Infant Baptism

[Iosias]

One reason I have not been posting here as often as I have done in the past is that I have recently come to reject infant baptism. Now I do not wish to start a major debate but rather I seek the counsel of my brethren and ask you to put forward your reason(s) why I should return to paedobaptism.

:)

[Colabomb]

I'll give you a defense of paedobaptism later. But I would say that disagreeing with it is not a reason to leave STR. There is a historical precedent of Credobaptist Anglicans. It is not a majority opinion, but it is large enough to be noticable.

[Iosias]

There is a historical precedent of Credobaptist Anglicans.

Such as? You have pricked my interest bro!

[Colabomb]

I'll get back to you in time, they are a small group and it will take me some time to find examples.

[Wigglesworth]

Aren't you a little old for infant baptism anyway?

:scratch:

[AngCath]

Baptism incorporates us into the Church, the Body of Christ, and is our introduction to the life of the Holy Trinity. The Sacrament bears witness to the action of God who chooses a child to be an important member of His people. The baptised, children or adult, are expected to mature in the life of the Spirit, through their family and the Church.

[higgs2]

Baptism incorporates us into the Church, the Body of Christ, and is our introduction to the life of the Holy Trinity. The Sacrament bears witness to the action of God who chooses a child to be an important member of His people. The baptised, children or adult, are expected to mature in the life of the Spirit, through their family and the Church.

Exactly! My children are my brother and sisters in Christ. A very wise person pointed that out to me once. I see no reason to make children wait to be marked as Christ's own forever.

[Simon_Templar]

Infant baptism has been probably the hardest aspect of anglicanism for my family to swallow and has spawned the most arguments over my becoming Anglican.

In scripture there is nothing really that says infant baptism is wrong, but also nothing that necessarily confirms it either. So in both cases, the arguments presented are generally circumstantial and/or argument from lack of evidence.

Those in favor of infant baptism usually point out the household baptisms of scripture. There are several places in which the head of a household became a believer and it says they were baptized, and their whole household with them. Now this does not directly state that infants are baptized. It just depends upon if you feel it better to assume that in each of those instances there were no infants in that house, or to assume that there probably were infants in some of those houses.

I myself am not hardcore about it. I don't think that its necessarily WRONG to do it either way.


However, pretty much all the arguments I've heard against infant baptism come back to one assumption, and I find its an assumption that I don't really agree with.

The assumption can be phrased a few different ways but it is essentially that faith depends upon ability to obtain a certain level of knowledge or understanding. Since infants are not mentally capable of said given level of knowledge or understanding, they can not have faith.. therefore they should not be baptized.

Like I said, I don't find this convincing. First, there is nothing in scripture, to my knowledge, which equates faith to knowledge, or understanding. If anything, I suspect that scripture would teach that knowledge and understanding follow faith, and not the other way around.

Secondly, I find the assumption that an infant can't know God because it is not mentally capable of assimilating exterior learning to be faulty as well. I don't see any reason for this assumption at all. I personally believe it is the result of modern, naturalistic philosophy, rather than anything to do with God or the scriptures.

In regard to these ideas I would point to the instance of John the baptist. When Mary came to visit Elizabeth, John the baptist lept in Elizabeth's womb at the sound of Mary's voice. The indication is that he, while in the womb, recognized the presense of Jesus in Mary's womb. It then goes on to say that he was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb. Leading many to believe that he was, in fact, filled with the Spirit the moment that he lept in the womb.

While John is obviously exceptional. The fact that it was possible for him to recognize Jesus, and to be filled with the Holy Spirit from birth clearly indicates that infants are capable of knowing God, and I would argue, capable of faith.

[DeoJuvante]

Infant baptism:

SINCE It's always been done;
AND there's nothing wrong with doing it (unlike, for example, slavery);
AND there isn't a compelling reason to change;

I don't see why it's even worth debating.

[erin74]

Infant baptism has been probably the hardest aspect of anglicanism for my family to swallow and has spawned the most arguments over my becoming Anglican.

In scripture there is nothing really that says infant baptism is wrong, but also nothing that necessarily confirms it either. So in both cases, the arguments presented are generally circumstantial and/or argument from lack of evidence.

Those in favor of infant baptism usually point out the household baptisms of scripture. There are several places in which the head of a household became a believer and it says they were baptized, and their whole household with them. Now this does not directly state that infants are baptized. It just depends upon if you feel it better to assume that in each of those instances there were no infants in that house, or to assume that there probably were infants in some of those houses.

I myself am not hardcore about it. I don't think that its necessarily WRONG to do it either way.


However, pretty much all the arguments I've heard against infant baptism come back to one assumption, and I find its an assumption that I don't really agree with.

