Baptism - your views?

[Criada]

I realise that there is a wide variety of beliefs on this one - but really need to thrash this one out at the moment!

Do you believe in infant baptism?
If not, at what age do you think it is OK to allow a child to be baptised?

[ContentInHim]

I was baptised as an infant. But I wasn't saved until I was 54. :eek: So....

I don't believe that my infant baptism amounts to a hill of beans except that my parents thought it was the thing to do. I was baptised by immersion a couple of years ago when convicted to do so by the Holy Spirit. I'm glad I did.

Hope that helps. :hug:

[Criada]

Thanks!
I was baptised as an infant, too.
Then baptised by immersion at 19 when I became a Christian.

Thing is, our church is strongly for believer's baptism, as am I. (Was one of the deciding factors in leaving the anglican church years ago)
Today we had a baptism service, and one of those baptised was a three year old - which made me really uncomfortable. Particularly since I am on the leadership team, and feel that this makes it look as though I approve..(Actually I didn't know until this morning).
Am trying to work out whether the way I am feeling is just me being cranky, or is right. And what to do about it...
:scratch:

(Has also caused problems with my 7 year old wanting to be baptised...which i am not at all comfortable with!)

[DerSchweik]

I have to agree with you both on this one. I have done some study on infant baptism but confess it's been awhile so I'm just going to throw some opinions out here, albeit opinions formed by study, but without adequate immediate backup.

First, and probably foremost, one must have faith to become a Christian. Faith requires the ability to reason, to hear the gospel message, consider it, believe it, and respond to it. Faith, the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things unseen, without which it is impossible to please God - is by definition something that an infant does not possess, nor can they possess it.

I find it remarkable Jesus' love for children inasmuch as His love surely bridges the gap between our innocence and inability to reason to belief as children and our "coming of age" to the ability to reason for ourselves. Such love precludes the need for salvation due to the child's innocence.

I think we baptize infants more for the sake of the parents, for dedication of their child to godly upbringing, etc., but it would be incorrect to do so for the infant's salvation.

There is a point when we make this switch from innocence to guilt, from inability to reason to ability to believe. Some call it the "age of accountability." I personally agree with this concept. What age is that? I dont know, earlier for some, later for others. But prior to that, it seems clear God has made allowances for our little ones better than we ever could by baptizing them - "...for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these." (Lk 18:16).

In Him,

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

I realise that there is a wide variety of beliefs on this one - but really need to thrash this one out at the moment!

Do you believe in infant baptism?
If not, at what age do you think it is OK to allow a child to be baptised?
I believe in dedicating children to the Lord as infants. Baptism can only come when the child has come into the place of accountability. When he/she is old enough to choose whom they will serve. :)

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Thanks!
I was baptised as an infant, too.
Then baptised by immersion at 19 when I became a Christian.

Thing is, our church is strongly for believer's baptism, as am I. (Was one of the deciding factors in leaving the anglican church years ago)
Today we had a baptism service, and one of those baptised was a three year old - which made me really uncomfortable. Particularly since I am on the leadership team, and feel that this makes it look as though I approve..(Actually I didn't know until this morning).
Am trying to work out whether the way I am feeling is just me being cranky, or is right. And what to do about it...
:scratch:

(Has also caused problems with my 7 year old wanting to be baptised...which i am not at all comfortable with!)
I would have a HUGE problem with this as well. :eek:

[DerSchweik]

Post Script:

I too was baptized as an infant, and I was regularly taken to Sunday school, was confirmed at the age of 14 (I think it was 14 anyway) - but I wasn't saved until I reached the age of 27, being baptized (immersed) into Christ for the remission of my sins and receipt of the Holy Spirit. At that time, after much prayer and Bible study, much struggle with the contradictions between what I thought I believed, the "faith" I thought I had, and my actual lifestyle, I went forward to be baptized, to give my life to the Lord, confessing Him as my crucified and resurrected Lord and Savior, and committing my life to Him.

"Faith comes from hearing and hearing by the word of God" I had no faith until I actually heard (and read) His word - something I'd only done cursorily before.

:amen:

[DerSchweik]

I would have a HUGE problem with this as well. :eek:
Major ditto here as well regarding the 3-year old. Someone should probably have spent more time with the parents.

Your 7-year old is a tough one. My prayers to you on that. I wish I knew how to advise on that, but I'm sure God will provide you the guidance you need.

Been meaning to ask you if my puppies can play with your puppy? :-) (reference to our photos).

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Major ditto here as well regarding the 3-year old. Someone should probably have spent more time with the parents.

Your 7-year old is a tough one. My prayers to you on that. I wish I knew how to advise on that, but I'm sure God will provide you the guidance you need.

Been meaning to ask you if my puppies can play with your puppy? :-) (reference to our photos).
True...at 7 your child may be old enough. Tough call but with the Lords leading I'm sure all will work out Criada. :hug:

[Greenthumb]

I was saved at the age of 7, but I wasn't baptized until I was a teenager, I believe I was 16, but it's such a long time ago and my memory is fading. ;) We had baby dedications, but never infant baptism. We had a few classes that went over what baptism was before the actual baptism. In the denomination I grew up in only those baptized were allowed to participate in the breaking of bread (communion). Criada...for myself at age 7, although I understood salvation...repentance...asking forgiveness for my sins. I'm not certain I understood the significance of baptism. And yet you read in the Bible of people coming to Christ and immediately being baptized and often it says...and their household...so? Would there or would there not have been children present? And I don't think they would have had classes on baptism, eh?

[LivingLifeHisWay]

My bielef on baptisim is when a person becomes a bielever they should be baptized by immersion. A child may come to Christ but I would not have them baptized until they are older. It's hard to determine if a child's conversion is genuine and if they are baptized they may look at that as a security for salvation. My step-daughter came to Christ when she was 7 but we have not pushed baptisim on her. We have told her that all who love the Lord should be obedient to Him in baptisim as a way to proclaim our faith and she just stares at us. lol So, I'm thinking she's just not ready.

Although I do know many people who would disagree with me, they baptize their children as soon as they make a profession of faith.

Pushing children to Jesus is becoming very popular. We have to be very careful with the young ones, teaching them about the Lord and His gift of salvation but not forcing them to declare Him as King of their lives. That would be more of a disservice then a help. If a child comes to faith it must be their own and not one we as parents have forced upon them.

[Albion]

I realise that there is a wide variety of beliefs on this one - but really need to thrash this one out at the moment!

Do you believe in infant baptism?
If not, at what age do you think it is OK to allow a child to be baptised?

1. Yes to infant baptism. The Christian church has done it for at least 1900 years and more likely longer. The Bible gives ample reason for baptising infants and examples, too. The problem really is over what Baptism itself means.

2. For those who say that one needs to reach the right age--the one at which the person makes a personal commitment--no one has ever decided what that should be! What kind of a system of Christian theology is based upon "dunno. guess each congregation decides?" There are Baptist churches, for example, which allow 8 year olds to make a profession, which seems to me to be no more realistic than baptising an infant.

3. Everyone needs to make a commitment to the Lord during his lifetime. If one has received Baptism as an infant or child, this still holds.

[edb19]

I don't think Scripture is clear regarding infant baptism - it doesn't clarify "household." When baptism is referenced in Scripture it is always in relation to belief and/or repentance.

That said, at least from the reformed perspective, infant baptism is part of covenantal theology (along the line of circumcision in the OT). While I don't agree with paedobaptism, I understand the rationale for it.

Of bigger concern to me is the attitude some have that baptism is salvific (it isn't).

[Criada]

1. Yes to infant baptism. The Christian church has done it for at least 1900 years and more likely longer. The Bible gives ample reason for baptising infants and examples, too. The problem really is over what Baptism itself means.

2. For those who say that one needs to reach the right age--the one at which the person makes a personal commitment--no one has ever decided what that should be! What kind of a system of Christian theology is based upon "dunno. guess each congregation decides?" There are Baptist churches, for example, which allow 8 year olds to make a profession, which seems to me to be no more realistic than baptising an infant.

3. Everyone needs to make a commitment to the Lord during his lifetime. If one has received Baptism as an infant or child, this still holds.
But - how do you reconcile this with "Believe and be baptised"
Or do you think it doesn't matter which order these come in?

[Albion]

But - how do you reconcile this with "Believe and be baptised"

The persons being addressed in that verse were--ready for this?--adults. ;)

Hardly anyone was a follower of Jesus when the first Christians went forth making converts, so of course, they spoke to grown ups who had to make a decision just as any adult today who comes to faith does.

That isn't the issue at all. It is more, "What of other people, those who were not addressed by the speaker in that verse (i.e. infants and children?"

These we find dealt with when we read elsewhere in the NT--I forget the specific verse offhand--that "whole households" were baptised. I cannot believe that a "whole household" did not mean to include the children. It would hardly be correct to say "whole household" if you were not meaning to include children as part of your reference.

Notice also that not every verse puts it in the order of Believe, then Baptise. In Galatians 3:27, we read "As many of you as have been baptised have put on Christ."

[Simon_Templar]

Honestly, the arguments against infant baptism are primarily based on humanist reasoning rather than on scripture.

Point #1 - No where in scripture does it teach that faith requires a certain degree of mental understanding. Faith is a gift from God, not a function of your intellect. The idea that faith required a minimum degree of mental ability was not introduced in the church until the beginning of the modern scientific revolution. This idea is not found in scripture.

While there were objections to infant baptism in the early church they had nothing at all to do with the mental ability of the child to understand or even agree to the doctrines of the faith. Even those who disagreed with infant baptism in the ancient church regarded the children of any Christian as Christians from birth.

#2 - rejection of infant baptism is often based on a misunderstanding, or lack of understanding of the covenantal nature of the Christian faith. Baptism is the sign of membership in the covenant, and in the Church. Refusing Children baptism is tantamount to refusing them membership in the church, and in the covenant of Christ.

The covenantal role of baptism is often replaced with infant dedication but this is also based on a misunderstanding. It is argued that since Jesus was dedicated, we should dedicate our children as well, and that dedication is the sign of membership in the covenant and the church.
However, the fact that Jesus was dedicated was due to a provision of the Mosaic covenant that required the first born son of every Hebrew family to be dedicated at the temple, then baught back from the temple. Dedication was not a unversal practice and was never an identifier of covenant membership. Only the first born sons were dedicated, no other children were.
Using this as a sign of covenant membership is simply taking a random practice from scripture and then making it mean whatever you want.

