Why the Children of Believers Ought to be Baptized

[GingerBeer]

Pagan ideas crept into the church and began to influence thinking on baptism and baptism gradually became more magical as the church headed into the medieval era.

Isn't this the old old story of restorationism where the church was corrupted - contrary to Jesus' promise - and was restored to truth and godliness by someone some time around the sixteenth century or later?

 

[Tree of Life]

YES. They were saved by being faithful to the Mosaic covenant. There were a lot of laws (613 to be exact) but only a few carried the “cut off from the people” warning. That was an indicator that they were removed from the covenant. I.e. they lost salvation.

It was NOT thru Christ per se. Some could (and have) made round about theological arguments that eventually link back to Christ and His death; but convoluted arguments are NOT what this life is about.

This is false teaching ^. It's not possible to be saved except through Christ.

 

[Tree of Life]

True. Spoken to “devout JEWS.” Not gentiles.

I heard an interesting sermon by one of the early Messianic theologians on Romans 11. It was about the difference of Jewish children, born on the cultivated olive tree vs. gentile childeren born on the other tree. At some point, Jewish children are broken off due to unbelief. (Rom 11.20) He stated that in a Messianic Jewish family, the breaking off need never to happen. But the gentile child will STILL need to be cut from the wild tree of destruction in order to be grafted into the tree of salvation.

So Jewish converts can baptize their children but Gentile converts cannot?

 

[Tree of Life]

Isn't this the old old story of restorationism where the church was corrupted - contrary to Jesus' promise - and was restored to truth and godliness by someone some time around the sixteenth century or later?

I don't see why Jesus' promise must mean that certain areas of the church can never make serious mistakes.

 

[GingerBeer]

I don't see why Jesus' promise must mean that certain areas of the church can never make serious mistakes.

I am not sure what you mean by "certain areas of the church" unless you intend that phrase to mean that some leaders may try to mislead Christians in their locale.

Your reply does not address the matter that I raised. Specifically, how is your synopsis different from the restorationist view that "the church lost its way and was restored to its initial purity by the work of <insert name here>'s heroic discovery of the truth"?

 

[Tree of Life]

I am not sure what you mean by "certain areas of the church" unless you intend that phrase to mean that some leaders may try to mislead Christians in their locale.

Your reply does not address the matter that I raised. Specifically, how is your synopsis different from the restorationist view that "the church lost its way and was restored to its initial purity by the work of <insert name here>'s heroic discovery of the truth"?

The Church didn't completely lose its way. It just became unmoored from the covenantal context of infant baptism for a while. Can't the church get a little confused on a few things for a few hundred years? Does Jesus' guidance by the Holy Spirit imply perfect clarity on everything at all times?

 

[GingerBeer]

The Church didn't completely lose its way. It just became unmoored from the covenantal context of infant baptism for a while. Can't the church get a little confused on a few things for a few hundred years? Does Jesus' guidance by the Holy Spirit imply perfect clarity on everything at all times?

Baptismal regeration was believed for many hundreds of years, probably 1,200 years, before Covenantalism arose.

 

[Righttruth]

Roman Catholics teach that children should be baptized so that they might be justified and regenerated from an early age in baptism.

Baptists teach that children should not be baptized because baptism is reserved only for those who are able to make a credible profession of faith and who are already justified and regenerated.

Both are wrong.

The apostles taught that the children of believers are to be baptized for covenantal reasons. This reasoning is rooted in Old Testament revelation and would be particularly understandable for a Jewish audience. But as the church grew beyond the bounds of Judaism into Gentile lands, the practice of infant baptism was retained, yet it gradually became unmoored from its covenantal framework. Pagan ideas crept into the church and began to influence thinking on baptism and baptism gradually became more magical as the church headed into the medieval era. The Reformation recovered the covenantal setting of baptism. Here's the proper rationale:

1. The Covenant in the OT and in the NT is essentially one, although administered differently. This is to say that both Abraham and the NT believer are in the same covenant of grace. Both Abraham and the NT believer are saved by Jesus Christ - by grace through faith. Jesus fulfills the promises given to Abraham rather than introducing something altogether new.
   
   
2. The children of believers were included in the OT administration of the covenant of grace. Not only Abraham but also his children were given the mark of circumcision and recognized as members of the covenant community. Circumcision was a sign and seal of faith but was not necessarily accompanied by faith in the one circumcised. All in Israel were called to circumcise their hearts.
   
   
3. There is an explicit connection made between circumcision and baptism in Colossians 2:11-12. Paul says that the one who has been baptized has been circumcised.
   
   
4. There is no New Testament command to not baptize children and to exclude them from the covenant. Since the NT administration continues the covenant that God began in the OT, and since in the OT the children of believers were included in the covenant, one would assume that the children of believers should also be included in the NT administration of the covenant. If they were not to be included and given the sign of inclusion, then one would think that the apostles would have explicitly said: "Don't baptize children like you circumcised them in previous times!" But there is no such command. Within a covenantal context, the silence is very telling.

You are wrong. New covenant brings a new meaning to our relationship to God the Father in spirit through Jesus. In OT, only male children were circumcised. But now both boys and girls are baptized wrongly. Baptism requires a public confession. Not a dumb show!