The assumption can be phrased a few different ways but it is essentially that faith depends upon ability to obtain a certain level of knowledge or understanding. Since infants are not mentally capable of said given level of knowledge or understanding, they can not have faith.. therefore they should not be baptized.

Like I said, I don't find this convincing. First, there is nothing in scripture, to my knowledge, which equates faith to knowledge, or understanding. If anything, I suspect that scripture would teach that knowledge and understanding follow faith, and not the other way around.

Secondly, I find the assumption that an infant can't know God because it is not mentally capable of assimilating exterior learning to be faulty as well. I don't see any reason for this assumption at all. I personally believe it is the result of modern, naturalistic philosophy, rather than anything to do with God or the scriptures.

In regard to these ideas I would point to the instance of John the baptist. When Mary came to visit Elizabeth, John the baptist lept in Elizabeth's womb at the sound of Mary's voice. The indication is that he, while in the womb, recognized the presense of Jesus in Mary's womb. It then goes on to say that he was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb. Leading many to believe that he was, in fact, filled with the Spirit the moment that he lept in the womb.

While John is obviously exceptional. The fact that it was possible for him to recognize Jesus, and to be filled with the Holy Spirit from birth clearly indicates that infants are capable of knowing God, and I would argue, capable of faith.
I might add. Since faith is from God, and not from us, then it is quite seperate to knowledge.

I used to worry about infant baptism, but I am in favour of it now. It took me a bit though.
I believe in the idea of baptising children as children of the covenent. I think it is consistant with the bible.

[norbie]

May I ask how anybody out there would like to bring up a Pegan Child?
My Children belong to the Family of God and they did confirm it when they understood at 14 years of age.
Norbie

[TomUK]

I would also refer to instances in Acts where whole households were baptised. The whole household would almost certainly have included infants.

[ebia]

I always think it reflects what you believe baptism is about. If you think baptism is primarily about the person being baptised doing something then it clearly doesn't make much sense for it to be done to infants.
If you think baptism is primarily about God doing something then it clearly doesn't make much sense to wait.

[artrx]

Infant baptism has been probably the hardest aspect of anglicanism for my family to swallow and has spawned the most arguments over my becoming Anglican.

In scripture there is nothing really that says infant baptism is wrong, but also nothing that necessarily confirms it either. So in both cases, the arguments presented are generally circumstantial and/or argument from lack of evidence.

Those in favor of infant baptism usually point out the household baptisms of scripture. There are several places in which the head of a household became a believer and it says they were baptized, and their whole household with them. Now this does not directly state that infants are baptized. It just depends upon if you feel it better to assume that in each of those instances there were no infants in that house, or to assume that there probably were infants in some of those houses.

I myself am not hardcore about it. I don't think that its necessarily WRONG to do it either way.


However, pretty much all the arguments I've heard against infant baptism come back to one assumption, and I find its an assumption that I don't really agree with.

The assumption can be phrased a few different ways but it is essentially that faith depends upon ability to obtain a certain level of knowledge or understanding. Since infants are not mentally capable of said given level of knowledge or understanding, they can not have faith.. therefore they should not be baptized.

Like I said, I don't find this convincing. First, there is nothing in scripture, to my knowledge, which equates faith to knowledge, or understanding. If anything, I suspect that scripture would teach that knowledge and understanding follow faith, and not the other way around.

Secondly, I find the assumption that an infant can't know God because it is not mentally capable of assimilating exterior learning to be faulty as well. I don't see any reason for this assumption at all. I personally believe it is the result of modern, naturalistic philosophy, rather than anything to do with God or the scriptures.

In regard to these ideas I would point to the instance of John the baptist. When Mary came to visit Elizabeth, John the baptist lept in Elizabeth's womb at the sound of Mary's voice. The indication is that he, while in the womb, recognized the presense of Jesus in Mary's womb. It then goes on to say that he was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb. Leading many to believe that he was, in fact, filled with the Spirit the moment that he lept in the womb.

While John is obviously exceptional. The fact that it was possible for him to recognize Jesus, and to be filled with the Holy Spirit from birth clearly indicates that infants are capable of knowing God, and I would argue, capable of faith.

I always think it reflects what you believe baptism is about. If you think baptism is primarily about the person being baptised doing something then it clearly doesn't make much sense for it to be done to infants.
If you think baptism is primarily about God doing something then it clearly doesn't make much sense to wait.

:amen: Nice posts.

[karen freeinchristman]

I always think it reflects what you believe baptism is about. If you think baptism is primarily about the person being baptised doing something then it clearly doesn't make much sense for it to be done to infants.
If you think baptism is primarily about God doing something then it clearly doesn't make much sense to wait.
Well said, ebia!

