Infant Baptism

[Neachley]

Two questions on infant baptism:

If you were baptised as an infant as in many churches, should you ask to be baptised again if, as an adult, you become a believer in Jesus?

Infants can`t decide their faith, so therefore, is infant baptism valid in God`s eyes?

[2bossy]

Yes. Baptism is a testimony of your salvation, and salvation is a personal decision. Being baptised as a baby may be a nice ceremony, but it doesn't get you anywhere with God.

[Harley]

Valid is an interesting choice of words, ...get you anywhere with God even moreso - as if to imply baptism accomplished something in God's eyes - ala Christ's sacrifice.

That being said, I was rebaptised (Does that me Anabaptist?) as an adult. I have "rebaptised" adults. I think it is a good sign, but since it is only a sign, I would encourage (should) not require (should).

[2bossy]

I just wanted to clarify - You're right, Harley. Baptism isn't required to be saved.

I was watching a show on television where they were baptising an infant and they said they were bringing him into God's kingdom. Just wanted to clarify that some people think infant baptism does save the child, but I wasn't saying that you had to be baptised to be saved.

[Harley]

Thanks 2bossy, good clarification and important distinction...

My $.02 on the original question, I believe it is good for adults to ask to be baptised when they come to faith, regardless their previous religio-aquatic experiences.

[Hootmon]

Originally posted by Neachley
If you were baptised as an infant as in many churches, should you ask to be baptised again if, as an adult, you become a believer in Jesus?Yes.


Originally posted by Neachley
Infants can`t decide their faith, so therefore, is infant baptism valid in God`s eyes? No, IMO, but some will disagree.

[Jade]

I believe it is up to the Spirit to convict a person of that. If you get baptized as an adult because someoen has told you that you had to, then where is your heart for God in that decision?




I was baptized as an infant, but did not accept Jesus until I was an adult. I was baptized again a couple of months later, something I asked for and wanted very much.

[JDM2]

Baptism by water in it self has no effect on salvation and is not required to enter the Kingdom of God. Infant baptism does not save any child, all children go to Heaven if they die before the age of accountability, read about David,s comments regarding his baby with Beshebba.

The Bible does not indicate any proper form for baptist. The reason baptism is not required for salvation is what Jesus said and did on the cross, "It is finished".

[filosofer]

Originally posted by JDM2
Baptism by water in it self has no effect on salvation and is not required to enter the Kingdom of God. Infant baptism does not save any child,

1 Peter 3; Mark 16:16

And note that baptism is never separated from faith. But it does depend on who is the active one in baptism - the person or God? Isn't Baptism something that is done to the person?

all children go to Heaven if they die before the age of accountability, read about David,s comments regarding his baby with Beshebba.

And when and where does the Bible say anything about the age of accountability? Perhaps Matthew 28:19 - "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations over the age of accountability..."?

Or that sin is limited to what a person consciously understands? Perhaps Romasn 3:23 - "for all over the age of accountability have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"?


The reason baptism is not required for salvation is what Jesus said and did on the cross, "It is finished".

Not a valid argument, since the commission to make disciples by baptizing and teaching did not occur until after Jesus' death. Thus, the "thief on the cross" argument is no more valid than Abraham, Moses, David.

And specifically what was finished when Jesus said that? Was it not the full payment for sin? How then is that applied to people - "baptizing and teaching" according to Matt. 28.

[Harley]

Originally posted by filosofer
And when and where does the Bible say anything about the age of accountability? Perhaps Matthew 28:19 - "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations over the age of accountability..."?


WOW! I think this is the first time I have seen someone else question this doctrine. If you look at it without the emotion [ya know, babies go'n to Hell and all...], you'll see it has more holes then a good block of Swiss cheese...

[bigrock76]

Just a quick questions, if you don't think baptism is salvific, than how do you look at Mark 16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned"? Also who do you feel makes the promise in baptism, God to human, or human making a promise to God? Do you believe in original sin, or originating sin? And the words "it is finised" I've understood to mean that the Law is finished, and that now there is a new testament for God's people.

[Harley]

Originally posted by bigrock76
Just a quick questions, if you don't think baptism is salvific, than how do you look at Mark 16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned"?

Note the negative apodosis says "...he who does not believe will be condemned" it does not say "...he who is not baptized" or "...he who believes but is not baptized" or...

