Question about my Baptism as an infant

[KennySe]

Per the Baptist faith, is my baptism as an infant valid?

I have read posts by former Catholics (baptized as infants), who are now Baptists, who were baptized a second time and were THEN saved.

What about those, like me, who were baptized as babies, do we need to be baptized again as adults?

[jenptcfan]

Per the Baptist faith, is my baptism as an infant valid?

I have read posts by former Catholics (baptized as infants), who are now Baptists, who were baptized a second time and were THEN saved.

What about those, like me, who were baptized as babies, do we need to be baptized again as adults?
Hi there! :wave:

Baptists do not baptize infants at all. We do not baptize adults who have not made a profession of faith in Jesus and been saved. The key is, baptism does not equal salvation. Baptism is a step that comes after salvation and is done out of obedience to God--not as a way to earn salvation.

Since we do not believe in infant baptism, we do not accept it as a step of obedience since the infant had no choice in the matter and did not have the mental capacity to accept Christ at the time of baptism.

If an adult comes to the Baptist church and has not been baptized after their salvation experience, we will baptize them even if they were sprinkled in a past denomination (we baptize by full immersion).

I hope that answers some of your questions.

[BBAS 64]

Per the Baptist faith, is my baptism as an infant valid?

I have read posts by former Catholics (baptized as infants), who are now Baptists, who were baptized a second time and were THEN saved.

What about those, like me, who were baptized as babies, do we need to be baptized again as adults?
Good Day, Kenny

I do not know of any Baptist who claims they were baptized a sceond time and were saved as a result of that baptism. It is along time understanding that one believes then is baptized and added to the church see "Acts".

Peace to u,

Bill

[ufonium2]

So, let's take my mom for example: She was baptized as an infant in the United Methodist Church. Her husband (my dad) was brought to Christianity through her, and was baptised as an adult. She was a loyal member of the UMC for fifty years, and he for thirty. Then, in their opinion (and mine, but I digress) the UMC went tolerance-crazy and was no longer the church they had joined.

So, my folks went church shopping. They were told by every Baptist church they went to that she would have to be re-baptized. He wouldn't, because having been raised with no church at all, he was baptized as an adult by immersion into the UMC.

Mom refuses to be re-baptized because to her that is basically saying that she is not saved because of the circumstances of her baptism, whereas my dad who was baptized into the exact same church and who holds the very same beliefs is saved because the circumstances differ. The judgement of their salvation had nothing to do with what was in their hearts, but rather with outward signs of faith...dare I say it.....works.

Does that seem right?

[KennySe]

Thank you both for your input. :)

Anone else have any answers for me?

"What about those, like me, who were baptized as babies, do we need to be baptized again as adults?" Is it necessary for our salvation?

If we have years ago had a salvation experience, and had not been fully immersed, are we still saved? Is the immersion necessary?


If an adult comes to the Baptist church and has not been baptized after their salvation experience, we will baptize them even if they were sprinkled in a past denomination (we baptize by full immersion).

And if an adult comes to the Baptist church and HAD BEEN baptized after their salvation experience by full immersion, they would not be required to be fully immersed again?

I know of a young woman (non-Catholic), who at 15, became a Christian and was fully immersed.
Then, some years later, while remaining a Christian, entered the Baptist church and her Baptist minister had her baptized as a sign of her obedience to the Baptist faith.
Is this common? Was he "right" to have her re-baptized?

Is one immersion, after the salvation experience, sufficient?
Or, must there be an immersion on entering the Baptist church, like what happened to the young woman I mentioned?

If you were to leave the Baptist church (let us say because you moved and there isn't one where you move to) and you enter another church, say a non-denominational, would you accept re-immersion by the authority of that minister/pastor?

[eutychus]

Hiya Kenny,
I was baptized into the Catholic church as an infant. When I was 13, however, I left the Catholic church and began attending a Baptist church. It was in the Baptist church that I first heard the Gospel in full, and I responded by proclaiming Jesus as Lord over my life and beginning a relationship with Him. A part of that response was a public baptism by immersion, which showed those around me that I had in fact been crucified with Christ, but the new Holy Spirit-filled self had risen. Baptists view baptism differently from Catholics in that it is more of a symbol of an inner change.

Hope that helps! I know my Catholic parents sure were confused when I was baptized for a second time!