[higgs2]

May I ask how anybody out there would like to bring up a Pegan Child?
My Children belong to the Family of God and they did confirm it when they understood at 14 years of age.
Norbie

What??? Are you meaning "pagan"? Are you saying a child who is not baptised is pagan? :confused:

[higgs2]

I always think it reflects what you believe baptism is about. If you think baptism is primarily about the person being baptised doing something then it clearly doesn't make much sense for it to be done to infants.
If you think baptism is primarily about God doing something then it clearly doesn't make much sense to wait.

Very good point. :thumbsup:

[Iosias]

I would also refer to instances in Acts where whole households were baptised. The whole household would almost certainly have included infants.

To which I would point out

"There is, indeed, mention made of households, or families, baptized; and which the "paedobaptists" endeavour to avail themselves of; but they ought to be sure there were infants in these families, and that they were baptized, or else they must baptize them on a very precarious foundation; since there are families who have no infants in them, and how can they be sure there were any in these the scriptures speak of? and it lies upon them to prove there were infants in them, and that these infants were baptized; or the allegation of these instances is to no purpose. We are able to prove there are many things in the account of these families, which are inconsistent with infants, and which make it at least probable there were none in them, and which also make it certain that those who were baptized were adult persons and believers in Christ. There are but three families, if so many, who are usually instanced in: the first is that of Lydia and her household (Acts 16:14, 15), but in what state of life she was is not certain, whether single or married, whether maid widow or wife; and if married, whether she then had any children, or ever had any; and if she had, and they living, whether they were infants or adult; and if infants, it does not seem probable that she should bring them along with her from her native place, Thyatira to Philippi, where she seems to have been upon business, and so had hired a house during her stay there; wherefore her household seems to have consisted of menial servants she brought along with her, to assist her in her business: and certain it is, that those the apostles found in her house, when they entered into it, after they came out of prison, were such as are called "brethren," and were capable of being "comforted" by them; which supposes them to have been in some distress and trouble, and needed comfort. The second instance is of the jailor and his household, which consisted of adult persons, and of such only; for the apostles spoke the word of the Lord to "all" that were in his house, which they were capable of hearing, and it seems of understanding; for not only he "rejoiced" at the good news of salvation by Christ, but "all" in his house hearing it, rejoiced likewise; which joy of theirs was the joy of faith; for he and they were believers in God, Father, Son, and Spirit; for it is expressly said, that he "rejoiced, believing in God with all his house;" so that they were not only hearers of the word, but rejoiced at it, and believed in it, and in God the Saviour, revealed in it to them (Acts 16:32-34), all which shows them to be adult persons, and not infants. The third instance, if distinct from the household of the jailor, which some take to be the same, is that of Stephanus; but be it a different one, it is certain it consisted of adult persons, believers in Christ, and very useful in the service of religion; they were the first fruits of Achaia, the first converts in those parts, and who "addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints," (1 Cor. 16:15) which, whether understood of the ministry of the word to the saints, which they gave themselves up unto; or of the ministration of their substance to the poor, which they cheerfully communicated, they must be adult persons, and not infants." (see (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Practical_Divinity/Book_3/book3_01.htm))

I believe in the idea of baptising children as children of the covenent.

This is what I believed but who are in the covenant? The covenant of grace is made with Christ and the elect in him and so the covenant is only ever made with the elect seed of believers. For not all the seed of Abraham were in the covenant and so Ishmael was not circumcisied because he was in the covenant because Genesis 17:21 shows that Ishmael was never in the covenant.

[Simon_Templar]