[filosofer]

Thus, Harley, putting those two together, the doctrine of baptism states: essential for salvation but not absolutely essential for salvation.

[Harley]

We could bat this puppy back and forth, you quoting some verses, me quoting some verses - I'm just not sure I want get into that. But I will say; as I interpret them the perponderance of verses indicate that salvation is secured (eeeek not another issue?) through faith and not works. Baptism is obviously a work, therefore there must be a better understanding for verses that seem to require it.

As for Mark, I could say: "believe and go to church," "believe and read your Bible," "believe and (insert work) and you will be saved." But the negation shows that the only "requirement" is belief.

Out of curiosity I will ask one question though; if baptism is required, what do you do with the thief on the cross? Obviously he was not baptised, and allowing exceptions for extinuating circumstances is not consistent with your watertight (pun intended) use of "Believe and be baptized"

[Harley]

Originally posted by bigrock76
Just a quick questions, if you don't think baptism is salvific, than how do you look at Mark 16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned"? Also who do you feel makes the promise in baptism, God to human, or human making a promise to God? Do you believe in original sin, or originating sin? And the words "it is finised" I've understood to mean that the Law is finished, and that now there is a new testament for God's people.

Bigrock76,
I'm pretty much at a loss on what you mean by "the promise of baptism" and "originating sin" I'd feel better if I understood your thoughts more fully. Thanks

[daveleau]

Originally posted by Neachley
Two questions on infant baptism:

If you were baptised as an infant as in many churches, should you ask to be baptised again if, as an adult, you become a believer in Jesus?

Infants can`t decide their faith, so therefore, is infant baptism valid in God`s eyes?

-Yes, baptism is a choice and you did not make that choice. It is good for a parent to Christen a child and dedicate them to the Lord. But, this alone does not save a child. The child must make the choice and then be baptized.

It is valid until they are metally capable of making the choice.

[bigrock76]

This is my thought, baptism is not a work, the way I look at it, if you feel you must be re-baptized because you found God, than that is a work. What is essential in baptism is that it is God's work and His promise, not ours, so saying that your first baptism didn't stick is, IMHO, wrong, and is saying that God didn't keep His promise. As for the Mark 16, here is what I feel, we have assurance in baptism of our salvation, that is why those who are older that are called to faith will want to be baptized, the thing is that when I preach a funeral sermon, if I know for certain that someone is baptized, than I can lay claim to the promise of Jesus Christ and Him crucified for you, and claim the promise of the resurrection of the body. As for the theif on the cross, if I recall, that was before the resurrection and before Mathew 28. Original sin and originating sin are how you believe we become sinful.
I hope this clears up where I am coming from.
simul iustus et peccator, simul mortuus et vivus.
Shalom

[Hootmon]

Originally posted by bigrock76
This is my thought, baptism is not a work, the way I look at it, if you feel you must be re-baptized because you found God, than that is a work. What is essential in baptism is that it is God's work and His promise, not ours, so saying that your first baptism didn't stick is, IMHO, wrong, and is saying that God didn't keep His promise. There are no examples in the NT of water baptism without belief coming first. Since infants are incapable of this kind of belief, it stands to reason that the 'baptism' merely resulted in a wet infant.

[CamelPower]

filosofer:

We know that you have a significant background in Lutheran ministry (I forget which synod), but much of what folks around here generally think about water baptism is due to our (whether we admit it or not) stance on hermenutics. With a post-pentecost, pretribulational, dispensational rapture of the Church on the horizon, administering water baptism to those who have trusted in Christ's work for them (as they did in Acts) seems to be the clear choice. Harley, several posts back, might not have had the benefit of amillenial scholarship. Indeed, I didn't run into folks who taught infant baptism until I got to college.

We wondered if folks like that were indeed saved.

A PM on another matter will be sent.

[CINDY S.]

Just before Y2K, I can remember being so angry with
the church I had been attending because they schedule
baptisms and I didn't schedule it in time.

They believe that baptism won't save you and thankfully
I didn't go off on a rant and remove myself from that
church.

I was baptised as an infant and my dad said I didn't
need to have it done again. I respectfully disagree....
While it's his desire I am saved, it is ultimately my
decision to accept JESUS. Thankfully, I did :):

[bigrock76]

I guess fundimentally I disagree with the statement that it is ultimately your decision to accept Christ, I believe that Christ accepted me, a sinner while I was still in sin, I don't believe that I was a block of wood in all this either (Melanchthon's thought) I was infact running as far away from Christ as I could, when He came to me through the proclimation of the Gospel from a preacher. This however boils down to the debate on the bondage of the will, election and predestination.