Point #3 - rejection of infant baptism is often based on the idea of "an age of accountability". In otherwords an age of innocence before which Children are not held accountable for their sins. The problem is that there is no solid scriptural basis for this idea.
One of the criticisms often given for infant baptism is that the bible doesn't directly state that children were, or should be baptized. Yet the bible also does not state that there is an age before which people are not accountable.

Point #4 - there are some things in scripture which can be seen to support infant baptism, or which contradict common reasoning against infant baptism.

There are several "household" baptisms in scripture in which when the head of a household become a believer, their entire household was baptized. This includes not only the head of the house and their spouse, but also all of their children, and even the servants/slaves of the household.
It is not directly stated in these cases wether there were or were not children in the houses. However, it is just as unreasonable, if not more so, to assume that in every one of these cases, the families involved just happened to have no children, than to assume that they did.
On top of that is the simple issue that the faith of a head of household seems to have been applied to the entire house. That idea is common through scripture.
In addition to this Paul makes the statement that a believer's faith sanctifies their spouse and thier children, even if their spouse is not a believer.

Finally, there is the fact that Jesus said to let the little children come to him. The word translated literal children includes the age range from infants up to toddlers. The incident in which Jesus said this was specifically in reference to parents bringing their infants and toddler children to him to bless them.
If you look at the arguments presented, even in this thread, they almost always are framed on the idea that children are incapable of truly having relationship with God in a meaningful way, and the attitude behind them is very much an attitude of preventing children from coming to God until such time as we deem them to be 'ready'. I find this to be in complete contradiction to what Jesus says, and what the bible generally teaches.


Having said all that, if people as a matter of personal conscience and belief want to wait to have their kids baptized.. I don't have a problem with that.
I want to point out, however, that the arguments against infant baptism are not scriptural, and not very sound.

[Simon_Templar]

Of bigger concern to me is the attitude some have that baptism is salvific (it isn't).

It really depends on what you mean by this. Baptism alone, without faith is not salvific. Of course. Nothing, without faith, is salvific.

However, Baptism is also not merely a symbol. It is impossible to take the bible literally, at face value, and conclude that baptism is anything other than an integral part of the born again experience and a work done by God for the regeneration of our spirit.

I find it very ironic that many evangelicals and even fundamentalists, champions to the nth degree of taking the bible literally, then go on to interpet every scripture on baptism symbolicly and/or allegorically.

[PostTribber]

But - how do you reconcile this with "Believe and be baptised" (for a child). Or do you think it doesn't matter which order these come in?
...as Tevye would say, "Tradition!" Jesus began His ministry saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." that's an awful lot to expect from someone who's not yet 'potty' trained. I guess 'child baptisim' could be a kind of 'Power of Attorney', if the parents have submitted to the biblical adjunct, "bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." if they haven't, then it's just 'warm & fuzzy' like an Easter Bunny, and with about as much 'spiritual' significance. :amen:

[Albion]

...as Tevye would say, "Tradition!" ... I guess 'child baptisim' could be a kind of 'Power of Attorney', if the parents have submitted to the biblical adjunct, "bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." if they haven't, then it's just 'warm & fuzzy' like an Easter Bunny, and with about as much 'spiritual' significance. :amen:

What sacrament can we name which is neutralized if the recipient is not a theologian?

For example, does the Lord's Supper not be the Lord's Supper in case the recipient does not hold the exact correct view as to its meaning?

We are talking about something CHRIST INSTITUTED, not some procedure men thought up and can set aside if there are glitches in the administration of it.

[Criada]

Christ was, however, 30 when He was baptised...

[PostTribber]

What sacrament can we name which is neutralized if the recipient is not a theologian? For example, does the Lord's Supper not be the Lord's Supper in case the recipient does not hold the exact correct view as to its meaning? We are talking about something CHRIST INSTITUTED, not some procedure men thought up and can set aside if there are glitches in the administration of it.
...in reference to arguments regarding 'infant baptism', what Christ 'insituted' was, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matthew 28:19) baptizing 'unknowledgeable' infants (not children) finds no scriptural support, and has no 'reasonable' expectantcy to be 'efficacious' apart from the individuals 'ascent'. as Christ said, "repent ye, and believe the gospel!" how can an infant be made aware that they are being 'set aside', 'separated' unto God, when they do not as yet possess knowledge that there is a God? would Paul have asked a baby, "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" I'm not against endulging a parents devotion to God, nor expressing their 'genuiness' through their offspring. but for the babies 'sake', being born once isn't enough to 'validate' one's baptism.

[Albion]

...in reference to arguments regarding 'infant baptism', what Christ 'insituted' was, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

That's some of what we are instructed, yes. It is hardly the only verse that we must consider.

baptizing 'unknowledgeable' infants (not children) finds no scriptural support,

We have already pointed you to the scriptural support and it is very persuasive. So if you want to comment on THAT, go ahead.

how can an infant be made aware that they are being 'set aside', 'separated' unto God, when they do not as yet possess knowledge that there is a God?

This has ALSO already been explained. Would you like to reply to that explanation? But remember also that we are guided by the Bible while you are engaging in mental gymnastics ("Well...if a child can't repent, then when CAN one do so? Is it at age 6 or 15? What level of knowledge does one have to have in order to understand God? Does anyone really ever fully understand the mystery of the Incarnation and the Cross, even as an adult?" Etc. )

This is rationalizing and, as has been pointed out before, those enagaging in have no idea what to do in place of the historic practice. Some churches baptise at this age, others at another. Some let the parents decide. Some say that an 8 year old can accept Christ. Do you really think this is correct...or does the 8 year old simply think of Jesus in childish, and therefore inaccurate, terms?

Paul have asked a baby, "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?"

I'm fully confident that when Paul was addressing an adult, he'd speak to THAT PERSON's situation, not to every case in humanity. We all do the same thing every day. If my co-worker asks how to do something on the computer I explain it to HIM. I do not simulaneously say, "But here's how I'd explain it to my son and to people in China." Similarly, when we read in the NT that Jesus or any of the Apostles dealt with people who came to them, we are not at liberty to say that every other person on Earth was covered by their replies then and there.

[BigNorsk]

I have to wonder why when Christ clearly stated that little children believe in him, why people persist in saying children cannot believe?

Mat 18:6 NET.
(6) "But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the open sea.

And Jesus also calls the children part of the kingdom of God.

Luk 18:15-17 NET.
(15) Now people were even bringing their babies to him for him to touch. But when the disciples saw it, they began to scold those who brought them.
(16) But Jesus called for the children, saying, "Let the little children come to me and do not try to stop them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.
(17) I tell you the truth, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will never enter it."

Now either the children are saved through faith, or there are at least two ways to be saved.

I don't know anyone who actually claims to teach a different doctrine than that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone for the sake of Christ alone. But if you teach that children are saved and cannot have faith (believe), then you are teaching a different doctrine. It must be justification by faith or age.

So it would be:
1. We are saved by grace alone through faith alone for Christ's sake alone.

or.

2. We are saved by grace alone through ? (age, sinlessness, lack of accountabilty must be something here, for Christ's sake alone.

Would someone who doesn't believe children have faith please explain their doctrine of justification or salvation?

Marv

[LivingLifeHisWay]

1) No one in this thread ever stated that a child cannot bieleve. It's just hard to distinguish if a child is being genuine or if they are just trying to make their parents happy. If my 3 year old came to me and wanted to declare Jesus as Lord of his life I would encourage him and keep teaching him about Jesus but the decision to be baptized will be his own. You might not agree with that but it's my view. It's something I have prayed about and the Lord has directed me on.

2) Baptisim is important. It was so important that Jesus Himself was baptized at 30 years old. It's so important that it should be taken very seriously. It's a beautiful way to be obedient to the Lord and to proclaim what He has done in your life.

3) Baptism does not save you. I was baptized when I was an infant I wasn't anymore saved then satan himself. Although Baptism is important it's not salvic - the thief on the cross asked Jesus to remember him and Jesus said "Today you shall be with Me in paradise" The thief wasn't baptized.

[BigNorsk]

Post #4 is clearly making the case that children cannot have faith, that is believe in the sense we use it.

Marv

[PostTribber]

That's some of what we are instructed, yes. It is hardly the only verse that we must consider. We have already pointed you to the scriptural support and it is very persuasive. So if you want to comment on THAT, go ahead.
..."And they brought unto him also infants, that He would touch them: but when His disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein." (luke 18:15-17) Jesus is not making a case for some 'diversionary' tatic to "neglect so great salvation" by way of 'parental discretion'. 'they brought', 'suffer them', and 'forbid them not' are actions 'imposed' upon the 'infant' by others, parents, adults, etc. the 'implication' is that the 'infant' is 'unable' because of their 'helplessness' to 'come' to Christ. 'that He would touch them' reveals the parents 'desire' 'that He would', not the temple priest, as they acknowledged Him a 'higher' preist, seeking to 'dedicate' their child much in the same manner as Hannah dedicated her son Samuel, "I will give him unto the Lord all the days of his life." which brings us back to the parents biblical 'charge' to "bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." (Ephesians 6:4) Jesus said, "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child", not 'when as a little child'. :amen:

[JoeWill]

We need to clarify. Does anyone here make the claim that babies can be baptised?

[Simon_Templar]

...in reference to arguments regarding 'infant baptism', what Christ 'insituted' was, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matthew 28:19) baptizing 'unknowledgeable' infants (not children) finds no scriptural support,

I disagree. There is zero scriptural support for the idea that a person must have a minimum level of intellectual ability in order to receive new life, or to know God, or to have faith. There is not only no scriptural support for this idea, there isn't even reasonable argument for it. You are essentially relegating spirit to a mere function of intellect. If this were correct, the mentally handicapped would be basically out of luck.
this kind of argument turns Christianity into a faith that can only realistically be held by well educated mentally sound adults. Everyone else is excluded.

if we are going to take what Jesus said and apply it without context.. then I am going to wait for you to sell everything you own, give the money to the poor, and abandon your father.. then and only then will you be obeying what Jesus said (He did say those things)

The point being that what you are doing is essentially taking one general statement and applying with exacting detail beyond what it was ever intended to indicate.

If we were to do the same thing, we could find PLENTY of statements in scripture that we could apply strict details from, and totally misrepresent what they were intended to say and to teach.