To which I would point out

"There is, indeed, mention made of households, or families, baptized; and which the "paedobaptists" endeavour to avail themselves of; but they ought to be sure there were infants in these families, and that they were baptized, or else they must baptize them on a very precarious foundation; since there are families who have no infants in them, and how can they be sure there were any in these the scriptures speak of? and it lies upon them to prove there were infants in them, and that these infants were baptized; or the allegation of these instances is to no purpose. We are able to prove there are many things in the account of these families, which are inconsistent with infants, and which make it at least probable there were none in them, and which also make it certain that those who were baptized were adult persons and believers in Christ. There are but three families, if so many, who are usually instanced in: the first is that of Lydia and her household (Acts 16:14, 15), but in what state of life she was is not certain, whether single or married, whether maid widow or wife; and if married, whether she then had any children, or ever had any; and if she had, and they living, whether they were infants or adult; and if infants, it does not seem probable that she should bring them along with her from her native place, Thyatira to Philippi, where she seems to have been upon business, and so had hired a house during her stay there; wherefore her household seems to have consisted of menial servants she brought along with her, to assist her in her business: and certain it is, that those the apostles found in her house, when they entered into it, after they came out of prison, were such as are called "brethren," and were capable of being "comforted" by them; which supposes them to have been in some distress and trouble, and needed comfort. The second instance is of the jailor and his household, which consisted of adult persons, and of such only; for the apostles spoke the word of the Lord to "all" that were in his house, which they were capable of hearing, and it seems of understanding; for not only he "rejoiced" at the good news of salvation by Christ, but "all" in his house hearing it, rejoiced likewise; which joy of theirs was the joy of faith; for he and they were believers in God, Father, Son, and Spirit; for it is expressly said, that he "rejoiced, believing in God with all his house;" so that they were not only hearers of the word, but rejoiced at it, and believed in it, and in God the Saviour, revealed in it to them (Acts 16:32-34), all which shows them to be adult persons, and not infants. The third instance, if distinct from the household of the jailor, which some take to be the same, is that of Stephanus; but be it a different one, it is certain it consisted of adult persons, believers in Christ, and very useful in the service of religion; they were the first fruits of Achaia, the first converts in those parts, and who "addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints," (1 Cor. 16:15) which, whether understood of the ministry of the word to the saints, which they gave themselves up unto; or of the ministration of their substance to the poor, which they cheerfully communicated, they must be adult persons, and not infants." (see (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Practical_Divinity/Book_3/book3_01.htm))



This is what I believed but who are in the covenant? The covenant of grace is made with Christ and the elect in him and so the covenant is only ever made with the elect seed of believers. For not all the seed of Abraham were in the covenant and so Ishmael was not circumcisied because he was in the covenant because Genesis 17:21 shows that Ishmael was never in the covenant.
The argument of those against infant baptism always seek to put the burden of proof on those who are in favor. I don't see why this should be. The practice of infant baptism has been around, as far as anyone knows, from the very beginning and there were no objections to it until around the 17th century. (with the single exception of Tertullian, whose reason for objecting was a heretical/heterodox belief about sin after baptism).

Thus, the burden of proof should not be on the infant baptist position, but on the contrary position. They are the ones who are arguing for a new view point.

Secondly, the assumptions made in the response are primarily humanistic and naturalistic in nature, as usual. There is simply no biblical reason why an infant could not have faith, or even rejoice (as again, John the baptist did in fact do). When Jesus said "let the little children come to me" the greek for little children is inclusive of infants, and certainly describes children well below the age of accountability. Yet the entire anti-paedobaptist position relies upon the assumption that such are incapable of, in fact, coming to God in any meaningful way.

[Iosias]

The practice of infant baptism has been around, as far as anyone knows, from the very beginning

This is the key issue, I would contend the very opposite.

and there were no objections to it until around the 17th century.

What about the Waldensians which started in 1173?

Thus, the burden of proof should not be on the infant baptist position, but on the contrary position.

Both have the purden of proof...they must prove their position from Scripture.

There is simply no biblical reason why an infant could not have faith...

Agreed but how do we know which ones to baptise? Surely we should wait until we know who profess faith and then baptise them?

[Iosias]

The four key baptismal texts are found in Romans 6, Galatians 3, Colossians 2 and 1 Peter 3.

Romans 6:3-6 “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.”

Galatians 3:27 “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”

Colossians 2:11, 12 “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.”

1 Peter 3:20, 21 “Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:”

1stly, the first three teach clearly that baptism signifies death and resurrection and so regeneration and sanctification.
2ndly, the last one teaches clearly that the ordinance of baptism is “the answer of a good conscience toward God” which is manifested through repentance and faith (inward) accompanied with baptism (external).
3rdly, none of these teachings can in any way be applied to infants.

Therefore paedobaptists are unable to argue from the clear New Testament diadactic statements concerning baptism to defend infant baptism

a far better approach is thus:
o If the child is elect and is included in the Covenant of Grace,
o They will be given the gift of repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ,
o Therefore we ought wait until they manifest their election by bringing forth the fruits of it so demonstrating that they belong to the covenant and then baptize them.

