found in scripture, if the right places are searched and consulted.

Reasons such as 'babies may go to hell if not sprinkled', 'we want our baby done, it's unlucky not to' or any other spurious and superstitious nonsense, are profoundly unscriptural and have no Biblical mandate whatsoever.

I freely admit that the practice of baptizing infants generally has suffered abuse by those who are ignorant of its effects, it's true scriptural basis, and what it actually confers upon the recipient. The church however, being composed entirely of human beings, is not infallible nor omniscient so we should not be surprised that it is not a perfect teacher or student of God's Word either. We do our best, hopefully.
.

 

[SkyWriting]

You have exposed the Achilles heel of the main, (and illogical use of scripture) arguing against the baptism of infants. Well done!

What is a family? Is a husband and wife a family? No! They are a couple. Is a hsband and wife with grown up children a family? Yes, but how did that 'family' get that way? Obviously by a husband and wife having children, who universally start as infants. Ipso facto all families started as at least one parent and at least one infant. A couple who have not had produced an infant cannot be technically termed 'a family'. I say only 'technically' because adoption is another alternative way to start becoming a family and adoption was common in Biblical times.

If whole families are recorded in scripture as having been baptized, the possibility of there having been an infant in at least one of those families is very high indeed. (given that most families had young adults and parents died earlier than 21st century western norms). That being the case, and if baptising an infant was theologically problematic when these events were recorded in scripture, we should expect a caveat to have been included explaining the reason why infants should have been excluded. No such caveats exist anywhere in scripture.

The reason there is no such exclusion mentioned anywhere in The Bible is because the Apostles were far more informed and far less ignorant concerning Covenant Theology than today's 'Adult Baptizm Only' adherents.

We must however be very careful not to use these 'family' references to justify the baptizing of infants. They do not offer any sure doctrinal foundation for infant baptism. The only sure and certain foundation for the baptizing of infants is the Covenant itself. That is the theological glue which holds the whole plan of salvation together. If the baptizing of infants exclusively of believing parents is a practice in the church, then it must conform to the Apostolic tradition, which is based entirely upon the terms God has ordained within The Covenant. These terms can be found in scripture, if the right places are searched and consulted.

Reasons such as 'babies may go to hell if not sprinkled', 'we want our baby done, it's unlucky not to' or any other spurious and superstitious nonsense, are profoundly unscriptural and have no Biblical mandate whatsoever.

I freely admit that the practice of baptizing infants generally has suffered abuse by those who are ignorant of its effects, it's true scriptural basis, and what it actually confers upon the recipient. The church however, being composed entirely of human beings, is not infallible nor omniscient so we should not be surprised that it is not a perfect teacher or student of God's Word either. We do our best, hopefully.
.

Each should be fully convinced in his own mind, and not judge the actions of others.
People should mind their own business as well as forgive those who don't.

1 Samuel 16:7
But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.”

 

[ExTiff]

One is not in the church until they are born again of water and the spirit. This places one in the body of Christ. Born again being precisely repented, baptized fully submerged in water invoking the name of Jesus Christ, and receive the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in other tongues as the spirit gives the utterance. Until the first step is done there is no need for baptism.

One is not in the church until they are born again of water and the spirit.

In the case of an adult who was previously without God in the world, TRUE!
In the case of an infant, born to a believer, under the terms of The New Covenant, NOT TRUE.

An adult enters the church when they are born again.
An infant of a born again believer enters the church when they are conceived under the covenant.

The adult cannot enter the church until they understand the Gospel and respond accordingly.
The infant of a believing parent learns the terms of the covenant they are already under, as they grow in the knowledge of their salvation. They then either accept the terms of the covenant and remain in it or reject them and risk being excluded from it as a covenant breaker and a renegade.

This places one in the body of Christ. Born again being precisely repented, baptized fully submerged in water invoking the name of Jesus Christ, and receive the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in other tongues as the spirit gives the utterance. Until the first step is done there is no need for baptism.