[CINDY S.]

That predestination theory is why I don't attend
denominational churches anymore. I was raised
in the Christian Reformed church.

I attend a bible church.

I also believe in free will and the unforgiveable sin of rejecting
JESUS.

[bigrock76]

I'm glad that you've found a church where you feel at home, that's the most important thing. I find that the best freedom is not having free will, it frees me from worrying about my salvation for I know that it comes only through Christ, in this freedom I feel that I can fully live my life for Christ without the worry of the ladder system of living under the law. As for predestination I don't believe in double predestination, I don't feel that God predestines some to hell, but I believe that with the proclamation comes election through the Holy Spirit.

[pilgrimian]

Baptism has to do with belief...

In the Gospels we see "Believe and be baptised" preached time and time again. This, of course, had a specific application to the Jews who were being saved from the generation of AD 70. Remember Peter saying "be saved from this wicked generation"? That was the generation which denied the Messiahship of Christ, and incurred the destruction of The Temple and Jerusalem on themselves. But, as we know from Eusebius and other early historians, not one Jewish believer was killed in AD 70 in the destruction of the city.

The connection to Jews had to do with the Mikveh...the Levitical cleansing one had to go through before going into The Temple. This was something that had to be done many times...just like the priests' continual sacrifices. But just as Christ is a one-time sacrifice (not to be done again and again like the Catholics persist), Baptism is once and for all.

Infant Baptism is actually quite wrong. I have read people trying to equate this with circumcision for the Jewish child. Quite a ridiculous attempt, and it shows a poor Israelology. Baby dedications are one thing...the parents signifying they are bringing up the child in the Word. But when a child is able to make decisions for himself/herself they are to be baptised. No, this isn't necessary for salvation. But it is something we do out of obedience.

No, the thief on the cross was not baptised. Therefore, baptism...we know...is not necessary for salvation. This is the same with death-bed conversions. God knows your heart. This is not an "out" for those who don't want to do it, though. One ought to be baptised.

I have heard the same excuse for women not covering their heads in the Church. They say it isn't a "salvation issue." Nevertheless, the Bible teaches it...and we are to follow it in obedience.

There are many things that we are to do which aren't necessarily salvation issues...but we do them in obedience to Scripture.

Godspeed,
Matthew

[filosofer]

No, the thief on the cross was not baptised. Therefore, baptism...we know...is not necessary for salvation.

Except, again, as I have pointed out before. The thief on the cross died before Jesus gave the Great Commission. So, the argument holds no water (pun intended!).

Faith saves - I have never questioned that because Scripture makes that very clear (Ephesians 2:8-9). The issue is whether Baptism is something that God does and uses (Gospel) or is it something the person does (Law). I believe that Scripture is clear that Baptism is something done to and for the person ("the promise is for you and your children" Acts 2:39). Notice, too, that in Ephesians 2:4-5 it is God who makes alive, not the person - according to the Great Commission that happens by the Word (taught) and Baptizing.

[antsinmypants]

Ah yes, but Y'shua said that those who accept him must be born of the blood AND the water. (And no, You do not have to have this done to be saved.. think of all those death-bed conversions! but it is a command that Y'shua gave that is to be listened to)

remember this:



Act 8:27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,

Act 8:28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.

Act 8:29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.

Act 8:30 And Philip ran thither to [him], and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?

Act 8:31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

Act 8:32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

Act 8:33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.

Act 8:34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?

Act 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

Act 8:36 And as they went on [their] way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, [here is] water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Act 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.


It takes BELIEF - and Acceptance of Messiah to be saved- and as the first thing you do to show your new life, is being baptized... as He was, and as He commanded.

[pilgrimian]

Originally posted by filosofer
Except, again, as I have pointed out before. The thief on the cross died before Jesus gave the Great Commission. So, the argument holds no water (pun intended!).

Faith saves - I have never questioned that because Scripture makes that very clear (Ephesians 2:8-9). The issue is whether Baptism is something that God does and uses (Gospel) or is it something the person does (Law). I believe that Scripture is clear that Baptism is something done to and for the person ("the promise is for you and your children" Acts 2:39). Notice, too, that in Ephesians 2:4-5 it is God who makes alive, not the person - according to the Great Commission that happens by the Word (taught) and Baptizing.