You see, the issue is of covenant membership. Paedobaptists argue that all the seed of believers are included in the covenant (as were the infants of Abraham) and so ought receive the covenant sign whilst Baptists argue that only the elect are included in the covenant and so only they ought be baptized. The issue is not election, as such, but rather covenant membership. Therefore the key question is just who is included in the New Covenant? Well the most obvious method to discern who is in the New Covenant is to look at what the blessings of it are at relating to the now. We can discern that the blessings of the NC include a new heart, and a new spirit, they will have the Spirit of God living within them, they shall possess true knowledge of God having been taught by him, having the law of God in their inward parts written upon their hearts, they will have God as their God and they shall be his people, their sins forgiven being sprinkled by the blood of Christ, their stony heart replaced by a heart of flesh. The members of the New Covenant possess all of these spiritual blessings including regeneration bringing forth repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. Now it is to these that baptism is to be. The only way we know who are in the New Covenant is through their bringing forth the fruits of the New Covenant. The issue is not so much as do infants belong in the New Covenant but rather do infants bringing forth the fruits of the New Covenant? If they do not then they have no part in it and are not to be baptized.

The New Covenant being seen here:

Jeremiah 31:31-4 "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

Ezekiel 36:25-28 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God."

Now this I believe is where a clear headed understanding of progressive unfolding of redemptive history is helpful. Circumcision did not typify baptism but rather regeneration which in turn is symbolized by baptism. In addition, Abraham was commanded to circumcise his seed now from Paul we know that this pointed to Christ and so I would argue that the seed of Abraham should be baptized but the seed of Abraham is Christ and the elect in him and so only the elect should be baptized. Just look at the language in Galatians 3:

Gal 3:7-9, 16, 26-29 “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. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.”


Here is Spurgeon in his sermon entitled Consecration to God – Illustrated by Abraham’s Circumcision:

“It is often said that the ordinance of Baptism is analogous to the ordinance of circumcision. I will not controvert that point, although the statement may be questioned. But supposing it to be, let me urge upon every Believer here to see to it that in his own soul he realizes the spiritual meaning both of circumcision and Baptism, and then consider the outward rites—for the thing signified is vastly more important than the sign....“Well,” says one, “a difficulty suggests itself as to your views”—for an argument is often drawn from this chapter, “that inasmuch as Abraham must circumcise all his seed, we ought to baptize all our children.” Now, observe the type and interpret it not according to prejudice, but according to Scripture. In the type the seed of Abraham are circumcised. You draw the inference that all typified by the seed of Abraham ought to be baptized, and I do not quibble at the conclusion. But I ask you, who are the true seed of Abraham? Paul answers in Romans 9:8—“They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” As many as believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, whether they are Jews or Gentiles, are Abraham’s seed. Whether eight days old in Divine Grace, or more or less—every one of Abraham’s seed has a right to Baptism. But I deny that the unregenerate, whether children or adults, are of the spiritual seed of Abraham. The Lord will, we trust, call many of them by His Grace—but as yet they are “heirs of wrath, even as others.” At such time as the Spirit of God shall sow the good seed in their hearts, they are of Abraham’s believing seed—but they are not so while they live in ungodliness and unbelief, or are as yet incapable of faith or repentance. The answering person in type to the seed of Abraham is, by the confession of everybody, the Believer. And the Believer ought, seeing he is buried with Christ spiritually, to prove that fact by his public Baptism in water, according to the Savior’s own precept and example.”

[Simon_Templar]

Paul says that children are sanctified by a believing parent.

For that matter it is impossible for us to know who is elect and who is not. The scriptures are clear that there are false believers in the church, so the mere fact that someone claims to repent does not mean that they are, in fact, elect. Thus if you can only baptise those who are known to be elect, we really couldn't baptise anyone.

In his sermon in Acts 2 Peter says "repent and be baptized and you shall recieve the Holy Spirit, for the promise is for you AND YOUR CHILDREN".

Also, Spurgeon in his sermon assumes that regeneration must occur before baptism. His entire argument hinges on the idea that the regenerate are the true children of Abraham and thus only they can receive baptism. Yet the scriptures teach that regeneration occurs in baptism. The baptist position depends on believing that regeneration preceeds baptism and is the result only of internal faith.

If regeneration actually occurs in baptism, then obviously a person does not need to be regenerate in order to receive baptism. The argument against paedo-baptism which relies on Abraham and circumcision always relies on muddling the relationship between old and new covenant.

The old covenant was not one of salvation, it was one of national membership. The covenant made a person an Israelite, it didn't make them saved. Circumcision was the outward sign which made a person part of that covenant. It could be received by those born to covenant members, or by people who chose to convert to join the covenant.
The new covenant is not of national membership, but rather of membership in Christ, which is salvation. No one believes that the conditions, or the benefits of membership are the same as those of the old covenant. The old was just a forshadowing of the new. The old was genetic membership. The new is faith membership. Yet there is evidence in scrpiture that God sanctifies the household who's head is a believer. Further there is evidence in scripture that if a parent is faithful in raising their children correctly, God has promised to preserve them.