Further it is a logically weak argument to extrapolate a stricture from a narrative account.
You have a few accounts of baptisms out of literally thousands of cases in scripture. In those few accounts adults were baptized, and the un-evangelized are being taught the basic necessity of conversion. To assume from those accounts that ONLY adults can actually BE converted is completely a logically invalid argument.

It would be like a child assuming that because they see all the kids they know, learning to read in school.. that adults can't learn to read, Or even that all adults know how to read.
Its not a valid conclusion.

then on top of that there is the fact that you are ignoring scriptural references which may very well contradict your assertion that the bible only supports adult baptism. At the very least the references to Household baptisms are suggestive and uncertain. Thus you don't even have the basis that all biblical references refer only to adult baptism, because they don't necessarily.

...and has no 'reasonable' expectantcy to be 'efficacious' apart from the individuals 'ascent'. as Christ said, "repent ye, and believe the gospel!" how can an infant be made aware that they are being 'set aside', 'separated' unto God, when they do not as yet possess knowledge that there is a God?

Why does it have no reasonable expectancy to be effective?
The work accomplished in baptism is done by God, not man. This is seen in Titus 3:5. God also does the work of spiritual regeneration.

Further, you assume that awareness of God is dependant upon intellectual function. This is without reasonable support in simple philosophy or reasoning, and it is blatantly false scripturally.

Consider the instance of John the Baptist. When he was still in the womb, Mary came to visit his mother Elizabeth. When Mary approached, carrying Jesus in her womb, John leapt in the womb of Elizabeth. He recognized the presense of the Savior while he was still in the womb. Further, we are told later that he was "full of the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb"

I have not one shred of doubt that even an infant is aware of God and can be aware of God's sanctifying touch and relationship. Not one shred of doubt.

... but for the babies 'sake', being born once isn't enough to 'validate' one's baptism.

the simple logical problem you face is that unless you believe God can save whomever he likes, and apply grace to whomever he likes, regardless of age or intellect, you must believe that all unborn, and infants go to hell. There is no denying the fact, biblically, that they, just as everyone else, were conceived in a state of sin and mortality, and that they do not have the living Spirit of God.

It is God, who "validates" a person's baptism, or not.. not the person, or their mind.

[Criada]

We need to clarify. Does anyone here make the claim that babies can be baptised?
Apparently so!

Though my initial concern was about a three year old...

[Albion]

We need to clarify. Does anyone here make the claim that babies can be baptised?

Well yeaaaaah

I counted at least 4, although I'm a trifle disappointed that on a Conservative Christians forum, others don't.

It is the historic position of the Church, you know, and was virtually unchallenged until AFTER the Reformation. IOW, it's not even the standard Protestant position against Catholicism not to baptise infants and small children.

[JoeWill]

I disagree. There is zero scriptural support for the idea that a person must have a minimum level of intellectual ability in order to receive new life, or to know God, or to have faith.
Well surely they must need a minimum level of intellect to have faith, otherwise there would be nothing to distinguish their faith in the Christian God from faith in the spaghetti monster? :scratch:

Now a baby does not have that minimum level of intellect. The differences between the Christian God and the spaghetti monster as concepts would be beyond him or her. Essentially then, they are not yet able to hold faith in God.

But Paul said that all who have been baptised, have been baptised into Christ, his death and resurrection (Romans 6:3).

So is it true that a baby can baptised into Christ, his death and resurrection without faith?

[Criada]

My seven year old is a Christian, as far as her understanding goes. Which is enough for God!
However, she also believes in Father Christmas, the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny.
This is the issue with baptising young childre.

[Albion]

My seven year old is a Christian, as far as her understanding goes. Which is enough for God!
However, she also believes in Father Christmas, the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny.
This is the issue with baptising young childre.

All right. Let's take that case and run with it and see where it leads.

At what point in the human life DOES one fully understand all the workings and nature of God?

I am up there in years and I would never say for a moment that I fully comprehend all of God's plan for everything...or what eternity is like...or how He can know ebverything at once...or how God can also be man, etc.

So at what point IS anyone ready to be baptised if intellectual maturity is the standard we follow (as the anti-paedobaptists do)?

[Criada]

I don't think that it is a case of intellectual maturity.
As you say, I certainly don't understand God. In fact, my 7 year old is probably closer to that than I am!
But it is really imortant for someone to me able to know that their faith is their own, and not something imposed by their parents..

[Albion]

I don't think that it is a case of intellectual maturity.

Well, it's possible that I could have found a better way of saying it. But isn't it the case that opponents of infant baptism say that you have to reach an age when you can make a decision for Christ as your personal savior? I think that is right to say. So if that is true, what is that age when one knows fully what being saved means, as well as how all that we say about Jesus can be comprehended, or even how dying on the Cross takes away sins. In short, I say that there never is such an age; that we are always limited by our sinful condition; and that it is God reaching out to us in the sacrament/ordinance, not us making it work only if we are smart enough. If we concede this, it doesn't really make any difference what age we are.

As you say, I certainly don't understand God. In fact, my 7 year old is probably closer to that than I am!
But it is really imortant for someone to me able to know that their faith is their own, and not something imposed by their parents..

All right. We who do baptise infants account for that. It is not as though you are burdened by being baptised as a child, is it? There's nothing negative about it. What it does is mark you as part of the family of God and dedicate you. We believe that you are blessed by God through it, and your sponsors of course also promise to rear you in the faith. You still have to make a personal commitment at some time thereafter or the baptism won't save you despite not ever doing that.

[josuabrown]

These are my views on baptism.

1. It has to be with immersion not sprinkling. The Word baptizo(sp?), in Greek, means to immerse, to engulf, to consume, not sprinkle.

This next one might answer Albion's question "So at what point IS anyone ready to be baptised if intellectual maturity is the standard we follow (as the anti-paedobaptists do)?"


2. My personal belief is that a person must be able to understand the sacrifice Christ made on the Cross and what salvation is before they can be baptized. This takes infants out of the picture. Infant baptism is completely unnecessary and
serves no purpose except as a form of baby dedication.

I'm sorry if you take offense to these. Please pm me if I'm in error, but come with evidence showing me why. These are just my views.

God bless you all!

[JoeWill]

Well, it's possible that I could have found a better way of saying it. But isn't it the case that opponents of infant baptism say that you have to reach an age when you can make a decision for Christ as your personal savior? I think that is right to say. So if that is true, what is that age when one knows fully what being saved means, as well as how all that we say about Jesus can be comprehended, or even how dying on the Cross takes away sins. In short, I say that there never is such an age; that we are always limited by our sinful condition; and that it is God reaching out to us in the sacrament/ordinance, not us making it work only if we are smart enough. If we concede this, it doesn't really make any difference what age we are.
I agree that's a problem. But baptising very young offspring before they are at an age to understand the basic elements of faith is no answer either.

All right. We who do baptise infants account for that. It is not as though you are burdened by being baptised as a child, is it? There's nothing negative about it. What it does is mark you as part of the family of God and dedicate you. We believe that you are blessed by God through it, and your sponsors of course also promise to rear you in the faith. You still have to make a personal commitment at some time thereafter or the baptism won't save you despite not ever doing that.
The issue for me would seem to be that the baptism is then misrepresenting God. Someone who still needs to make a commitment to be saved, does not seem to be one who has been baptised into Christ, his death and resurrection.

Also, I think I would want to see some substantiation for the idea that baptism marks an individual as part of the family of God, and that they are blessed for it.

[Simon_Templar]

Well surely they must need a minimum level of intellect to have faith, otherwise there would be nothing to distinguish their faith in the Christian God from faith in the spaghetti monster? :scratch:

Now a baby does not have that minimum level of intellect. The differences between the Christian God and the spaghetti monster as concepts would be beyond him or her. Essentially then, they are not yet able to hold faith in God.

But Paul said that all who have been baptised, have been baptised into Christ, his death and resurrection (Romans 6:3).

So is it true that a baby can baptised into Christ, his death and resurrection without faith?
Again, you have offered no proof that faith is a function of intellectual capacity. You have merely offered humanistic assumptions.

Further, even those assumptions are flawed given that we have virtually no idea what an infant knows or does not know.

For example, you assume that "to know" something is contingent upon understanding the intellectual attributes of that object. In your example, in order to know God, and thus to have faith in God, a person must be able to distinguish the attributes of God intellectually, from the attributes of the spaghetti monster (or presumably any other deity or psudo-deity).

Lets consider this example in terms of reality. God is a personal being. In order to know a personal being, what must you know about that being? do you need to know all the details of his past, his character, his attributes, his preferences, likes and dislikes etc.
Most people would think that those are what compose "knowing someone" and in some ways they do.

However, now consider the example of a child and their parent.

does a young child know their parent's history? Do they know or remotely understand how their parent's honesty, intelligence, or wisdom, relate to those same attributes of other people? Does a child Know all, or even most of their parent's preferences in life? Especially as compared to those of other people?

The answer to most of those questions in the case of a young child is no.
In the intellectual sense, a child doesn't know any of those things about their parents.. but who here would argue that a child doesn't know their parents?

Taking the example right down to the leve we are talking about, it can be demonstrated in fact, that an infant is aware of its parents and knows them apart from other people, and responds uniquely to them from before it is born, while it is still in the womb.

The undeniable fact is that "knowing" someone at a basic level, distinguishing that person as a unique entity apart from others of similar type, has NOTHING to do with intellectual capacity.

Does a dog, know its master apart from other humans?
yes.. does a dog have ANY of the intellectual capacities you are demanding to require before someone could know God.. no.

This is even more true, not less, in the case of God. God is known not by the mind, but by the spirit. Knowing God in your mind, ALWAYS comes after knowing God in your spirit. In fact, the smartest person in the world IS UTTERLY incapable of truly knowing God, unless God first works spiritual regeneration within that person.

What you are talking about is knowledge ABOUT God which is completely different from knowledge OF God. A person can know all about God, and know nothing of God. A person can also know little to nothing about God, and have intimate knowledge OF God.

Knowledge OF God is experiential in the same way that a baby knows his parents, directly by experience.

This is one of the reasons that Children often are more easily capable of knowing God than adults are. Adults let their intellect get in the way, imagining that their knowledge about God, is knowledge of God. The Child knows little to nothing about God, he simply knows God by experience, and by relationship.

Don't get me wrong. knowledge about God can be very useful, and it is a great tool if kept in its proper place. It, however, does blind many people to what really knowing God actually means.