You're misusing Acts 2:39, actually. The promise was not baptism as in water baptism...but the Holy Spirit. By using this verse out of its context one could just as well say that you're promoting that those who are not baptised are not indwelt by the Spirit.

And if you're going to attempt to use the Great Commission as your benchmark...then how was it that any Gentile could have been a believer before the Great Commission?

In Matthew 10 Christ was specific in telling that the Gospel was not to go to anyone but Israel. I have heard people say that the Roman guards became believers--and in Matthew 27 they do say He is the Son of God. Did this mean they believed...not necessarily. It only means that they recognized who He was, but not that they believed in Him for their salvation.

Regardless, if we look at Paul's journeys...and what he tells people to do...baptism is not always a part of it. I'm not saying anything AGAINST baptism. It's something we do out of obedience. Nevertheless, it was more meaningful I believe for the Messianic believer coming out of Biblical Judaism. They would have known well the numerous bathings required under the Levitical system (Mikveh). This is virtually unknown to the largely Gentile Church today.

Ants,

That is a good Scripture, too. He was talking to a Jewish believer at that time...Nicodemus. Nevertheless, I am merely trying to point out that the belief must be there. Infant baptism is quite incorrect, and Scripturally unfounded. I have been born of both blood and water. Amen!

Godspeed,
Matthew

[antsinmypants]

I have also. ^_~

[pilgrimian]

Originally posted by antsinmypants
I have also. ^_~

Well...praise the Lord!

Didn't mean to sound as though I was insinuating you hadn't been...

[filosofer]

As long as someone dens in that way, then it can't help but lead to the conclusion that has already been defined.

At what point does a person have faith? Can infants have faith? If God is the one who creates faith ("makes alive"), then God can create faith in any spiritually dead person (whether three weeks old or thirty years old).

To whom does the kingdom of God belong? According to Luke 18:15-16, it didn't seem to matter to Jesus "whether they were old enought" - they were bringing "babies" and he included them in the statement "for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these." The word BREPHOUS in 18:15 is the same word used to describe John in the womb of his mother (Luke 1).

Interesting that a month old baby can tell whether the mother is holding or someone else. The baby doesn't sit up and say "Hey, that's not my Mom!" But the baby can tell the difference. And the baby has trust in the mother's arms/care. How much more so when God is the active one?

[pilgrimian]

Originally posted by filosofer
As long as someone dens in that way, then it can't help but lead to the conclusion that has already been defined.

At what point does a person have faith? Can infants have faith? If God is the one who creates faith ("makes alive"), then God can create faith in any spiritually dead person (whether three weeks old or thirty years old).

To whom does the kingdom of God belong? According to Luke 18:15-16, it didn't seem to matter to Jesus "whether they were old enought" - they were bringing "babies" and he included them in the statement "for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these." The word BREPHOUS in 18:15 is the same word used to describe John in the womb of his mother (Luke 1).

Interesting that a month old baby can tell whether the mother is holding or someone else. The baby doesn't sit up and say "Hey, that's not my Mom!" But the baby can tell the difference. And the baby has trust in the mother's arms/care. How much more so when God is the active one?

Now you are advocating placing individuals into the Church that are not able to speak and believe on their own (sounds a LOT like the Church of the Dark Ages, "Thyatira"--an open door for numerous unbelievers to become "members" of the visible church). If someone doesn't verbalize their faith there is little reason to be baptised. Baptism is a sign of what one believes. Who is to say that the child be baptised is even elect? I know that sounds pretty "mean" of me, but it's seemingly your conclusion.

The difference between a baby being able to tell whether his/her mother is holding him/her and whether they understand what it is Jesus did for them on the cross are two separate things. And John and Jesus were different children...they were not your ordinary children. John was the herald to the Messiah, for goodness' sake. This can hardly be used to by way of application for the masses of children who people want to baptise. There will not be another John the Baptist. Elijah will come...but he never died and so won't need to be born.

Paul shows that there is a need for verbally declaring one's belief (even though when one believes for themselves they are saved...it doesn't take a "sinner's prayer" necessarily to save a person). Paul says so in Romans 10:

8But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame."