That sounds more like a badge of membership than you previously accused me of believing. Pass all your rules and you're IN. Fail to meet the criteria and the formula has not worked for you so you're still OUT.

There is no need for baptism in the case of infants. Infants of believers are covenant bound from conception, not from baptism. You are mistaken if you think there is need for baptism in the case of an infant. In fact no 'Baptists' seem to think they are depriving their infants of anything, but we believe they are wrong. It is not a case of 'need', it is a case of baptism not being able to be legitimately withheld from the children of a believer, since they are fully entitled to it according to God's Promises. We believe in God's Promises as revealed in scripture. You don't.

That is entirely your affair though. We actually recognize God's care and provision for our seed. It seems you do not. Instead you concoct non scriptural services of 'Dedication' to convince yourselves that God cares for ALL babies, even those outside the covenant promises. Denying the scripture clearly telling us that they are "without hope in the world". Eph.2:12.
.

 

[ExTiff]

Baptism does not provide salvation .
The Church does not provide salvation.
Individuals have choice.
They are not forced.
Jesus Christ died and shed His blood on the Cross , He was buried, and resurrected the third day .
Death had no sting and the grave no victory.
Those who place their faith in Jesus Christ and His redemptive work and resurrection are SAVED.
Amen.

Baptism does not provide salvation.

I have never implied it does. It is the sign and seal of salvation though.

Individuals have choice.

No one can 'chose Christ', Christ 'chooses us' when He accepts what the Father gives him. Jn.15:16. Jn.6:37.

They are not forced

It is not being 'forced' when given the opportunity of eternal life and unwarranted forgiveness of sins. It is a GIFT of God, not a DEAL concluded by your timely repentance.

The rest of what you say is true, as far as it goes, but it goes not nearly far enough to fully extol God's Grace.
.

 

[ExTiff]

Do you think God has opinions?

For I the Lord love judgment,
I hate robbery for burnt offering;

Isn't that an opinion? Seems pretty clear what God likes and dislikes on those issues. I may be wrong but expressing a like or dislike is expressing an opinion, isn't it?

 

[ExTiff]

Each should be fully convinced in his own mind, and not judge the actions of others.
People should mind their own business as well as forgive those who don't.

1 Samuel 16:7
But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.”

I was actually congratulating you on your comments regarding scripture references to 'families' being baptized. I am finding this reply incongruous. Have I misunderstood something?

 

[Major1]

When we say family, we include the baby.
You've lost the argument for those of us with
children who include them as family.

Acts 18:8
Acts 16:33
1 Corinthians 1:16
Acts 16:15
Matthew 28:19

Your reply seems to say that I do not have a family and children.

Your response and feelings are coming from your heart because for some reason you think that your babies are not saved.

My dear friend. Please understand that ALL babies and children are under the blood of the Lord Jesus and if they die as an infant they will go to heaven.

Please understand that salvation is only "provided by God, through Jesus, to the repentant believing sinner". This statement is true.

However, please note that the Old Testament saints were saved although they did not have a complete knowledge of the salvation act and they did not know the name JESUS CHRIST.(see 1 Peter 1:10-11).

So it is possible to be saved by God through Christ even if you don't understand all the facts of the Gospel which in my opinion more than makes up for the ages of an infant.

 

[Major1]

For I the Lord love judgment,
I hate robbery for burnt offering;

Isn't that an opinion? Seems pretty clear what God likes and dislikes on those issues. I may be wrong but expressing a like or dislike is expressing an opinion, isn't it?

Could that also be considered a "Statement of Fact" instead of an opinion???

Just asking.

 

[Major1]

This implies that God just ordains ceremonies to test our obedience, I really don't care for this kind of theology. It's true that baptism is not magic or fire insurance, but I happen to believe it is biblical to see a promise in baptism to the family, that their child belongs to God, and proof of God's goodwill towards us. It is also a promise that the child will grow into for themselves as they mature, if they are guided by the Christian community.