[norbie]

What??? Are you meaning "pagan"? Are you saying a child who is not baptised is pagan? :confused:
well I realy don't know about it, or even don't understand it fully. Need's maybe more explaining. But to which God belong this Baby if it is not baptised? Even the Salvation Army dedicate their Babies to God.
So there must be something happen to the Newborne to be received in the Family of God.
I would like to get to know more about this, if someone can help.
Norbie

[Wigglesworth]

Even though someone in the time of the Old Testament could choose to become a naturalized Israelite, and a circumcised Israelite could reject God after maturity, I cannot remember reading about anybody in the Bible teaching the doctrine of "believer's circumcision."

Since God commanded circumcision on the infant's eighth day after birth, it's not such a strange thing to me that the Holy Spirit would direct the church to baptize infants.

:crossrc:

[higgs2]

well I realy don't know about it, or even don't understand it fully. Need's maybe more explaining. But to which God belong this Baby if it is not baptised? Even the Salvation Army dedicate their Babies to God.
So there must be something happen to the Newborne to be received in the Family of God.
I would like to get to know more about this, if someone can help.
Norbie

I'm not sure exactly what your question is. But dedication and baptism are different, the one is a promise by parents the other is a sacrament. But I trust that God adores all babies, baptised or not. ANd there aren't any other Gods, so we don't have to worry "which God" babies belong too. Hope that helps.

[DeoJuvante]

I'm not sure exactly what your question is. But dedication and baptism are different, the one is a promise by parents the other is a sacrament. But I trust that God adores all babies, baptised or not. ANd there aren't any other Gods, so we don't have to worry "which God" babies belong too. Hope that helps.

I agree. I thought we were monotheists, so why should we worry about 'other gods' and so on?

[ContraMundum]

Colossians 2:11, 12 “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.”

.......

You see, the issue is of covenant membership. Paedobaptists argue that all the seed of believers are included in the covenant (as were the infants of Abraham) and so ought receive the covenant sign whilst Baptists argue that only the elect are included in the covenant and so only they ought be baptized. The issue is not election, as such, but rather covenant membership. Therefore the key question is just who is included in the New Covenant?


The whole paradigm is wrong. We cannot establish "who is in and who is not" because the New Covenant is available to all. It is matter of whether or not we believe in the efficacy of the cross for all or for some. If one adapts Hyper-Calvinism's idea that the atonement is limited to just the "elect", then really the issue would be a no-brainer- provided the paradigm is correct.

When one sees the atonement as universal, but salvation as particular, then one sees God's grace being offered freely for all. He calls all from their dungeons of sin and lovingly beckons all to leave the prison. He sets them free from their spiritual death, rising them up from life by His own act of grace.

Now, if one accepts grace as free for all, then one accepts that God's grace is possible and even present in the life of a new born infant. His prevenient (or what Calvinists call "common") grace has already worked in the child, and will continue to call that child throughout his or her life to come to faith. Without this grace the child would not even know of God. It is God's action in the life of every individual that allows salvtion to be possible.

So, paedo-baptism, a sign of God's covenant with mankind available to all, should be kept in the church to remind us that a) God loves all mankind, b) you don't need to understand doctrine to have faith, as it is God's work in us not our work to God, even in children (which we can easily demonstrate scripturally) c) that covenant signs are also given to children (eg. circumcision) and that d) the sign of the covenant is for us and for our children and for as many as God will call (Acts 2:39).

Lastly , rejection of infant batpism leads to unscriptural practices such as infant dedication and even rejection of sacramental grace.

[karen freeinchristman]

The whole paradigm is wrong. We cannot establish "who is in and who is not" because the New Covenant is available to all. It is matter of whether or not we believe in the efficacy of the cross for all or for some. If one adapts Hyper-Calvinism's idea that the atonement is limited to just the "elect", then really the issue would be a no-brainer- provided the paradigm is correct.

When one sees the atonement as universal, but salvation as particular, then one sees God's grace being offered freely for all. He calls all from their dungeons of sin and lovingly beckons all to leave the prison. He sets them free from their spiritual death, rising them up from life by His own act of grace.

Now, if one accepts grace as free for all, then one accepts that God's grace is possible and even present in the life of a new born infant. His prevenient (or what Calvinists call "common") grace has already worked in the child, and will continue to call that child throughout his or her life to come to faith. Without this grace the child would not even know of God. It is God's action in the life of every individual that allows salvtion to be possible.

So, paedo-baptism, a sign of God's covenant with mankind available to all, should be kept in the church to remind us that a) God loves all mankind, b) you don't need to understand doctrine to have faith, as it is God's work in us not our work to God, even in children (which we can easily demonstrate scripturally) c) that covenant signs are also given to children (eg. circumcision) and that d) the sign of the covenant is for us and for our children and for as many as God will call (Acts 2:39).