PS in closing, could an infant know the difference between God and the Flying Spaghetti monster.. yes, absolutely.. because the Flying Spaghetti monster has never loved the infant, never spoken to the infant, never touched the infant, but God has.

[Albion]

These are my views on baptism.

1. It has to be with immersion not sprinkling. The Word baptizo(sp?), in Greek, means to immerse, to engulf, to consume, not sprinkle.

There's quite a lot that lies between immersion and sprinkling, however, and most churches which do not immerse also do not sprinkle.

This next one might answer Albion's question "So at what point IS anyone ready to be baptised if intellectual maturity is the standard we follow (as the anti-paedobaptists do)?"


2. My personal belief is that a person must be able to understand the sacrifice Christ made on the Cross and what salvation is before they can be baptized. This takes infants out of the picture.

As a personal belief, that cannot be challenged., whether it's well founded or not. However, there has already been a great deal on this thread posted showing the weakness of that argument. Would you care to respond to the explanations concerning the weakness in the "understand the sacrifice Christ made" line of thought?

Infant baptism is completely unnecessary and
serves no purpose except as a form of baby dedication.

How about 1) forgiveness of (original) sin--the Bible says that all men are born in sin--and 2) the receiving of the Holy Spirit through the sacrament?

[PostTribber]

Apparently so! Though my initial concern was about a three year old...
...I think 'infants' were considered 'weaned' by the age of 3, and then seen as a 'child'. I seen how 'shy' 3 year olds can be (I have 2 nephews!). and when confronted by a 'stranger' about to teach him how to 'swim' may not 'appeal' to his idea of 'fun'. to me it seems the rush to baptize would have manifested itself during the terrible 2's! ^_^

[Criada]

How about 1) forgiveness of (original) sin--the Bible says that all men are born in sin--and 2) the receiving of the Holy Spirit through the sacrament?

Surely repentance is necessary for forgiveness?
And this is certainly not present in a baby, or indeed a very young child.

[JoeWill]

Again, you have offered no proof that faith is a function of intellectual capacity. You have merely offered humanistic assumptions.
Well faith may in the end be more than intellectual capacity, but it begins with concepts that are understood at a knowledgeable level.

Jesus said that he who believes in him has eternal life. Belief would begin with comprehension of who it is that has to be believed in. At some point, the person of Jesus is fitted into some kind of knowledgeable framework - either neural, or, if you like, spiritual.

So no, belief in Jesus begins by understanding the choice that we given to make. When someone responds positively to the message about Jesus, they are able to become born again and enter into a spiritual relationship with him.

PS in closing, could an infant know the difference between God and the Flying Spaghetti monster.. yes, absolutely.. because the Flying Spaghetti monster has never loved the infant, never spoken to the infant, never touched the infant, but God has.

This is your assumption. Where is the evidence that a baby would know God through this spiritual contact? And if some mechanism other than mind is used to acknowledge God at that early stage, why do people have no recollection of it?

The biggest problem for you, is that until a child is of an age to communicate abstract concepts, there is no way of knowing whether they have made a decision for Jesus or not.

So you would be baptising them, to represent their being united with Christ, his death and resurrection, without knowing whether they had made such a decision.

[PostTribber]

I disagree. There is zero scriptural support for the idea that a person must have a minimum level of intellectual ability in order to receive new life, or to know God, or to have faith. There is not only no scriptural support for this idea, there isn't even reasonable argument for it. You are essentially relegating spirit to a mere function of intellect. If this were correct, the mentally handicapped would be basically out of luck. this kind of argument turns Christianity into a faith that can only realistically be held by well educated mentally sound adults. Everyone else is excluded. if we are going to take what Jesus said and apply it without context.. then I am going to wait for you to sell everything you own, give the money to the poor, and abandon your father.. then and only then will you be obeying what Jesus said (He did say those things) The point being that what you are doing is essentially taking one general statement and applying with exacting detail beyond what it was ever intended to indicate. If we were to do the same thing, we could find PLENTY of statements in scripture that we could apply strict details from, and totally misrepresent what they were intended to say and to teach.
Further it is a logically weak argument to extrapolate a stricture from a narrative account. You have a few accounts of baptisms out of literally thousands of cases in scripture. In those few accounts adults were baptized, and the un-evangelized are being taught the basic necessity of conversion. To assume from those accounts that ONLY adults can actually BE converted is completely a logically invalid argument. It would be like a child assuming that because they see all the kids they know, learning to read in school.. that adults can't learn to read, Or even that all adults know how to read. its not a valid conclusion. then on top of that there is the fact that you are ignoring scriptural references which may very well contradict your assertion that the bible only supports adult baptism. At the very least the references to Household baptisms are suggestive and uncertain. Thus you don't even have the basis that all biblical references refer only to adult baptism, because they don't necessarily. Why does it have no reasonable expectancy to be effective? The work accomplished in baptism is done by God, not man. This is seen in Titus 3:5. God also does the work of spiritual regeneration. Further, you assume that awareness of God is dependant upon intellectual function. This is without reasonable support in simple philosophy or reasoning, and it is blatantly false scripturally.
Consider the instance of John the Baptist. When he was still in the womb, Mary came to visit his mother Elizabeth. When Mary approached, carrying Jesus in her womb, John leapt in the womb of Elizabeth. He recognized the presense of the Savior while he was still in the womb. Further, we are told later that he was "full of the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb". I have not one shred of doubt that even an infant is aware of God and can be aware of God's sanctifying touch and relationship. Not one shred of doubt. the simple logical problem you face is that unless you believe God can save whomever he likes, and apply grace to whomever he likes, regardless of age or intellect, you must believe that all unborn, and infants go to hell. There is no denying the fact, biblically, that they, just as everyone else, were conceived in a state of sin and mortality, and that they do not have the living Spirit of God. It is God, who "validates" a person's baptism, or not.. not the person, or their mind.
...I'm not saying that the 'deaf, dumb or blind' have no place in God's kingdom, Helen Keller is a 'prime' example. and, as in her case, 'baptism' came after, not before. but 'baptism' has nothing to do with 'regeneration', which takes place 'before' salvation, as it is written "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 'regeneration', the act of God making our 'spirit' alive to the things of God, is a necessaary first step making 'salvation' possible, as the Spirit 'convicts' us of sin, and urging us to 'repent and believe the gospel'.
and how can 'baptism' have any 'efficacy' apart from 'faith'? 'infants' eventually grow to adulthood. does being 'baptized' as an infant absolve them of sins later committed in adulthood? let's assume that we have Bible, and for it to speak requires someone to read it. an 'infant' can't read or write, and is thereby 'destitute' of knowing 'right or wrong'. this is the state of all new borns, not to just new borns that are 'baptized'. so the issue of the 'infants' sanctification must be 'inclusive' to all new borns, irrelevant as to 'baptism'.
if as you assume, "that awareness of God is (not) dependent upon intellectual function", for certain, there is that 'involvement' of the parents (will, intellect, faith) in bringing the infant to be 'baptized' in the first place. 'baptism', as you mentioned with John the Baptist, was for the 'remission' of sins 'past'. what 'sin' is the infant guilty of that would require it's 'remission'? :wave:

[Albion]

what 'sin' is the infant guilty of that would require it's 'remission'[/B]? :wave:

Have you not read the Bible to say that all men are born in sin and iniquity? Do you not remember that the Hebrews knew this themselves as when they asked Jesus what sin did this man or his father commit that he should be born blind? Was the church wrong when it condemned the Pelagian heresy?

[BigNorsk]

These are my views on baptism.

1. It has to be with immersion not sprinkling. The Word baptizo(sp?), in Greek, means to immerse, to engulf, to consume, not sprinkle.

This next one might answer Albion's question "So at what point IS anyone ready to be baptised if intellectual maturity is the standard we follow (as the anti-paedobaptists do)?"


2. My personal belief is that a person must be able to understand the sacrifice Christ made on the Cross and what salvation is before they can be baptized. This takes infants out of the picture. Infant baptism is completely unnecessary and
serves no purpose except as a form of baby dedication.

I'm sorry if you take offense to these. Please pm me if I'm in error, but come with evidence showing me why. These are just my views.

God bless you all!

1. The only problem with it is that what you say is basically correct but normally people who say it mean submersion not immersion. You can be immersed in a shower of rain, baptized too the same way. Or you can be immersed by someone pouring water over you, baptized too. The basic error you make is immersion=submersion.

I can show that baptizo did not equal submersion. Matter of fact, I can show pouring and sprinkling but I can't really show submersion.

Anyway, lets do baptism by pouring first.

Let's start with the baptizo unto Moses. 1Co 10:2 NET.
(2) and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,

Now clearly in this case baptism does not equal submersion, it was the Egyptians that were submerged, for a long time I thought it was possibly a fog or something like that, but I was wrong. God specifically tells us about it.

Psa 77:15-17 NET.
(15) You delivered your people by your strength —
the children of Jacob and Joseph. (Selah)
(16) The waters saw you, O God,
the waters saw you and trembled.
Yes, the depths of the sea shook with fear.
(17) The clouds poured down rain;
the skies thundered.
Yes, your arrows flashed about.

There we have it the clouds poured out, the gushed water. You could of course make the case that that is just a figure of speech since it would have been rain, a sprinkling, but in either case I believe the translation is accurate, there you have one case of baptism by pouring.

The baptism of the Holy Spirit is also by pouring.

Joh 1:33 NET.
(33) And I did not recognize him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'The one on whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining — this is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'

Refers to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, people talk about it a lot, God did too he foretold the time when he would pour out his Spirit. I can't think of a single reference that doesn't refer to the baptism of the Holy Spirit in any mode but pouring. If baptism is immersion, then I guess no one is baptized with the Holy Spirit.

Act 10:45 NET.
(45) The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were greatly astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles,

Act 2:16-18 NET.
(16) But this is what was spoken about through the prophet Joel:
(17) 'And in the last days it will be,' God says,
'that I will pour out my Spirit on all people,
and your sons and your daughters will prophesy,
and your young men will see visions,
and your old men will dream dreams.
(18) Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.

Joe 2:28-29 NET.
(28) (3:1) After all of this
I will pour out my Spirit on all kinds of people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy.
Your elderly will have revelatory dreams;
your young men will see prophetic visions.
(29) Even on male and female servants
I will pour out my Spirit in those days.

Eze 39:29 NET.
(29) I will no longer hide my face from them, when I pour out my Spirit on the house of Israel, declares the sovereign LORD."