[jenptcfan]

Thank you both for your input. :)

Anone else have any answers for me?

"What about those, like me, who were baptized as babies, do we need to be baptized again as adults?" Is it necessary for our salvation?



And if an adult comes to the baptist church and HAD BEEN baptized after their salvation experience by full immersion, they would nnot be required to be fully immersed again?
I know of a young woman (non-Catholic), who at 15, became a Christian and was fully immersed.
Then, some years later, while remaining a Christian, entered the Baptist church and her Baptist minister had her baptized as a sign of her obedience to the Baptist faith.
Is this common? Was he "right" to have her re-baptized?

Is one immersion, after the salvation experience, sufficient?
Or, must there be an immersion on entering the Baptish church, like what happened to the young woman I mentioned?
Baptism is NOT necessary for salvation. Belief in Jesus, repentence of sins, and faith are necessary for salvation. That's the short answer.

I think the policy toward rebaptizing people depends on which faith they were a part of in the beginning. For example, it depends on what the baptism symbolized in their former church. If it doesn't align with what the baptism symbolizes in the Baptist church, they might be baptized again.

We welcome new members from other denominations by "statement of faith" all the time. Some of them are then baptized and some are not. I've never really delved into the specifics of who must be baptized again and who musn't. I'm sure someone more knowledgable will jump in though. :)

[jenptcfan]

Mom refuses to be re-baptized because to her that is basically saying that she is not saved because of the circumstances of her baptism, whereas my dad who was baptized into the exact same church and who holds the very same beliefs is saved because the circumstances differ. The judgement of their salvation had nothing to do with what was in their hearts, but rather with outward signs of faith...dare I say it.....works.

Does that seem right?
Baptism is not the same as salvation. No Baptist will tell you that you must be baptized to be saved.

Since your mom was baptized as an infant, the baptism did not have the same meaning as an adult baptism. When adults are baptized, they are to do so after they accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior--out of obedience to God. When babies are baptized, they have no choice in the matter, so the meaning of the symbol is lost. That's why they wanted to rebaptize her--so she could actually experience the baptism as a willing participant. Not because they were judging whether or not she was saved.

I hope that clears things up.

God bless!

[KennySe]

I find this very facinating, and I do appreciate all the input, folks. :)

Hiya Kenny,
I was baptized into the Catholic church as an infant. When I was 13, however, I left the Catholic church and began attending a Baptist church. It was in the Baptist church that I first heard the Gospel in full, and I responded by proclaiming Jesus as Lord over my life and beginning a relationship with Him. A part of that response was a public baptism by immersion, which showed those around me that I had in fact been crucified with Christ, but the new Holy Spirit-filled self had risen. Baptists view baptism differently from Catholics in that it is more of a symbol of an inner change.

Hope that helps! I know my Catholic parents sure were confused when I was baptized for a second time!

Your Catholic parents didn't share with you the Gospel in full?

I am very sorry that you say that you did not hear the full Gospel before the age of 13. :(
(I DID hear the full Gospel as a child from my local parish, and by my family. "The family that prays together, stays together.")


BACK ON TOPIC,
would you ever accept being re-immersed, if you were to enter another faith/denomination, in order to "show those around you that you had in fact been crucified with Christ, but the new Holy Spirit-filled self had risen."?

[Cary.Melvin]

I was baptized into the Catholic church as an infant. When I was 13, however, I left the Catholic church and began attending a Baptist church.I'm sorry to intrude on your forum, but this statement really caught my attention. Let me get this straight, Your parents allowed you, at the age of 13, to leave the Catholic Church and join a Baptist Church? Something doesn't seem quite right here. Did you take first communion? (At 13 I hope so). Were you confirmed?

[P_G]

Thank you both for your input. :)

Anone else have any answers for me?

"What about those, like me, who were baptized as babies, do we need to be baptized again as adults?" Is it necessary for our salvation?

If we have years ago had a salvation experience, and had not been fully immersed, are we still saved? Is the immersion necessary?



And if an adult comes to the Baptist church and HAD BEEN baptized after their salvation experience by full immersion, they would not be required to be fully immersed again?

I know of a young woman (non-Catholic), who at 15, became a Christian and was fully immersed.
Then, some years later, while remaining a Christian, entered the Baptist church and her Baptist minister had her baptized as a sign of her obedience to the Baptist faith.
Is this common? Was he "right" to have her re-baptized?