I know that you are sincere and I am sure your heart is in the right place, however you must realize that your comment has NO Biblical validity to it whatsoever.

You said...…..
"but I happen to believe it is biblical to see a promise in baptism to the family, that their child belongs to God,"

We can believe anything but proving it is Biblical is another story. There is NO Scriptures which support your thought.

You then said.…………
" It is also a promise that the child will grow into for themselves as they mature, if they are guided by the Christian community."

A Promise???? You can DEDICATE a baby to God just as did Hannah with Samuel but that may or may not come true because it depends on the child's choices when he is grown dosent it?

 

[Major1]

This isn't an argument against infant baptism so much as it's an argument against biblicism.

And we do believe that babies are capable of faith. As ExTiff points out, faith is not just about intellectual assent.

Explain how a baby can have faith in Jesus Christ when in fact he/she can not even speak yet?

This is grasping at straws IMO.

 

[Major1]

It would seem from this statement of yours that you wrongly assume that infant baptism, "is based upon the parents faith and position". It is not, because that would not accord with scripture. No one is 'saved' by another's faith. In fact no one is 'saved' by faith. In fact every one is saved by God's Grace. Rom.3:21-26. Were God's Grace not freely available to all there would be nothing whatever to believe in.

Infants are baptised only on the understanding that the parent(s) have faith in God's Grace, but the grounds for baptism are the promises of God in scripture, to the children of believing parents. If you choose not to believe those promises, that is your affair. We chose to believe them. If you are ignorant of those promises of God in scripture, it is because you never bothered to read the references given in my previous post.



I understand and believe God's promises to both believers and their 'seed'. I copied and pasted an argument citing the scriptures that the Biblical Doctrine is actually based upon. Your inability to accept the Doctrine unfortunately results from your misuse of scripture. (The unwarranted assumption that Doctrine must be based only upon scriptural examples or commands.) If this illogical rule were consistently applied then no woman would be permitted to receive Communion. The Bible does not give one single example or command of any woman receiving communion anywhere.

I have no desire to argue this with anyone and you are welcome to accept your faith denominational teachings but the concept of adult only baptism, (and therefore exclusion of 'little ones' of covenanted parents Matt.19:14.) is totally foreign to the Holy Scriptures. This practice stems from the erroneous teaching of “Baptism requiring human intellect.”

Not all 'little children'. Eph.2:12.

The children Jesus used as an example were not gentile children. Eph.2:12. They were Jewish children, whose parents were covenant bound to God. Ezek.16:20-21. Covenant children belong to God, they are His children from the get go. Covenant parents have covenant children, that is why they are 'Holy' 1 Cor.7:14. If the children of just one believing parent, (even if it is the mother), are 'Holy' but others with unbelieving parents are therefore not 'holy', how does your understanding of scripture explain that?

Upon what scripture do you base the supposition that ALL infants are born 'Holy'? Rom.6:23? Are you trying to tell us that babies from conception are exempt from death, until they actually sin? Everyone is guilty in Adam, and are therefore born with a corrupt nature. Job.14:4; Jer.17:9; Isa.6:5; Rom. 8:5-8; Eph.4:17-19. Ps.51:5.

Not that baptism of infants is carried out specifically to remove the inherited sin of Adam. As I explained previously that is not the premise upon which the children of believers are baptised. It is the promises of God to their believing parents which permit it.



No it's not, it is because the letters were written at a time most people joining the church were adults. Adults which often had children, who were baptised along with their parents and their slaves.



I agree only with #3. Infants have no personal sin of which God requires them to repent.



Only in the case of adults, infants are not baptised on the ground of any assumed 'faith' their baptism is on the grounds of God's promise that they will in due course, if they keep covenant with Him, receive 'saving faith' as their inheritance, freely gifted to them as promised to their parents in Holy Scripture. The only thing which might prevent faith following baptism for them , would be ignorance of God's covenant with them, resulting in neglect of their salvation and subsequent rebellion. That is why it is important that they be brought up in the fear and nurture of The Lord, learn his commandments, know His Son Jesus Christ, repent of their sins, believe in the great salvation they have received from God from birth and continue to keep Gods covenant by faithfully serving Christ according to the principles of His Kingdom on Earth, as also in Heaven. (If only this happened with all baptised infants).