Isa 44:3 NET.
(3) For I will pour water on the parched ground
and cause streams to flow on the dry land.
I will pour my spirit on your offspring
and my blessing on your children.

I would doubt that anyone would say Pentecost was not a baptism of the Holy Spirit and we are specifically told it is God pouring out his Spirit. So again baptism=pouring.

Here we have another type of baptism translated washing, which really would be a good translation for all sorts of baptism references. Luk 11:38 NET.
(38) The Pharisee was astonished when he saw that Jesus did not first wash his hands before the meal.

The word translated wash is baptizo. The Pharisee was astonished that Jesus did not wash his hands before eating. This is also referenced in. Mar 7:2-3 NET.
(2) And they saw that some of Jesus' disciples ate their bread with unclean hands, that is, unwashed.
(3) (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they perform a ritual washing, holding fast to the tradition of the elders.

While it doesn't exactly say how it was done, we know today both from the Jewish oral law and you can see Muslims do it exactly the same way. The hands are not submerged in a basin, no, water is poured over the hands and down the arms, the hands are what is called knuckled together to wash. So another reference to pouring being baptism.

We can turn to the Apochrypha to see baptism by sprinkling. Sir 34:25 KJVA
(25) He that washeth himself after the touching of a dead body, if he touch it again, what availeth his washing?

The word translated here washeth is again baptizo in the original Greek, a baptism. Now it's true that this isn't scripture, but what it clearly reveals is the usage of the word in the time shortly before the time of Christ. We know again exactly how this baptism or washing was to be performed that is recorded in scripture.

Num 19:17-21 NET.
(17) " 'For a ceremonially unclean person you must take some of the ashes of the heifer burnt for purification from sin and pour fresh running water over them in a vessel.
(18) Then a ceremonially clean person must take hyssop, dip it in the water, and sprinkle it on the tent, on all its furnishings, and on the people who were there, or on the one who touched a bone, or one killed, or one who died, or a grave.
(19) And the clean person must sprinkle the unclean on the third day and on the seventh day; and on the seventh day he must purify him, and then he must wash his clothes, and bathe in water, and he will be clean in the evening.
(20) But the man who is unclean and does not purify himself, that person must be cut off from among the community, because he has polluted the sanctuary of the LORD; the water of purification was not sprinkled on him, so he is unclean.
(21) " 'So this will be a perpetual ordinance for them: The one who sprinkles the water of purification must wash his clothes, and the one who touches the water of purification will be unclean until evening.

Sprinkling is the meaning of baptism as understood by the author of Sirach. Should we assume he doesn't know his Greek? I quoted a couple of verses longer than should be necessary in Leviticus because some people read the bathe in water in 19 and jump at there is the baptism, but Sirach is talking about the person who did the touching, and as verse 20 makes clear, the water of purification, of baptism was sprinkled on that person. It looks that the one doing the sprinkling was actually the one to bathe.

So there is baptism by sprinkling.

God fortold that too.

Eze 36:25-27 NET.
(25) I will sprinkle you with pure water and you will be clean from all your impurities. I will purify you from all your idols.
(26) I will give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit within you. I will remove the heart of stone from your body and give you a heart of flesh.
(27) I will put my Spirit within you; I will take the initiative and you will obey my statutes and carefully observe my regulations.

God sprinkling people clean.

I would also mention that Noah was clearly said to prefigure baptism. 1Pe 3:20-21 NET.
(20) after they were disobedient long ago when God patiently waited in the days of Noah as an ark was being constructed. In the ark a few, that is eight souls, were delivered through water.
(21) And this prefigured baptism, which now saves you — not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience to God — through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Again Noah and his family were not submerged, that was the ungodly. Noah and his family were sprinkled, God poured down the rain.

So clearly your #1 is mistaken.

As for #2. Infants are no different than adults. They do not save themselves. Go back to the bapism unto Moses. Clearly infants were baptized by God in that instance. The Bible specifically refers to them.

Deu 1:38-39 NET.
(38) However, Joshua son of Nun, your assistant, will go. Encourage him, because he will enable Israel to inherit the land.
(39) Also, your infants, who you thought would die on the way, and your children, who as yet do not know good from bad, will go there; I will give them the land and they will possess it.

Note that it is the infants and the children that did not know right from wrong that are going to receive the promised land. We have a promised land too, we call it heaven. No reason to believe the God that baptized infants and children that did not know right from wrong that gave them the promised land, can't baptize infants and children that do not know right from wrong under the new covenant and give them the new promised land, heaven.

Marv

[JoeWill]

Note that it is the infants and the children that did not know right from wrong that are going to receive the promised land. We have a promised land too, we call it heaven. No reason to believe the God that baptized infants and children that did not know right from wrong that gave them the promised land, can't baptize infants and children that do not know right from wrong under the new covenant and give them the new promised land, heaven.

I disagree with you Marv. Jesus said that to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, one has to be born again. It is the decision to receive Jesus that leads to one being born again, and you cannot make that decision for an infant by baptising them.

[BigNorsk]

Jesus said unless one is born of water and the Spirit that he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Explain how that translates into man must make a decision to be saved.

You make a reference to the one baptism of scripture and then you say it supports that man makes a decision to be saved.

Here is the understanding of your verse from the Popular Commentary.

The mode of regeneration: V. 4. Nicodemus saith unto Him, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb and be born? V. 5. Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. V. 6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. V. 7. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. V. 8. The wind bloweth where it listed, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth: so is everyone that is born of the Spirit. The statement of Jesus, simple as it was, was at the same time so thoroughly at variance with the commonly accepted idea as to the way of getting to heaven that it almost took the Pharisee's breath. His question reveals his utter inability to grasp the idea of the Lord to its full extent. He knew, of course, that a physical rebirth was impossible. He understood that Christ's reference was to a spiritual transformation. But just such a change in the field of morality seemed to him impossible, verging on the ridiculous, preposterous. How can a person, especially one of advanced years, deny the habits and customs of years? If that is to be done, then every person must really begin his life allover again, just as he came into the world. The very suggestion is unthinkable from the standpoint of reason, just as the idea of conversion, of regeneration, is preposterous in the opinion of the average self-righteous person. And therefore Jesus explains, once more with solemn emphasis, that the rebirth out of water and Spirit is absolutely essential, it is a prime prerequisite, for the entering into the kingdom of heaven. Spiritual regeneration by Baptism, through which the Spirit of God is given, is unavoidably necessary. Baptism is the means by which the Holy Spirit works regeneration, the new birth. Conversion is therefore in no way the work of man, but it is the work of God the Holy Ghost. To be born again or anew is to be born out of the Spirit, to receive from Him a new heart, a new mind, a new will. To gain this object, God uses Baptism as one of His instruments. This Sacrament actually works and gives new life; the water is not merely a symbol, but an actual means, through the power of the Word, in working salvation. But one that has been converted in this way, and has thus become a partaker of the grace of God, thereby enters into the kingdom of heaven, into the invisible Church; for the kingdom of God and the kingdom, of heaven are identical. That this demand of an absolute regeneration is well founded is proved by the fact that all men, as they are born into the world, are flesh; theirs is a sinful, corrupted nature, alienated from God, hostile to God. The carnal-mindedness of natural man is enmity toward God. It is an irreconcilable contrast: all men carnally born, from carnal parents, by nature flesh and filled with the same sinful affections as the parents in their nature, and, on the other hand, that which comes into existence by the creative work of the Spirit in conversion, the new man, filled with divine life, with divine power from above, through the working of the Spirit. He that is born of the Spirit has the Spirit's manner; his heart, mind, and will are directed to God and to that which pertains to God; such a one, and he only, is fit for the kingdom of God; he alone can receive the kingdom of God with its heavenly gifts and blessings. It should therefore not be a cause for wonder that a new birth is required for entrance into the spiritual kingdom. To natural man, indeed, it is a marvel, something that he can never fathom and understand, in just what way the Spirit of God works. But this indispensable requirement. stands for all those that are born of the flesh: they must be born anew. No amount of quibbling and arguing will change that fact. The Lord tries to make His meaning clear by an example, by a phenomenon in nature. There is the wind: it blows where it chooses; it comes, it goes, - and sound as a physical concept is well known, - but the beginning and end, the why and wherefore of the laws of nature are unknown, just as it is impossible for mere man to understand creative power. The blowing of the wind is done in absolute independence of any man's will; no one can govern and fix its direction. And just so it is with the working of the Spirit of God: the process of regeneration cannot be ascertained by the application of the senses; that is a mystery of God. Only the results are apparent, and they are often of a nature to make us marvel. The regenerated person shows an entirely different manner than before his conversion. What he shunned before he now seeks; and what he sought and loved before he now hates. He is anew, a different person, all by the power of the Spirit. "As the wind is free, not bound to any place, person, or time, so also the Holy Ghost. Just as the wind moves, drives, comforts, and penetrates everything, so it is also with the working of the Holy Ghost."22) Note: The Holy Ghost does His work how and when He wishes to; He does His work in His own peculiar way. But we men are bound by the external means which He has given us: we must use His Word and Sacrament to obtain the gifts of His grace.


Now before you complain that being born of water and the Spirit are two separate births, let me point out the consequences of that rational. It would be to say that those who die before their physical birth cannot be saved. It puts physical birth on the same level as Spiritual birth. I do not believe that.

It is talking of baptism.

Now before you jump and say ah ha! You are teaching that anyone not baptized is lost. In general, that is true. But in specific instances it has always been seen and understood that for someone who cannot receive baptism with water that the Spirit is not bound by the absence of the water. While baptism is certainly a means of grace and thus salvation and sanctification, it is not the only means of grace, and so while it is clearly to be valued and practiced, it is not absolutely necessary.

This is great news for all those who hold their baptism as nothing. For their complete and total lack of faith in this area, their disbelief that God saves them through baptism, that they are united with Christ's death and resurrection through baptism, this disbelief does not absolutely damn them. For God in his mercy has not only baptism through which to give saving faith.

Marv

[JoeWill]

Jesus said unless one is born of water and the Spirit that he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Explain how that translates into man must make a decision to be saved.

Here's how I see it.

Here is John 1:12-13 with my commentary below the verses:

12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

This verse tells us how we become children of God. It is by receiving Jesus, by believing in his name. A child who does not yet have the mental apparatus to know “right from wrong” as you put it, cannot yet make the decision to receive Jesus.