Is one immersion, after the salvation experience, sufficient?
Or, must there be an immersion on entering the Baptist church, like what happened to the young woman I mentioned?

If you were to leave the Baptist church (let us say because you moved and there isn't one where you move to) and you enter another church, say a non-denominational, would you accept re-immersion by the authority of that minister/pastor?


As a Mennonite

The only person who can be baptized is a beleiver, one who has accepted Y'shua as Savior and Lord. Themselves not by the authority of parents or God parents but they themselves.

The baptism is the sharing of the death and resurection of Jesus. A drawing closer to him in a loving way. A way of saying SEAL ME LORD! Place your seal on me.

Actually Baptisim is an older Jewish rite which is called the mikvah
that is why we go to a body of water to be imerssed. A cleansing ritually.

I would accept the baptism of any beleiver I don't care who dunked you
so long as you asked to be baptized then you are baptized. The authority is Christ not the pastor or the elder or anyone.

And I too have done a prison baptism

No Tank
well if the prisinor wants baptisim
a cup of water will have to do

He is sealed


Blessings

the ever dunking
Pastor George :wave:

[Frankie]

Per the Baptist faith, is my baptism as an infant valid?

I have read posts by former Catholics (baptized as infants), who are now Baptists, who were baptized a second time and were THEN saved.

What about those, like me, who were baptized as babies, do we need to be baptized again as adults? Hello Kenny, to answer your question...water baptism does not save, being baptised of the Holy Spirit through faith in Jesus however, does. A water baptism is an outward show of and inward faith. Babies are not old enough to understand grace or the meaning behind faith in Jesus to save them to heaven, therefore they are not yet to an age of accountability and are covered under the grace of Jesus. As far as a baptism being "valid", the only baptism that has to be valid to save one to heaven is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Water baptism does not hold any saving power but Jesus does.

God Bless You,
Frankie

[GreenEyedLady]

I know of a young woman (non-Catholic), who at 15, became a Christian and was fully immersed.
Then, some years later, while remaining a Christian, entered the Baptist church and her Baptist minister had her baptized as a sign of her obedience to the Baptist faith.
Is this common? Was he "right" to have her re-baptized?


This all depends if she was scriptually baptized. Many churches have doctrines that state that baptism is apart of salvation. We have "re-baptized" many folks who were not saved or thought that the act of the baptism saved them. Please keep in mind that it is always the person asking to be baptized, not that we force it in anyway or that the pastor says, you need to be rebaptized. Many churches differ in their belief on baptism, I am not really sure if all baptist churchs agree on it. I have always been in an independent church so I really would not know.
GEL
PS. As for the infant question. I was baptized as an infant, and I was not saved. I was confirmed and went through communion and even was married in the Church. But, I never knew that just by faith in Christ I needed to be saved. I never publically confessed Christ as my Saviour. I went through the rituals of the church, which was not enough to save me. I am not sure about anyone else, but I know for a fact I was not saved. There was no evidence of the Holy Spirit in me at all. Once I got saved I was obedient to the commandment that one should get baptized. Since then, the Holy Spirit has been with me.

[ufonium2]

Baptism is not the same as salvation. No Baptist will tell you that you must be baptized to be saved.

Since your mom was baptized as an infant, the baptism did not have the same meaning as an adult baptism. When adults are baptized, they are to do so after they accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior--out of obedience to God. When babies are baptized, they have no choice in the matter, so the meaning of the symbol is lost. That's why they wanted to rebaptize her--so she could actually experience the baptism as a willing participant. Not because they were judging whether or not she was saved.

I hope that clears things up.

God bless!
Thanks for your response. My problem is not that the Baptist church wants her to be baptised again, it's that they insist upon it or else she can't join their church. I would think her publicly making a commitment to God at age 13 (or roundabouts, at least that when I did it) at her confirmation and then living the next 40-odd years as a Christian would be at least as much proof of being saved as taking 20 minutes to get rebaptized, but obviously we're speaking different languages here, so I'll bow out.

[jenptcfan]

Again, I don't think the churches your mom has visited insist that she get baptized to prove that she's saved. Only God (and ourselves) can know our hearts and whether or not we're truly saved. Baptism has nothing to do with salvation. Baptism is an act of obedience to God and when someone is baptized as an infant, they did not participate out of obedience to God--they participated because their parents took them and had them baptized. Therefore, it's as if they were never baptized because the symbolic meaning is lost.