Hence all the unnecessary anxiety among 'Baptists', whose children (they say) are no longer heirs to the promises, indeed they are not in the covenant since, (they say), it no longer exists; they are no longer in the Church, which cannot embrace them because of their unconscious state; the Church becomes a society of adults to which their children are only admitted as proselytes at the time when each on their own volition believes and is converted and sanctified. Until then they have a dangerous and imaginary liberty which they are always in danger of abusing, and an inevitable slide into sinfulness which is hoped by the parents, (and the Church presumably), will respond to the rebuke of God, as on all who have sinned.

This is in fact a profoundly unscriptural theology. Far less scripture based than infant baptism under covenant theology.

Infants of believers are actually a supreme example of salvation by 'faith alone' and not 'works, that any can boast of'.

In adults there must be a confession of faith and repentance of past sins, followed by at least a desire for baptism if they have not already undergone that ritual.

This leaves room for a false view of how salvation is obtained. It is tempting for such believing adults to attribute salvation to (a) their faith, (b) their repentance, (c) their determination to live according to God's law, or any combination of or all three. None of these reasons provide salvation. It is God's Grace that guarantees our salvation, (the atoning sacrifice of God in Christ), nothing else can secure it. The aforementioned 'a,b,c' only allows the transmission of God's Grace by the removal of the blockage from our end of the relationship. The free gift was always there for the receiving "while we were yet still sinners". Rom.5:8.

Infants receive baptism solely on the grounds of God's grace, in that God has promised those who will trust God's Word, that their children will be 'saved', under the terms of the same covenant God has made with the parents by their faith in God's Grace, through their repentance and their determination to allow God's spirit to Sanctify them.

Infants are incapable of ratifying and confirming their own covenant relationship with God. They therefore cannot have false views 'a,b or c'. They have a purer relationship with God than even a 'believing' adult is capable of. They are utterly dependent upon God's Grace, incapable of faith or works of the law and have as yet nothing for which personal repentance is required by God.

This indeed is perfect 'salvation' which cannot be enhanced, but only neglected, if they are careless enough to allow it to fall into abeyance or actually reject it.

All being well they will voluntarily come to God at the time of God's choosing and freely take upon themselves the full responsibility of keeping God's covenant, which is faithful service to our Lord Jesus Christ.

Meanwhile they belong to God, God has claimed them for Himself, to give to Christ. John.6:37.
.

We also know that the command to believe is directed to individuals and the act of believing is a personal action. Thus, salvation can only come to an individual who personally believes in Christ. Believing in Christ is not something that a father can do for a son or daughter. The fact that one member of a family or household believes does not guarantee that the rest will also believe.

 

[ExTiff]

Major1: My dear friend. Please understand that ALL babies and children are under the blood of the Lord Jesus and if they die as an infant they will go to heaven.

Can you please show me the exact scriptures which clearly state this 'fact'? You seem so much to rely upon it for some reason, you surely will be able to give chapter and verse to prove its validity.

Meanwhile can you also please explain the implications which result from this text:

"Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world": Eph.2:11-12.

Does this not describe any reprobate unbeliever, in your opinion?

Given that baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign and seal of The Covenant, from which scripture do you draw the conclusion that ALL INFANTS are sinless and therefore Holy to God?

Scripture in fact clearly refutes your presumptive assertion that all infants are Holy as far as God is concerned. We only have scripture to support the fact that the infants of believers are 'Holy to God'. Not ALL infants.

Though I agree that ALL infants are precious to God, there is no scripture that you or I know of that guarantees that ALL INFANTS will go to heaven if they die.

If you know of any, please enlighten us.
.