The decision whether or not to receive Jesus is a choice that every individual has to make for themselves. Jesus does not force his way into our lives. That is shown in Revelation 3:20 where Jesus says that he stands at the door and knocks, and if any man hears and opens the door, he will come in.

Therefore Jesus will not enter the life of a child without their individual permission, regardless of whether their parents have had them baptised.


13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

To become a child in the flesh, one has to be born. To become a child of God, one has to be born a second time – which corresponds to the being “born again” of John chapter 3. Only those who have this born again experience are permitted to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, as John 3:3 makes clear: “…unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Those are the ones that have made a decision for Jesus - see verse 12 above.


So from the above we know that:

1) No one enters the Kingdom of Heaven without being born again.

2) To be born again involves a decision to receive Jesus.

3) Very young infants such as babies are not able to make a decision for Jesus. Therefore baptising them does not bring salvation or access to Heaven.


The text you gave me from that commentary was very small to read, and I'm going to go on trying to unpick it. But I noticed that it said the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit begins with baptism - where is the substantiation for that claim?

As for the being "born of water", there are multiple possible interpretations of these words. For example, the water might just be a mother's waters that break when a child is born.

[BigNorsk]

Well if the water is the mother's water breaking we are still back to if you aren't born of the flesh but instead die in the womb, then you are in hell.

And in your system, if you die before some age when you can develop mental capability great enough to be saved, then you would also be lost.

I don't much like that your system makes our salvation dependent on our characteristics. Does away with that Christ alone thing from the reformation. It's really a works based religion you have there, for the person is required to grow and have sufficient knowledge and then God can save him? Or does he save himself? That's not clear to me.

You ever give a gift to a baby? Was a certain amount of mental development necessary for you to give your gift? No, of course not. If you can give a gift, why would you say it was impossible for God to give that child a gift, the gift of faith. Doesn't sound to me like all things are possible with your God he has to wait for us to grow up before he can save us.

It doesn't prove anything to me that you don't think children can have faith or that a certain amount of development is necessary for them to believe. I already showed earlier in this thread that Jesus said little children believe. So they believe, it is a fact. Maybe we cannot explain it, but it still stands. All you have offered is your lack of understanding how they could believe. That is no evidence at all. I don't understand how people can build skyscrapers, yet if I told you it was impossible because I didn't see how it could be done, you wouldn't listen to me. You'd trust the evidence.

Jesus didn't tell the little children to grow in reasoning ability and then they could believe, he said they were believers, he said they belonged to the kingdom of God. He told the adults they needed to be like the children not the children needed to be like the adults. If the children lacked anything it was certainly news to Jesus.

We cannot describe in detail the inward workings of the faith of infants and little children. Maybe it's not even a conscious faith. Doesn't matter, clearly they believe in Christ for Christ himself tells us so. Faith doesn't need to be conscious otherwise we would lose our faith every time we went to sleep. Wouldn't it be something if we were condemned because we died while asleep? If you can have faith while asleep, can you demonstrate while asleep those things you want to require of children to prove they have real faith?

Mar 9:42 NET.
(42) "If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone tied around his neck and to be thrown into the sea.

To explain how baptism can be the start could take a lot of explaining. I could easily use several hundred pages of a systematics text. Could you be more specific? That is, do you recognize that God works through means? Do you recognize the word and sacraments as means of grace? Do you recognize that the means of grace are both the objects of faith and the sources of faith?

Your answers would help narrow it down.

I will try to briefly explain.

We start with the first means of grace, the Word of reconcilliation" that is the Word of the Gospel. The Law is not a means of grace, it proclaims God's wrath and condemnation, it is the "ministry of condemnation". The Gospel is the "ministry of righteousness", it tells us not only of God readiness to forgive, but effectively we hear God forgiving us whenever we hear the Gospel. What's more it isn't just when we hear it. The Gospel is effective when it is preached (Luke 24:47), or printed (John 20:31; 1 John 1:3-4), or given in a formal absolution (John 20:23), or pictured in symbols or types (John 3:14-15), or pondered in the heart (Rom 10:8).

We see the Gospel is not limited by how it is proclaimed.

All means of grace have the same purpose and the same effect. They forgive sins, and they engender and strengthen faith. So just as Baptism is a means of regeneration (Titus 3:5) so too does the Word of the Gospel work regeneration (1 Pet 1:23). They do not exclude each other or have different effects. So just as faith comes through hearing ( Rom 10:17) so does faith come through all the ways the Gospel is received. One of those ways is baptism. In baptism the Word of God is combined with the water and through it God washes us clean, he forgives us our sins, he strengthens us, just as he does in all the forms of the Gospel.

Marv

[Albion]

Here's how I see it.

Here is John 1:12-13 with my commentary below the verses:

12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

This verse tells us how we become children of God. It is by receiving Jesus, by believing in his name.

Well, no. To be completely honest, it tells us how those people who at that time heard the Gospel and responded are described, There is nothing in the passage that applies it to all mankind. And even if you consider the last part to be a universal application, it doesn't confine baptism to those who those who make an act of belief. It merely says that those who do are sons of God--a point which we all can agree upon.

The decision whether or not to receive Jesus is a choice that every individual has to make for themselves.

If it is as clear as you say, why do you suppose that the Church baptised infants anyway from early times down to the present? Didn't care about the Scriptures? Didn't have any to go by? Were deluded by Satan, unlike ourselves who are immune to it? What then?

I'm not being coy here. Whenever any of us decides that we've found that almost all the Christians and saints and theologians of history missed the most elementary stuff right there in black and white, we need to step back and consider the reasonableness of that posture.

Jesus does not force his way into our lives. That is shown in Revelation 3:20 where Jesus says that he stands at the door and knocks, and if any man hears and opens the door, he will come in.

In this case, that is accounted for in as much as the child is free to reject the faith at any time later in his life, right? We all know that, whether one is baptised as a child or later, we require faith or the baptism will not save in itself.

Therefore Jesus will not enter the life of a child without their individual permission, regardless of whether regardless of whether their parents have had them baptised.

I'd be cautious about limiting God in that way. Paul, after all, was no child and had no desire to believe in Christ while on his way to Damascus...and you know what happened there. He didn't have to sign an affadavit before God came into HIS life. And there are many other conversion stories that we all know from later times when the power of God was at work in people who were uncommitted.

13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

To become a child in the flesh, one has to be born.

We agree!

To become a child of God, one has to be born a second time – which corresponds to the being “born again” of John chapter 3. Only those who have this born again experience are permitted to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, as John 3:3 makes clear: “…unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

OK. That, in itself, doesn't rule out those baptised as an infant.

So from the above we know that:

1) No one enters the Kingdom of Heaven without being born again. OK

2) To be born again involves a decision to receive Jesus. I'd say that a decision is necessary.

3) Very young infants such as babies are not able to make a decision for Jesus. Therefore baptising them does not bring salvation or access to Heaven. That's true and few of us would say that it does.


Certainly there is no necessary connection between believing in the practice of infant baptism and who will be saved. So we still have infant baptism on the table, as it were.

That's it?


As for the being "born of water", there are multiple possible interpretations of these words. For example, the water might just be a mother's waters that break when a child is born.

That's always seemed a very unlikely answer to me. Since Jesus had already been baptised himself, apparently as an important part of his ministry and given all that surrounds it, it is unlikely that he's talking about this instead. In addition, it's totally redundant. It would suffice for Jesus to say that a man has to be born of the flesh--the usual kind of wording we find--and not with an off-the-cuff reference to one little part of the birth process, a part BTW which actually precedes being born.

[PostTribber]

Have you not read the Bible to say that all men are born in sin and iniquity? Do you not remember that the Hebrews knew this themselves as when they asked Jesus what sin did this man or his father commit that he should be born blind? Was the church wrong when it condemned the Pelagian heresy?
..."Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." (Psalm 51:5) but is the baby guilty having not yet sinned? to be sure, we have the all the 'ingredients' of a sinner at conception (as the 'taint' of Origian Sin shall soon reveal it's ugliness), but a sinner must first 'sin', or else there is nothing to 'repent' of, therefore no need of 'baptism'! the Bible even 'eludes' to a time when there was 'no sin', "For without the law sin was dead." (Romans 7:8) even the Hebrews were only required to 'redeem' the first born. as to the man born blind, Jesus said it wasn't because of his 'sin', or the sin of his parents, that he was born blind, "Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him." (John 9:3)

[BigNorsk]

Do you take the fall of mankind as a one person at a time fall and not all of mankind perished with Adam? That somehow babies are not sinners and not condemned right from the start. I would point out that if they are not sinners they must be believers for how else would they uphold the First Commandment? In any case, do you not believe in orginal sin as real and true sin resulting in condemnation?

Marv

[Criada]

I personally do not believe that God condemns unbaptised babies...

[JoeWill]

Well if the water is the mother's water breaking we are still back to if you aren't born of the flesh but instead die in the womb, then you are in hell.

And in your system, if you die before some age when you can develop mental capability great enough to be saved, then you would also be lost.
Well this is very much something that you are reading into what I am saying, Marv. I don't believe that any human who was unable to make a decision about Jesus because they died at such a young age, would go to Hell.

The Apostle Paul pointed out that where people did not have access to the Old Testament law, they would not be judged by the law (Romans 2:12). God judges people by the light that is available to them. So I certainly do not think that God will condemn someone for not making a decision about Jesus when they knew nothing of him.


I already showed earlier in this thread that Jesus said little children believe. So they believe, it is a fact. Maybe we cannot explain it, but it still stands.
Marv, surely you can see that this is a hopeless argument? That Jesus identified some children as believing in him, would not mean that babies are able to believe in him too.

Moreover, until a child is able to articulate what they believe, you would not know whether they had made a decision for Jesus or not. So you would be trying to baptise them as a Christian without knowing whether they had made such a decision.


Jesus ... told the adults they needed to be like the children...
Yes, we need to be dependant upon God our Father, just like children are dependant upon their natural parents in so many ways.


If you can have faith while asleep, can you demonstrate while asleep those things you require of children to prove they have real faith?
Not quite sure what this really means. You only have to look at God communicating with his people through dreams in the Bible to show that the faithful relationship with God continues into sleep.


So just as Baptism is a means of regeneration (Titus 3:5)...
I disagree. Titus 3:5 does speak of "the washing of rebirth" but this is only a figure of the new birth itself. The born again experience is not a washing by water at all, but a spiritual cleansing. In Titus 3:5 the symbol of a bath is being used to represent the Christian as a new creation, just as Jesus used a bath to speak of the cleansing that an individual receives at their salvation (John 13:10).