Lastly , rejection of infant batpism leads to unscriptural practices such as infant dedication and even rejection of sacramental grace.
:amen: Well said!

[ludovica]

Infant baptism:

SINCE It's always been done;
AND there's nothing wrong with doing it (unlike, for example, slavery);
AND there isn't a compelling reason to change;

I don't see why it's even worth debating. I agree with you. To some extent, and in the same way that a funeral could be said to be for the benefit of the grieving, rather than the deceased, so infant baptism could be said to be for the new parents, a celebration of the child's delivery and of their marriage.
It seeks to ensure a child is brought up in a certyain way also.

Tomorrow, I am being Confirmed.
The reasons for this are obviously that I have, by the Grace of God, been saved from a pretty badly-lived, and unhappy life.. but also, I am acutely aware that promises were made for me at my Baptism, by three people, my parents, and also my Aunt Maureen, who lives in Canada.
Last year she was diagnosed with cancer and I felt completely inadequate even to console her, as I had not fulfilled her promise in my life. When I became a Christian I realised that my being Confirmed would be a great thing to do, both for myself, and to reassure my Aunt who is a very devout Christian, that she had not failed in her promise despite living in another country and not having all that much involvement in my Christian upbringing. I see this as a way, albeit at great distance, for this promise to be fulfilled finally, in spite of 40 wasted and miserable years between Christening and Confirmation.

Ergo...My infant Christening has had a very direct bearing on current events for me, although I have lived the majority of my life as an atheist and a cynic. This nominal membership of the CofE has been instrumental in determining which way I would go when Jesus Christ chose to save me. Tomorrow, my Godparents will be discharged from the promise they made, finally. They have succeeded at last!






Lord I lift up to you my beloved Godmother and Aunt, Maureen Olive K-S of Burlington, Ontario, that she might experience your infinite love and healing
Amen

[higgs2]

I agree with you. To some extent, and in the same way that a funeral could be said to be for the benefit of the grieving, rather than the deceased, so infant baptism could be said to be for the new parents, a celebration of the child's delivery and of their marriage.
It seeks to ensure a child is brought up in a certyain way also.

Tomorrow, I am being Confirmed.
The reasons for this are obviously that I have, by the Grace of God, been saved from a pretty badly-lived, and unhappy life.. but also, I am acutely aware that promises were made for me at my Baptism, by three people, my parents, and also my Aunt Maureen, who lives in Canada.
Last year she was diagnosed with cancer and I felt completely inadequate even to console her, as I had not fulfilled her promise in my life. When I became a Christian I realised that my being Confirmed would be a great thing to do, both for myself, and to reassure my Aunt who is a very devout Christian, that she had not failed in her promise despite living in another country and not having all that much involvement in my Christian upbringing. I see this as a way, albeit at great distance, for this promise to be fulfilled finally, in spite of 40 wasted and miserable years between Christening and Confirmation.

Ergo...My infant Christening has had a very direct bearing on current events for me, although I have lived the majority of my life as an atheist and a cynic. This nominal membership of the CofE has been instrumental in determining which way I would go when Jesus Christ chose to save me. Tomorrow, my Godparents will be discharged from the promise they made, finally. They have succeeded at last!






Lord I lift up to you my beloved Godmother and Aunt, Maureen Olive K-S of Burlington, Ontario, that she might experience your infinite love and healing
Amen


God bless you and your family, ludovica. I will pray for a blessed confirmation day for you. :crossrc: What a beautiful story of Redemption, which is what the church is all about. :)

[ludovica]

God bless you and your family, ludovica. I will pray for a blessed confirmation day for you. :crossrc: What a beautiful story of Redemption, which is what the church is all about. :) Thank you very much Higgs2:) I really do appreciate your good wishes and I feel surrounded by my brethren in Christ at this time, a very special time for me


I am so thankful to Our Lord and Saviour for choosing me, a humble sinner to become part of His great family
:crossrc:

[Iosias]

If one adapts Hyper-Calvinism's idea that the atonement is limited to just the "elect"...

FYI: Limited atonement is not hyper-Calvinist but orthodox Calvinism.

[karen freeinchristman]

Tomorrow, I am being Confirmed.
The reasons for this are obviously that I have, by the Grace of God, been saved from a pretty badly-lived, and unhappy life.. but also, I am acutely aware that promises were made for me at my Baptism, by three people, my parents, and also my Aunt Maureen, who lives in Canada.God bless you and keep you, ludovica! Your story has some similarities with mine - and actually, you may eventually come to find that God will not waste even those years that you think were a waste. :)

Lord I lift up to you my beloved Godmother and Aunt, Maureen Olive K-S of Burlington, Ontario, that she might experience your infinite love and healing
AmenPraying with you. :prayer:

[ContraMundum]

FYI: Limited atonement is not hyper-Calvinist but orthodox Calvinism.