That doesn't mean that your mom isn't a great saved Christian. It's just that we believe that we are to follow Jesus' example and be baptized by immersion as adults (or children above the age of accountability). :)

[eldermike]

I am SB. In SB Theology baptism, church membership and salvation are three different subjects. Anyone that connected them somehow either misspoke or was misunderstood.

Let me explain. There are fully dunked lost people in the SB denomination. But don't be shocked, we don't have an exclusive on this. Also, we have members that are not saved, again same is true in every church.

The Baptist faith will not save you,

Mike

[Cright]

KennySe,

according to the church I attend (it's independant, so may be different that FW baptist or SB or the others, not sure).

They require baptism by immersion for membership. They require this because the word baptism means immersion.
It doesn't matter if it's been done in our church or a prior one.

If you have been sprinkled or poured it doesn't meet the requirement weather as an infant or not, because it doesn't fulfill the requirement we were given when we were told to immerse ourselves.

If you join our church and have been baptised by immersion by another church we don't require it again... but we ask (this is not mandentory) that you introduce yourself :wave: in front of the church and/or give your testimony.

God Bless,
C

[Cright]

oh.. and your other question... baptism doesn't save, your faith in Christ does!

[KennySe]

Ok, it seems that there are different answers from different Baptist "groups".

If Baptism is not required to be saved, then one could refuse to be baptised by immersion and be saved anyway, right?

Although, refusal to full immersion (if one was not fully immersed in the past) might exclude one from membership from a certain Baptist church (like Cright's independent one), right?

Then the second full immersion Baptism might be perceived as a man made doctrine, for the purpose of membership.

---

I guess my confusion comes from the fact that there are different Baptist Groups, and thus a person would need to discuss these matters with the particular pastor. Right?

[Cary.Melvin]

Do Baptists view that people who were Baptised as infants are not saved and are destined for you know where?

[KennySe]

Christ is indeed the Savior.

oh.. and your other question... baptism doesn't save, your faith in Christ does!

How does your pastor explain to you 1 Peter 3:20-21?

[Cright]

It might be perceived as a man made doctrine... but it's not.

Christ requested for all of his believers to be baptised. So it is his obedience that must be followed to become a "member" you may attend and be involved in any of the activities that any member can be except the elder board, even if you are not a member.

There isn't a second fulll immersion baptism. Only 1-by full immsersion... which means for some people who have been baptized in some other form would be re-baptised.

In the eyes of the baptist this isn't really re-baptism as the word means immersion and the person wan't previously immerced.

Hope that clears things up a little.

There are different baptist groups, from what I understand MOST of them follow the same docterine as far as I know. I haven't heard any of them requireing a 2nd baptism by immersion... that was new to me.. ...anyone here have a church that would require this here???

God Bless,
C

[KennySe]

Hello Kenny, to answer your question...water baptism does not save, being baptised of the Holy Spirit through faith in Jesus however, does. A water baptism is an outward show of and inward faith. Babies are not old enough to understand grace or the meaning behind faith in Jesus to save them to heaven, therefore they are not yet to an age of accountability and are covered under the grace of Jesus. As far as a baptism being "valid", the only baptism that has to be valid to save one to heaven is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Water baptism does not hold any saving power but Jesus does.

Then, I will not be fully immersed as there is no saving power in it.

I have been baptized of the Holy Spirit through faith in Jesus. My baptism of the Holy Spirit is valid. There is no need for getting wet.

Right, Frankie?

[KennySe]

Cright, I follow your explanation to me.

Per your independent Baptist church, there must be one full immersion (as a person who can reason for one's self) to be obedient to Christ's request. This one full immersion could take place prior to joining your independent Baptist church.

****

Which is a separate issue than the one I have posed to Frankie.

[Cright]

Christ is indeed the Savior.



How does your pastor explain to you 1 Peter 3:20-21?
19through whom[4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=1PET+3&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on#footnote_161361841_4)] also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge[5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=1PET+3&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on#footnote_161361841_5)] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.


The answer is in vs. 21 - water SYMBOLIZES baptism.
not the removal of dirt from the body (like water would remove dirt)
but by the pledge of a good concience toward God through Jesus Christ!