In fact, when we read Romans 6, we see that the Christian baptism is a symbol of death to the old self; it is not a symbol of washing.

In the New Testament, baptism follows belief in Christ as a sign of that belief. And one already has to be regenerate to be a believer in the first place. For the natural man does not understand the things of God - which is why the message of the cross is foolishness to they that perish (I Corinthians 1:18, 2:14).


So just as faith comes through hearing ( Rom 10:17) so does faith come through all the ways the Gospel is received. One of those ways is baptism.

The main problem with this view is that there is no evidence that faith can come through baptism alone:


1) There is no evidence that Titus 3:5 is saying that baptism is a means by which we are made spirtually regerate.


2) There is no evidence that baptism alone is a means of producing faith.

In fact the opposite is true. The Apostle Paul indicated that faith can only come by hearing the gospel message:

Romans 10:14:

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?

[JoeWill]

Well, no. To be completely honest, it [John 1:12-13] tells us how those people who at that time heard the Gospel and responded are described, There is nothing in the passage that applies it to all mankind.
Albion, look at John's purposes for writing his Gospel:

But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:31)

John wants the readers of his Gospel to believe and have eternal life in Jesus' name.

That alone is strong evidence that the mechanics of salvation he outlines in John 1:12-13, where he speaks of people being born again by believing in the name of Jesus, is something that he hopes his readers will actualise.

Then these verse can be cross-referenced with other verses speaking of spiritual regeneration in the present tense (e.g. where Paul talks about the new creation).


...it doesn't confine baptism to those who who make an act of belief.
But it does show that salvation does not come via infant baptisms. John 1:12-13 shows that a decision for Christ has to be made in order to become a born again believer with access to the Kingdom of Heaven (cf. John 3:3).

That was my original point (which some of your later comments also missed).


If it is as clear as you say, why do you suppose that the Church baptised infants anyway from early times down to the present? Didn't care about the Scriptures? Didn't have any to go by? Were deluded by Satan, unlike ourselves who are immune to it? What then?
Well there's no real evidence that infants too young to make a decision for Jesus are baptised in the New Testament. True, there were family baptisms, but that does not necessarily mean that babies and small toddlers were baptised.

With regard to the church after NT times, you only have to look at the blood that the church has on it's hands to see that they have not gotten everything right. For example, it is only very recently that the Pope has apologised for the persecutions of Jewish people by the RC Church for many centuries. Protestants have been just as bad. So why use the historical actions of the church as an authority?


We all know that, whether one is baptised as a child or later, we require faith or the baptism will not save in itself.
The problem is that to baptise a baby, which cannot be a believer, is to misrepresent God in my opinion. The symbolism of baptism is that a person dies to the old nature inherited from Adam, and becomes a new creation inheriting the nature of Christ in many respects (Romans 6). If that person is not really a Christian, you are saying something about what God is doing that isn't true.

And you deny that individual the chance to be baptised as something really special that they have never done before, if they later choose to come to faith.

Also, I think that the baptising of babies does not follow the pattern given us in the NT, where, as far as can be ascertained, belief in Jesus precedes baptism. In fact Jesus said "...whoever believes and is baptised..." (Mark 16:16).

Further, people are told to repent and be baptised in Acts 2:38. I believe that repenting is not just turning from sin, but also doing things Jesus' way. The word we translate as "repent" was a military term used to order an army to completely turn around and go the other way. A baby cannot repent in this sense.


Paul, after all, was no child and had no desire to believe in Christ while on his way to Damascus...and you know what happened there. He didn't have to sign an affadavit before God came into HIS life. And there are many other conversion stories that we all know from later times when the power of God was at work in people who were uncommitted.
But Paul still had the option to reject Christ, and Revelation 3:20 shows that ultimately Jesus does not force his way into our lives. We choose whether to let him in to be our personal Lord and Saviour. So how can we baptise babies before they've made that decision to make Jesus Lord of their life? It's crazy.



With reference to the idea that being "born of water" in John 3:5 alludes to a woman's waters that break when a child is born:


That's always seemed a very unlikely answer to me. Since Jesus had already been baptised himself, apparently as an important part of his ministry and given all that surrounds it, it is unlikely that he's talking about this instead.
Don't be so sure. In the original Greek text of John 1:12, the natural birth is called the birth "of bloods" i.e. of flesh, in comparison to the spiritual birth. So the same pattern could follow in John 3:5. The natural birth this time is denoted by the breaking of the woman's waters, in comparison to the spiritual birth.


Having said all this, I think the water in John 3:5 is actually the Holy Spirit. The Greek can be retranslated as:

"No one can enter the Kingdom unless he is born of water even the spirit."

(Jesus uses water as a symbol of the Holy Spirit in John ch. 7.)


If you put the words "West Bromich" in front of your username, you would have the name of an English soccer team. :wave:

[LivingLifeHisWay]

I hold to the belief that there is an age of accountability. God will be merciful with babies, young children and mentally disabled people upon their death.

Baptisim does not save.

This is one thing my parents argue with me about seeing that they're Catholic (non-practicing though). They bieleve that my children will go to hell because they are not baptized and it just makes me sad. ::(:

[Albion]

This is one thing my parents argue with me about seeing that they're Catholic (non-practicing though). They bieleve that my children will go to hell because they are not baptized and it just makes me sad. ::(:

Two points:

1. The Roman Catholic Church is not the only church which baptises infants. Most Protestants belong to churches which also practice infant baptism, so it is not appropriate to think of this as a Catholic issue.

2. If your parents think what you said, it is indeed sad...because that is not what their church teaches about the future of unbaptised infants who die.

[BigNorsk]

Well this is very much something that you are reading into what I am saying, Marv. I don't believe that any human who was unable to make a decision about Jesus because they died at such a young age, would go to Hell.

The Apostle Paul pointed out that where people did not have access to the Old Testament law, they would not be judged by the law (Romans 2:12). God judges people by the light that is available to them. So I certainly do not think that God will condemn someone for not making a decision about Jesus when they knew nothing of him.



Marv, surely you can see that this is a hopeless argument? That Jesus identified some children as believing in him, would not mean that babies are able to believe in him too.

Moreover, until a child is able to articulate what they believe, you would not know whether they had made a decision for Jesus or not. So you would be trying to baptise them as a Christian without knowing whether they had made such a decision.



Yes, we need to be dependant upon God our Father, just like children are dependant upon their natural parents in so many ways.



Not quite sure what this really means. You only have to look at God communicating with his people through dreams in the Bible to show that the faithful relationship with God continues into sleep.



I disagree. Titus 3:5 does speak of "the washing of rebirth" but this is only a figure of the new birth itself. The born again experience is not a washing by water at all, but a spiritual cleansing. In Titus 3:5 the symbol of a bath is being used to represent the Christian as a new creation, just as Jesus used a bath to speak of the cleansing that an individual receives at their salvation (John 13:10).

In fact, when we read Romans 6, we see that the Christian baptism is a symbol of death to the old self; it is not a symbol of washing.

In the New Testament, baptism follows belief in Christ as a sign of that belief. And one already has to be regenerate to be a believer in the first place. For the natural man does not understand the things of God - which is why the message of the cross is foolishness to they that perish (I Corinthians 1:18, 2:14).



The main problem with this view is that there is no evidence that faith can come through baptism alone:


1) There is no evidence that Titus 3:5 is saying that baptism is a means by which we are made spirtually regerate.


2) There is no evidence that baptism alone is a means of producing faith.

In fact the opposite is true. The Apostle Paul indicated that faith can only come by hearing the gospel message:

Romans 10:14:

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?

You misunderstand Romans 2:12, that is made plain later in Romans.

Rom 5:13-14 NET.
(13) for before the law was given, sin was in the world, but there is no accounting for sin when there is no law.
(14) Yet death reigned from Adam until Moses even over those who did not sin in the same way that Adam (who is a type of the coming one) transgressed.

Notice, before the law, still death reigned. Even over those who did not sin like Adam. They all died in Adam.

Where do you want to draw the line, belief in the children is already younger than when one would know right from wrong. There is no line drawn by God against belief. Notice for instance:

Mat 21:16 NET.
(16) and said to him, "Do you hear what they are saying?" Jesus said to them, "Yes. Have you never read, 'Out of the mouths of children and nursing infants you have prepared praise for yourself'?"

And let's go to where Jesus said the little children believe. The child standing there is called by another name. Mat 18:2-6 NET.
(2) He called a child, had him stand among them,
(3) and said, "I tell you the truth, unless you turn around and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven!
(4) Whoever then humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
(5) And whoever welcomes a child like this in my name welcomes me.
(6) "But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the open sea.

The child is referred to as a paidion, an infant. We see the same word used on the eigth day of life when John the Baptist and Jesus were circumcised. (Luke 1:59; Luke 2:21) We see it used to refer to Jesus when the wise men came. (Matt 2:11) We see it used for Jesus when he went to Egypt when the boys under two years of age were killed to attempt to slay Jesus. Matt 2:13

Does your rational say that children under 2 years of age can believe? I don't see how it could.

And I bring up sleep because you say that if someone cannot articulate their faith, they cannot be treated as a believer. Can you articulate your faith when you are asleep? And even if you woke up and said you believed, how can I be sure? I don't think you should have been baptized by your standard because you can't prove to me that you are a believer, I can't really be sure. You say simply look and see the dreams and know the relationship with his people continues in sleep. But I see where God's relationship with infants is clearly continued in the Bible. Did not the infants receive circumcision as a mark of the covenant, doesn't that mean God continued his relationship with them? And weren't the infants carried out of Egypt so that they could receive the promised land? Clearly in the Bible God has a relationship with the infants of his people.

Baptism is a death, but it is also a washing. Act 22:16 NET.
(16) And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.'

You seem to have a logical fallacy in your rationalization. You think if something is one thing, that it cannot be another. That baptism is a death in no way proves it is not a washing. Indeed washing is baptism's basic meaning.

You commit the same mistake with faith by hearing. Faith comes from the gospel, and the passage you quoted is talking of preaching, but because it comes from the gospel in the form of preaching doesn't prove that it doesn't come from the gospel in all its forms. Surely you would not say that reading the Bible is nothing?