 

[Phil.Stein]

Roman Catholics teach that children should be baptized so that they might be justified and regenerated from an early age in baptism.

Baptists teach that children should not be baptized because baptism is reserved only for those who are able to make a credible profession of faith and who are already justified and regenerated.

Both are wrong.

The apostles taught that the children of believers are to be baptized for covenantal reasons. This reasoning is rooted in Old Testament revelation and would be particularly understandable for a Jewish audience. But as the church grew beyond the bounds of Judaism into Gentile lands, the practice of infant baptism was retained, yet it gradually became unmoored from its covenantal framework. Pagan ideas crept into the church and began to influence thinking on baptism and baptism gradually became more magical as the church headed into the medieval era. The Reformation recovered the covenantal setting of baptism. Here's the proper rationale:

1. The Covenant in the OT and in the NT is essentially one, although administered differently. This is to say that both Abraham and the NT believer are in the same covenant of grace. Both Abraham and the NT believer are saved by Jesus Christ - by grace through faith. Jesus fulfills the promises given to Abraham rather than introducing something altogether new.
   
   
2. The children of believers were included in the OT administration of the covenant of grace. Not only Abraham but also his children were given the mark of circumcision and recognized as members of the covenant community. Circumcision was a sign and seal of faith but was not necessarily accompanied by faith in the one circumcised. All in Israel were called to circumcise their hearts.
   
   
3. There is an explicit connection made between circumcision and baptism in Colossians 2:11-12. Paul says that the one who has been baptized has been circumcised.
   
   
4. There is no New Testament command to not baptize children and to exclude them from the covenant. Since the NT administration continues the covenant that God began in the OT, and since in the OT the children of believers were included in the covenant, one would assume that the children of believers should also be included in the NT administration of the covenant. If they were not to be included and given the sign of inclusion, then one would think that the apostles would have explicitly said: "Don't baptize children like you circumcised them in previous times!" But there is no such command. Within a covenantal context, the silence is very telling.

One thing you don't mention is that circumcising an infant at 8 days old is the best and safest time to do it. Baptising an infant (through full immersion, as baptism actually means) can be quite dangerous. As scripture does not strictly require the baptism of infants, why would one risk their lives for a ritual that has no benefit for them? If God had commanded this for them, like for circumcision in the Old Testament, it would be different, but He does not.

 

[Dave-W]

So Jewish converts can baptize their children but Gentile converts cannot?

I would still wait until they want to be baptized, and understand the spiritual implications of said action.

 

[Dave-W]

This is false teaching ^. It's not possible to be saved except through Christ.

Tell that to Abraham, Moses, David; while they were alive in this world. They would have no clue what you were talking about.

That is why the congregation I grew up in believed the same - which meant (and they taught) that everyone that died before the other criminal on the cross would burn in hell forever since they had never heard of “Jesus,” the only name of salvation.

 

[Tree of Life]

Baptismal regeration was believed for many hundreds of years, probably 1,200 years, before Covenantalism arose.

It was believed early on. But I would suggest that this is a result of pagan influences and not biblical influences.

 

[Tree of Life]

I would still wait until they want to be baptized, and understand the spiritual implications of said action.

That sounds like a personal preference of yours. Theologically speaking, do you believe a Jewish convert to Christianity could baptize their babies if they wanted to but a Gentile could not?

 

[Tree of Life]

Tell that to Abraham, Moses, David; while they were alive in this world. They would have no clue what you were talking about.

Jesus said that Moses wrote about him (John 5:46), and that Abraham saw Jesus and rejoiced (John 8:56). What do you think he meant?

That is why the congregation I grew up in believed the same - which meant (and they taught) that everyone that died before the other criminal on the cross would burn in hell forever since they had never heard of “Jesus,” the only name of salvation.

OT believers were saved by Christ, the substance of the promises and shadows. When the OT believers believed in the promises and embraced the shadows, they embraced Christ.

 

[Dave-W]

That sounds like a personal preference of yours. Theologically speaking, do you believe a Jewish convert to Christianity could baptize their babies if they wanted to but a Gentile could not?

Could baptize? Perhaps. However I see no reason to do so at such an early age.

Circumcise? Absolutely.

 

[Tree of Life]

Could baptize? Perhaps. However I see no reason to do so at such an early age.

Circumcise? Absolutely.

But a Gentile convert could not baptize their babies?

 

[Dave-W]

What do you think he meant?

Any guess is speculation since Scripture never clearly states what was meant.

 

[Tree of Life]

Any guess is speculation since Scripture never clearly states what was meant.

He probably meant that the Scriptures point to him and that he is the substance of the OT. Don't you think?

 

[Dave-W]

But a Gentile convert could not baptize their babies?

No, I do not believe that to be a valid baptism. Everywhere in scripture you see the 2 listed together, baptism is ALWAYS preceded by repentance. Can a baby repent?

 

[Dave-W]

He probably meant that the Scriptures point to him and that he is the substance of the OT. Don't you think?

That is speculation, which is dangerous.

Are you NOT OK with leaving some things undefined?