You are baptized with the holy spirit (first when you accept christ, being immersed in the holy spirit, aka being saved). You are obedient by showing this publicly by being immersed in water, baptism.

this is my explination, not the one my pastor gave me.

As far as my pastor would explain... this is part of our "lifestyle statement"

5. IMMERSION:
"And He (Christ) is the head of the body, the church; ... that in everything He might have the supremacy." [Colossians 1:18]

It's the symbol used to describe our salvation experience.

For when you were baptized, you were buried with Christ, and in baptism you were also raised with Christ..." [Colossians 2:12]
It's the symbol used to publicly illustrate our salvation.

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." [Matthew 28:19, 20]
We practice baptism by immersion under water - the way Jesus was baptized and the way the Bible commands.
although that's the short version from the website.

If you want to know more about the churches stance, please PM me and I'll be happy to send you the website!

God Bless,
C

PS.. great questions!

[ChiRho]

As a Mennonite

The only person who can be baptized is a beleiver, one who has accepted Y'shua as Savior and Lord. Themselves not by the authority of parents or God parents but they themselves.

The baptism is the sharing of the death and resurection of Jesus. A drawing closer to him in a loving way. A way of saying SEAL ME LORD! Place your seal on me.

Actually Baptisim is an older Jewish rite which is called the mikvah
that is why we go to a body of water to be imerssed. A cleansing ritually.

I would accept the baptism of any beleiver I don't care who dunked you
so long as you asked to be baptized then you are baptized. The authority is Christ not the pastor or the elder or anyone.

And I too have done a prison baptism

No Tank
well if the prisinor wants baptisim
a cup of water will have to do

He is sealed


Blessings

the ever dunking
Pastor George :wave:


A Mennonite...on a computer? Is that allowed? :P

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[ChiRho]

jenptcfan

Baptism has nothing to do with salvation.

1 Peter 3

18For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19through whom[4] also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge[5] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand--with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.


Romans 6


Dead to Sin, Alive in Christ

1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
5If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.


How does a Baptist, with a view of Holy Baptism such as yours, reconcile these verses?



That doesn't mean that your mom isn't a great saved Christian. It's just that we believe that we are to follow Jesus' example and be baptized by immersion as adults (or children above the age of accountability). :)

What age is that? Where can I find that in Holy Scripture (for further reference)?

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[kayanne]

Then, I will not be fully immersed as there is no saving power in it.

I have been baptized of the Holy Spirit through faith in Jesus. My baptism of the Holy Spirit is valid. There is no need for getting wet.

Right, Frankie?

I'm not frankie, but I'll jump in. I think that all Baptists would agree that there is no saving power in being immersed. When you say "there is no need for getting wet," that is true, in that it is not *needed* for salvation.
Baptism should, however, be *desired*. I don't *need* to attend church, treat others kindly, tell others about Jesus, put others' needs ahead of my own, etc. But as a Christian, I certainly should have the *desire* to do those things!! And I should have a desire to be baptized. If a person doesn't want to be baptized, and he is genuinely saved, he probably doesn't have a clear understanding of what the Bible says about baptism. I can't imagine being saved, yet outright refusing to take this step of obedience.

[GreenEyedLady]

1 Peter 3

18For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19through whom[4] also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge[5] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand--with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.





ChiRho
1 Peter 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 ¶The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.


Pasted below is out of a commentarty. I think it makes some very good point about the ark being the thing that "saved" Noah. I have not had the time to really study these verses but I thought I would post this up while I am studing.


God takes exact notice of the means and advantages people in all ages have had. As to the old world, Christ sent his Spirit; gave warning by Noah. But though the patience of God waits long, it will cease at last. And the spirits of disobedient sinners, as soon as they are out of their bodies, are committed to the prison of hell, where those that despised Noah's warning now are, and from whence there is no redemption. Noah's salvation in the ark upon the water, which carried him above the floods, set forth the salvation of all true believers. That temporal salvation by the ark was a type of the eternal salvation of believers by baptism of the Holy Spirit. To prevent mistakes, the apostle declares what he means by saving baptism; not the outward ceremony of washing with water, which, in itself, does no more than put away the filth of the flesh, but that baptism, of which the baptismal water formed the sign. Not the outward ordinance, but when a man, by the regeneration of the Spirit, was enabled to repent and profess faith, and purpose a new life, uprightly, and as in the presence of God. Let us beware that we rest not upon outward forms. Let us learn to look on the ordinances of God spiritually, and to inquire after the spiritual effect and working of them on our consciences. We would willingly have all religion reduced to outward things. But many who were baptized, and constantly attended the ordinances, have remained without Christ, died in their sins, and are now past recovery. Rest not then till thou art cleansed by the Spirit of Christ and the blood of Christ. His resurrection from the dead is that whereby we are assured of purifying and peace.