Edited to add: I see you disprove your faith comes only by hearing in your next post. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:31) The written word also provides faith. That faith comes by hearing, does not mean that it does not come by reading or seeing. Hearing is commonly used to include more things. For instance is someone asks you if you heard what happened to Vick on his sentencing, you do not take it as excluding the possibility of you having read it. If you read it in the paper, you don't tell the person you haven't heard you tell him you have, even though no one read the paper to you.

In Baptism there is both hearing the Gospel in the narrow sense, and seeing and experiencing the Gospel. No reason to believe that in that instance that if one believes that Jesus died and was raised that for some reason he cannot be saved through faith just because it is baptism.

Marv

[Albion]

Albion, look at John's purposes for writing his Gospel:

But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:31)

John wants the readers of his Gospel to believe and have eternal life in Jesus' name.

OK. Infants can't read, can they?

That alone is strong evidence that the mechanics of salvation he outlines in John 1:12-13, where he speaks of people being born again by believing in the name of Jesus, is something that he hopes his readers will actualise.

No, I'd say it is what he wanted to convey to a reader who is old enough to make a decision for Christ--exactly what it says.


But it does show that salvation does not come via infant baptisms. John 1:12-13 shows that a decision for Christ has to be made in order to become a born again believer with access to the Kingdom of Heaven (cf. John 3:3).

If you are not an infant, that is. It doesn't speak to the case of infants, so we cannot conclude anything about them on the basis of these verses that are addressed to adults.

That was my original point

I caught it, Joe. It just isn't defensible on the basis of scripture, needing your additional suppositions to make the scripture say what you are wanting it to.

Well there's no real evidence that infants too young to make a decision for Jesus are baptised in the New Testament. True, there True, there were family baptisms, but that does not necessarily mean that babies and small toddlers were baptised.

I consider that to be unrealistic. If whole households were baptised (and this does not refer to a single example) but we are to think no children were present, why would this be the way the baptisms were presented, and how many households would have no children. You are straining at a technicality with that IMO and yet you are extrapolating very loosely and broadly when it comes to applying what was said to an adult to the case of an infant who was NOT addressed by the verses dealt with above.

With regard to the church after NT times, you only have to look at the blood that the church has on it's hands to see that they have not gotten everything right.

By that logic, nothing can be proven about the Christian Church since, as you say, it is not perfect. That just doesn't work as an argument.

For example, it is only very recently that the Pope has apologised for the persecutions of Jewish people by the RC Church for many centuries. Protestants have been just as bad. So why use the historical actions of the church as an authority?

Because we want to know that the first Christians understood about baptism. There is every reason to think that they knew what the Apostles taught, if anyone did. That has nothing to do with persecuting Jews.



The problem is that to baptise a baby, which cannot be a believer, is to misrepresent God in my opinion.

...and you have already said that it is your opinion. We are all entitled to an opinion, regardless of all else.

And you deny that individual the chance to be baptised as something really special that they have never done before, if they later choose to come to faith.

That's why we have confirmation. Anyway, I don't see baptism as a ritual play that one gets pride out of, but as a sacrament.

Also, I think that the baptising of babies does not follow the pattern given us in the NT, where, as far as can be ascertained, belief in Jesus precedes baptism. In fact Jesus said "...whoever believes and is baptised..." (Mark 16:16).

He said nothing about being baptised and believing in any particular order, just that both are necessary. But again, why would any one of us today think that the Christian church and billions of Christians throughout history couldn't read the Bible as well as we can? Yet they didn't see it as you do. You didn't answer my question as to how you account for this.

But Paul still had the option to reject Christ, and Revelation 3:20 shows that ultimately Jesus does not force his way into our lives. We choose whether to let him in to be our personal Lord and Saviour.

And so we all do, whether baptised as an infant or as an adult. There is no issue here that I can see.

It's crazy.

Saying something like that--the whole world is crazy, only I am not--is something to guard against. At this point, a person has to ask himself, "What am I missing?"

If you put the words "West Bromich" in front of your username, you would have the name of an English soccer team. :wave:

Glad to know it! :D

Go, fight, win, West Bromich Albion!! We're withdrawing our allegiance to Manchester United.

[BigNorsk]

I hold to the belief that there is an age of accountability. God will be merciful with babies, young children and mentally disabled people upon their death.

Baptisim does not save.

This is one thing my parents argue with me about seeing that they're Catholic (non-practicing though). They bieleve that my children will go to hell because they are not baptized and it just makes me sad. ::(:

I would not judge infant baptism by the mistaken doctrines of the Roman Catholic church. But there is really no biblical basis for the application of the age of accountability like most people use it. The anabaptists at least try to basically keep their doctrine consistent by following the given age which was 20. But in the reference to the age of accountability, we don't see that those belowe 20 did not sin, only that they did not perish in the wilderness, an earthly judgment, on account of it. It always brings up the theological problem that if God can just overlook sin and grant eternal life, then Jesus didn't need to die. Then everyone should be truly saved, just as God said he wishes. But those don't agree with scripture so we know they aren't true.

But the age of accountability also doesn't agree with scripture. There is only one name by which people may be saved. Not multiple paths. And salvation comes through faith, not through not being accountable.

Surely, infants are saved, not probably all infants, because we see that the infants of the unbelievers were also killed when the promised land was given to Israel. If the infants were saved, they too should have inherited the land. But clearly the people of Israel were of the belief that their infants were in a relationship with God and hence salvation for them is possible. That's why they would have baptized their children when Peter told them the promise was for them and for their children. Exclusion of children was a completely foreign idea. When a proselyte joined the Jews, his whole family joined. All were baptized. Someone who said he wanted to join but who would have excluded his family would not have been accepted himself.

Marv

[BigNorsk]

What is the meaning of the word "household" in the New Testament? Who in the household is excluded?

People always seem to rely on that in several of the instances of households being baptized that it says all believed and so they automatically exclude the possibility of infants being baptized because they automatically exclude the possibility of infants being believers.

However I already showed that belief extends far younger than they want to admit it does. It clearly extends before the age of knowing right and wrong. How can this be if one must be able to reason sufficiently for salvation? Answer can only be that the idea that one must have that reasoning ability to be saved or believe is wrong.

Marv

[LivingLifeHisWay]

Two points:

1. The Roman Catholic Church is not the only church which baptises infants. Most Protestants belong to churches which also practice infant baptism, so it is not appropriate to think of this as a Catholic issue.

2. If your parents think what you said, it is indeed sad...because that is not what their church teaches about the future of unbaptised infants who die.

I didn't mean to make it sound I thought infant baptisim was exclusive to the Catholic church. I know other denomonations do it as well. My parents do bieleve this so please tell me, what does the Catholic church teach about this matter. I sincerely would like to know. Thank you. :)

I would not judge infant baptism by the mistaken doctrines of the Roman Catholic church. But there is really no biblical basis for the application of the age of accountability like most people use it. The anabaptists at least try to basically keep their doctrine consistent by following the given age which was 20. But in the reference to the age of accountability, we don't see that those belowe 20 did not sin, only that they did not perish in the wilderness, an earthly judgment, on account of it. It always brings up the theological problem that if God can just overlook sin and grant eternal life, then Jesus didn't need to die. Then everyone should be truly saved, just as God said he wishes. But those don't agree with scripture so we know they aren't true.

But the age of accountability also doesn't agree with scripture. There is only one name by which people may be saved. Not multiple paths. And salvation comes through faith, not through not being accountable.

Surely, infants are saved, not probably all infants, because we see that the infants of the unbelievers were also killed when the promised land was given to Israel. If the infants were saved, they too should have inherited the land. But clearly the people of Israel were of the belief that their infants were in a relationship with God and hence salvation for them is possible. That's why they would have baptized their children when Peter told them the promise was for them and for their children. Exclusion of children was a completely foreign idea. When a proselyte joined the Jews, his whole family joined. All were baptized. Someone who said he wanted to join but who would have excluded his family would not have been accepted himself.

Marv

Only God knows the age at which a person can understand the way of salvation and it's different for everyone. A healthy child would be at a different level then a downs syndrome child and there are other scenarios. I would never begin to try to figure all of that out. Only God knows. Although I would think it would be way before 20. ;)

[JoeWill]

See below.

[JoeWill]

Hello Marv. I've rearranged the order of your comments, so that the key issues come first.


Mat 21:16 NET.
(16) Jesus said to them, "Yes. Have you never read, 'Out of the mouths of children and nursing infants you have prepared praise for yourself'?"

Infants who are already able to articulate praise, must necessarily have some grasp of language. Therefore it is conceivable that they could understand the gospel message and make a Christian commitment.

The big issue lies with baptising babies and very young infants who do not yet have the basics of language to understand the gospel. Paul said: "How can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear unless one preaches it to them?" Hearing the preaching of the gospel requires an understanding of language that babies do not yet have. Even when we learn a new language in adulthood, it takes time.



Mat 18:2-6 NET.
(2) He called a child, had him stand among them,
(3) and said, "I tell you the truth, unless you turn around and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven!
(4) Whoever then humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
(5) And whoever welcomes a child like this in my name welcomes me.
(6) "But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the open sea.

The child is referred to as a paidion, an infant...

Does your rational say that children under 2 years of age can believe? I don't see how it could.


Where does the "under 2 years of age" come in? The Greek can be translated as "little child", as your own Bible commentary shows above.


And I bring up sleep because you say that if someone cannot articulate their faith, they cannot be treated as a believer.
I'm surprised that you have misunderstood this point. Basically, there is no way of knowing whether a child is a Christian or not until they are able to tell you.

Therefore to baptise a child before they are able to tell you what decision they have made about Jesus, runs the risk of misrepresenting both them and God.



Baptism is a death, but it is also a washing.

Acts 22:16 NET.
(16) And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.'

Except that a literal translation of the Greek would be:

"Having arisen be baptised, and have your sins washed off (by) calling on the name of Jesus."


Faith comes from the gospel, and the passage you quoted is talking of preaching, but because it comes from the gospel in the form of preaching doesn't prove that it doesn't come from the gospel in all its forms.
Well not really. Paul writes:

"How can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear unless one preaches it to them?" (Romans 10:14)

Paul's argument is built upon the premise that people cannot believe in one of whom they have not heard. In other words, belief comes only through the preaching of the gospel.

In stark contrast, there is no evidence that a person can be brought to faith merely by baptising them.

I see you disprove your faith comes only by hearing in your next post. The written word also provides faith.
The Greek words for "hear" and "preaches" in Romans