So one must believe in their heart. Babies recognize their mother...but do they understand what their mothers went through to have them? Just the same, babies may recognize a picture of Jesus...but do they understand what He went through to save them? Not only do they understand...but do they accept it?

A baby who is not baptised...will that baby go to Hell? One of God's attributes is justice. Because of this I would say that any child who has not come to the age of making such a decision will not go to the Lake of Fire.

Godspeed,
Matthew

[rekker]

This subject has been debated for hundreds of years by much more intelligent people than those of us on this message board. It is unlikely we will solve the dilemma here.

The problem is that no Scriptures are definitive on the issue, and we all have our favorite texts that we believe prove our respective positions.

Since most orthodox Christians believe that baptism is not a necessary condition for salvation, can we also agree that neither is the particular *mode* of baptism?

I think this discussion should be relegated to what we think is "best" in our opinion and in learning from one another, not what we think should be made into law so that we can categorize those who do not conform to our opinion as "unsaved."

[pilgrimian]

Originally posted by rekker
This subject has been debated for hundreds of years by much more intelligent people than those of us on this message board. It is unlikely we will solve the dilemma here.

The problem is that no Scriptures are definitive on the issue, and we all have our favorite texts that we believe prove our respective positions.

Since most orthodox Christians believe that baptism is not a necessary condition for salvation, can we also agree that neither is the particular *mode* of baptism?

I think this discussion should be relegated to what we think is "best" in our opinion and in learning from one another, not what we think should be made into law so that we can categorize those who do not conform to our opinion as "unsaved."

I wasn't insinuating that filo is not saved. I was merely saying that baptising children into the church--individuals who are not believing and may well never believe--is asking for problems. Look at the largely apostate Catholic church...look at the churches which were aligned with government in Europe. State churches did this...and do this.

I have a friend who is not a believer, but is on the rolls in Norway as a member of the Church there. She was baptised as an infant, but she's an atheist. Therefore, infant baptism didn't do any good. I've witnessed to her a number of times...maybe she'll come to belief. I can only hope.

Baby dedication is one thing...infant baptism is quite another.

Godspeed,
Matthew

[Hootmon]

Originally posted by filosofer
At what point does a person have faith? Can infants have faith? If God is the one who creates faith ("makes alive"), then God can create faith in any spiritually dead person (whether three weeks old or thirty years old). That argument sounds very Catholic to me.

[Hootmon]

Originally posted by rekker
Since most orthodox Christians believe that baptism is not a necessary condition for salvation, can we also agree that neither is the particular *mode* of baptism? The word 'Baptisma' has a specific meaning. It was used for the dyeing of cloth as well as pickling vegetables, and always refered to a full immersion.

[Hootmon]

Originally posted by pilgrimian
Baby dedication is one thing...infant baptism is quite another. :thumb

[antsinmypants]

Originally posted by rekker
This subject has been debated for hundreds of years by much more intelligent people than those of us on this message board. It is unlikely we will solve the dilemma here.

The problem is that no Scriptures are definitive on the issue, and we all have our favorite texts that we believe prove our respective positions.

Actually, the bible mandates a Mikveh-- which is what a baptism is-- after we're saved by our faith in Messiah.

It's not just ANY mikveh-- but the same kind that the preists would have done-- or New converts to Judaism.

Well known fact, documented not only by history but the bible.

Not to mention, people who rededicated their lives to the L-rd, were also "baptised" In this same manner

[bigrock76]

I was just wondering if anyone has read the Didache? It gives instructions for baptism.

[rekker]

Originally posted by antsinmypants
Actually, the bible mandates a Mikveh-- which is what a baptism is-- after we're saved by our faith in Messiah.

It's not just ANY mikveh-- but the same kind that the preists would have done-- or New converts to Judaism.

Well known fact, documented not only by history but the bible.

Not to mention, people who rededicated their lives to the L-rd, were also "baptised" In this same manner

The Bible also mandates that if our faith is real we will look after orphans and widows, and that if we do not keep a tight reign on our tongue our faith won't save us. (See James)

The point is, the Bible mandates things that are not necessary for salvation. The Protestant Reformation hinged on 'sola fide' - salvation by faith alone. The Apostle's Creed, written 50 years after the last writings of the new testament, doesn't even mention baptism. So I think it's pretty safe to say that, although we should be baptized as mandated by Scripture, you won't go to hell for not getting baptized.

That's all I really meant.