GEL

[GreenEyedLady]

I'm not frankie, but I'll jump in. I think that all Baptists would agree that there is no saving power in being immersed. When you say "there is no need for getting wet," that is true, in that it is not *needed* for salvation.
Baptism should, however, be *desired*. I don't *need* to attend church, treat others kindly, tell others about Jesus, put others' needs ahead of my own, etc. But as a Christian, I certainly should have the *desire* to do those things!! And I should have a desire to be baptized. If a person doesn't want to be baptized, and he is genuinely saved, he probably doesn't have a clear understanding of what the Bible says about baptism. I can't imagine being saved, yet outright refusing to take this step of obedience.
i think you made a really good point here my sister~!
I also would like to say that we should desire baptism as we should desire communion with the Lord. Communion does not save you, but its an order that Christ gave us to follow.
GEL

[Frankie]

Then, I will not be fully immersed as there is no saving power in it.

I have been baptized of the Holy Spirit through faith in Jesus. My baptism of the Holy Spirit is valid. There is no need for getting wet.

Right, Frankie?As far as salvation, no, there isn't. However, when we have been indwelled by the Holy Spirit, we are made new creatures in Christ and we desire to do His will. Jesus wills for us to proclaim Him as Lord of our lives and true savior. When we are water baptised, we are showing the world that we accept Jesus, that we love Him and Have chosen Him as Lord. We are also showing God our willingness to follow Him. I think that water baptism is a beautiful experience and one that all believers should partake in.

Frankie

[jenptcfan]

1 Peter 3

18For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19through whom[4] also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge[5] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand--with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.


Romans 6


Dead to Sin, Alive in Christ

1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
5If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.


How does a Baptist, with a view of Holy Baptism such as yours, reconcile these verses?




What age is that? Where can I find that in Holy Scripture (for further reference)?

Pax Christi,

ChiRho
The first set of verses has already been explained by another poster. Not everytime the word "baptism" is used means water baptism. See the comments about baptism of the holy spirit.

The second set of verses is about being dead to sin (or dying to self)--baptism is a symbol of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection. Those verses explain that. Through Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection, we are saved (through our faith in these things). Someone else might be able to explain it more clearly though.

If we could merely be saved by being dunked under water (or sprinkled or whatever the case may be), then there would have been no reason for God to send Jesus to die on the cross. Jesus' death on the cross for our sins is what allows for our salvation. Water baptism is a work that a man does. It is something that we can cause to happen for ourselves, and therefore there is no special 'saving magic' in it. Just like doing good deeds, going to church every Sunday, memorizing scripture are all GOOD things (no doubt about that!)...but they're still just works which have no saving power according to our interpretation of scripture.


Ephesians 2
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

Again, our belief in Jesus is what saves us...

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

John 14
6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Then there's the story of the thief on the cross who declared his belief in Jesus as he was dying and Jesus said this (without a baptism):

Luke 23

42Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=LUKE+23:42-44&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on#footnote_774765255_1)] "
43Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."


Age of accountability is not a certain age. It's just the point in time when a young person can understand the scriptures and decide whether or not they believe them for themselves.

I'm pretty sure this forum isn't intended to be a debate forum. Obviously different denominations have different ideas about how to interpret scripture, and I'm cool with that so long as people are earnestly seeking to interpret it as a means to know more about God and the things He values. I think that what God wants from us is faith in Him through his son, Jesus, and an honest desire to know Him and do things that are pleasing to Him.

Whether you are baptized as an infant or as an adult, or even if you're not baptized at all...if you understand what Jesus has done for you, you accept his gift of salvation, and you love him, you're my brother or sister.

That said, I'm not interested in debating this b/c I don't think there's any point in it.