I'm well aware of that...but also aware that not every person calling themselves Calvinist understand the idea of limited atonement in the same manner. I use the term here to describe the type of Calvinism that is the "most orthodox" (to their mind anyway).

Either way, the limited atonement is the most ludicrous doctrine in Christendom.

[Simon_Templar]

Contra,

I'm interested that you class infant dedication as unscriptural. Most of my family holds up infant dedication as the 'biblical' way because Jesus was dedicated. Could you expand on your view?

[SirTimothy]

Contra,

I'm interested that you class infant dedication as unscriptural. Most of my family holds up infant dedication as the 'biblical' way because Jesus was dedicated. Could you expand on your view?
Jesus wasn't dedicated. Jesus was circumcised under the old covenant.

[ContraMundum]

Contra,

I'm interested that you class infant dedication as unscriptural. Most of my family holds up infant dedication as the 'biblical' way because Jesus was dedicated. Could you expand on your view?

Jesus was circumcised, as we all agree. He was also baptised. Now, for Jewish Christians, we still circumcise our boys but Gentile boys need not be. However, all must be baptised. I guess we would all agree on that too.

Strictly speaking, Jesus was not dedicated in the manner modern day Christians dedicate their children.

If you are thinking of Jesus' presentation to the Temple, this was done in order to obey the commandment regarding first-born sons of Israel and their consecration to the Lord (see: Ex 13:2, 12), and also that Mary His other could be ritually purified which was done with either two doves or two pigeons according to Lev 12:8. after the a boy was 30 days old.

Now, unless one is a Jew and intend to dedicate your firstborn and purify your wife with a sacrifice or two birds I don't think these laws apply.

[Simon_Templar]

Jesus was circumcised, as we all agree. He was also baptised. Now, for Jewish Christians, we still circumcise our boys but Gentile boys need not be. However, all must be baptised. I guess we would all agree on that too.

Strictly speaking, Jesus was not dedicated in the manner modern day Christians dedicate their children.

If you are thinking of Jesus' presentation to the Temple, this was done in order to obey the commandment regarding first-born sons of Israel and their consecration to the Lord (see: Ex 13:2, 12), and also that Mary His other could be ritually purified which was done with either two doves or two pigeons according to Lev 12:8. after the a boy was 30 days old.

Now, unless one is a Jew and intend to dedicate your firstborn and purify your wife with a sacrifice or two birds I don't think these laws apply.
Very interesting, thanks :) I never knew that.

I will of course pass this along to the fam. although I expect it will likely be rejected out of hand.

[Iosias]

Now, unless one is a Jew and intend to dedicate your firstborn and purify your wife with a sacrifice or two birds I don't think these laws apply.

And can it be that we agree? :clap:

[ludovica]

God bless you and keep you, ludovica! Your story has some similarities with mine - and actually, you may eventually come to find that God will not waste even those years that you think were a waste. :)
Praying with you. :prayer:Bless you Karen. I really appreciate your support and prayers. I am more excited tonight than I was when I got married.. I certainly put more thought into this decision than into that one!:D

[ContraMundum]

Very interesting, thanks :) I never knew that.

I will of course pass this along to the fam. although I expect it will likely be rejected out of hand.

Not to worry...it's all good. :)

[norbie]

Hi, and welcome Dear Ludovica to Gods great Family. A Confirmation is always a great thing, especially an Adult Confirmation.
How was it, how was your Day?
Did you or will you have a great Welcome in your Church?
It was most likely the greatest Decission in your Life and I am sure all your Brothers and Sisters in Christ celebrate with you.:hug:
Norbie

[ludovica]

Hi, and welcome Dear Ludovica to Gods great Family. A Confirmation is always a great thing, especially an Adult Confirmation.
How was it, how was your Day?
Did you or will you have a great Welcome in your Church?
It was most likely the greatest Decission in your Life and I am sure all your Brothers and Sisters in Christ celebrate with you.:hug:
NorbieThank You very much Norbie! What a lovely welcome! It was a wonderful experience, although I must admit it was hard to feel truly contemplative and prayerful under the circumstances, though I did try. We were 8 candidates, two also for baptism, all adults and the Church where it was held was very lively and "youthful" which made for a very uplifting atmosphere.

The music/ singing was incredible with two choirs and a band as well as an organist... made me feel sad for my home church where we only have three in the choir and often cannot get an organist at all