[eldermike]

As far as salvation, no, there isn't. However, when we have been indwelled by the Holy Spirit, we are made new creatures in Christ and we desire to do His will. Jesus wills for us to proclaim Him as Lord of our lives and true savior. When we are water baptised, we are showing the world that we accept Jesus, that we love Him and Have chosen Him as Lord. We are also showing God our willingness to follow Him. I think that water baptism is a beautiful experience and one that all believers should partake in.


This is very good!

[sobresaliente]

KennySe,

NO your baptism would not be valid. First off, there are so many doctrinal differences in the Roman Church and Baptist Churches many baptists, like myself, would require an outward sign of agreement. Being Baptised by immersion in a Baptist Church with other members present means 'I believe what you believe'. Much like how the RCC views taking communion and partaking of the eucharist in their churches.


18

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19

By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20

Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

21

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

22

Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.


1 Peter 3:18-22
Baptism does NOT save, this is one of the major doctrinal differences between Roman and Baptist churches. This is all a result of a misinterpretation by the Roman Church, I know that it is believed by RC's that their church is 'infallible', but this is a different issue.

The answer is in the parentheses "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God". The 'filth of the flesh' is sin, baptism does not cleanse us from sin! Baptism is a public profession of faith that puts us in 'good conscience toward God'. We are saved 'by the ressurection of Jesus Christ' just like the verse says. This is what baptism by immersion simbolyzes death of the old, abominable sinful self and the ressurection of the new creature that is made through God's grace as a direct result of unfailing faith in the promises, death, and ressurection of our Lord Jesus Christ. We are saved by grace through faith!

Now that is taken care of, nothing else will be said on this. It is the truth of God's Word and if you will not accept it that is your choice.

As for whether or not babies who die go to heaven, I do not know, and frankly it does not matter. Whether or not babies get to heaven is trivial compared to knowing whether or not we ourselves know we are going to heaven and learn to preach the gospel to others.

Sobresaliente

[KennySe]

KennySe,

NO your baptism would not be valid. First off, there are so many doctrinal differences in the Roman Church and Baptist Churches many baptists, like myself, would require an outward sign of agreement. Being Baptised by immersion in a Baptist Church with other members present means 'I believe what you believe'. Much like how the RCC views taking communion and partaking of the eucharist in their churches.

Thank you for your direct answer to my question.

As for whether or not babies who die go to heaven, I do not know, and frankly it does not matter. Whether or not babies get to heaven is trivial compared to knowing whether or not we ourselves know we are going to heaven and learn to preach the gospel to others.

That seems a bit harsh: your saying that "it does not matter" if babies who die go to heaven or not, and your saying "Whether or not babies get to heaven is trivial."

I think it does matter TO THEM. I think it is not trivial to God.

We Catholics entrust dead babies to the mercy of God.

[CMmom]

We Catholics entrust dead babies to the mercy of God
Baptists and other churches who immerse (mine) entrust babies to the mercy of God also. That is why they don't sprinkle water on them--there is no need to! ;)

[P_G]

A Mennonite...on a computer? Is that allowed? :P

Pax Christi,

ChiRho




Yes'm absolutely. I think you may be confusing Mennonites with
Amish. Which I notice are also welcome on this board. Mind you we will
have to find one with a kerosene fired computer before they post.

Question for Kenny Se or any of the folks from OBOB I hear that some RCC churches are going for full imersion baptism. Espescially as adults. (At least so says my dad who is doing some baptisms that way)

Is this a localized Arkansas thing or are you hearing / seeing this also?


Blessings

Pastor George :wave:

[GreenEyedLady]

Baptists and other churches who immerse (mine) entrust babies to the mercy of God also. That is why they don't sprinkle water on them--there is no need to! ;)
I am sorry, but you are incorrect on this statement. Baptist do not entrust the mercy of God on infants. Baptist trust what the bible says, Babies get instant heaven, just like David son did in the book of Samuel. That is why we do not baptize infants.

It is more than trivial to me about my daughter. I KNOW she is in heaven, the bible says so! Babies in heaven is not a trivial matter whatsoever. Its alot more important than you think.

GEL

[Cary.Melvin]

I am sorry, but you are incorrect on this statement. Baptist do not entrust the mercy of God on infants. Baptist trust what the bible says, Babies get instant heaven, just like David son did in the book of Samuel. That is why we do not baptize infants.
Can you be more specific about that quote in the Book of Samuel and David's son?

[Frankie]

I am sorry, but you are incorrect on this statement. Baptist do not entrust the mercy of God on infants. Baptist trust what the bible says, Babies get instant heaven, just like David son did in the book of Samuel. That is why we do not baptize infants.

It is more than trivial to me about my daughter. I KNOW she is in heaven, the bible says so! Babies in heaven is not a trivial matter whatsoever. Its alot more important than you think.

GELHi Gel, I may be incorrect but I think that is what she is saying. If I understand her correctly, she is saying that by "mercy of God", that means that babies who pass on, are covered under the grace of Jesus and automatically go to heaven.

Frankie

[RhetorTheo]

That seems a bit harsh: your saying that "it does not matter" if babies who die go to heaven or not, and your saying "Whether or not babies get to heaven is trivial."

I think it does matter TO THEM. I think it is not trivial to God.

Isn't that what the Orthodox, and many Catholics, say when asked whether those outside the Church are saved? Not the word "trivial," but "it doesn't matter to me, I should focus on my own salvation"?

We Catholics entrust dead babies to the mercy of God.

I think that's the same answer he gave, just worded differently. In both cases, the doctrine, if applied, would result in the (unsaved, original sin) baby going to Hell. But we suspect that God wouldn't allow it to happen.

[RhetorTheo]

I am sorry, but you are incorrect on this statement. Baptist do not entrust the mercy of God on infants. Baptist trust what the bible says, Babies get instant heaven, just like David son did in the book of Samuel. That is why we do not baptize infants.

It is more than trivial to me about my daughter. I KNOW she is in heaven, the bible says so! Babies in heaven is not a trivial matter whatsoever. Its alot more important than you think.

GEL

Okay, I wasn't aware of that. As a former Baptist and a graduate of a Southern Baptist undergrad, I didn't know that the Bible is interpreted to guarantee salvation to babies. It wasn't something I was concerned with, personally. At what age does a child need to be saved? Is it a set age, or a vague "age of accountability"?

[jenptcfan]

At what age does a child need to be saved? Is it a set age, or a vague "age of accountability"?
It's not like we can control when a child is saved. A child 'needs' to be saved at the point in time when they can comprehend what Jesus did for them and that they need to be saved because they are sinners. Of course it's not a set age, because this mental maturity comes at different ages for different children. It's also much more than just "head knowledge". We can know all the bible stories and be able to recite them word for word, but until it becomes real to us, we can't truly accept it.

But usually, in my experience, it seems that it's kind of a gradual experience.
1. Slowly gaining the understanding of one's need for Christ.
2. Being convicted by the Holy Spirit and figuring out what the HS is doing.
3. Surrendering to it.

[Cary.Melvin]

So if someone never reaches an age of reason or to a state where they could accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour, say someone who was mentaly developmentaly disabled they could never be Baptised?

[KennySe]

Isn't that what the Orthodox, and many Catholics, say when asked whether those outside the Church are saved? Not the word "trivial," but "it doesn't matter to me, I should focus on my own salvation"?

I don't know what the Orthodox teach on this. You would best ask them directly on their board.
I don't know what "many Catholics" say on this; I haven't seen or conducted a survey.
However, I know that THIS Catholic (points at self) prays to the Lord for the salvation of all persons. I know a good number of Catholics who pray for many to repent and be reconciled by God.
I don't want anyone, born or unborn, to be unsaved.
And I pray for them.

We Catholics entrust dead babies to the mercy of God.

I think that's the same answer he gave, just worded differently.

He can answer for himself, what he means by his wording.

According to one Baptist poster, what I said, and what he had said, are NOT the same thing.

Baptist do not entrust the mercy of God on infants. Baptist trust what the bible says, Babies get instant heaven, just like David son did in the book of Samuel. That is why we do not baptize infants.

It is more than trivial to me about my daughter. I KNOW she is in heaven, the bible says so! Babies in heaven is not a trivial matter whatsoever. Its alot more important than you think.

[GreenEyedLady]

2 Samuel 12:23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

This is King David talking after losing his first born son, who was an infant. God took away this baby because of the murder and adultry that David committed with his lover. Please note that Davids other son Absomlom, who later died in war, was mourned over for days, weeks, and months. So why did David stop fasting and stop mourning this infant, and not his older son? If you read both books od Samuel, you will see that Absomlom was not saved. David cried and mourned because he KNEW his son was not going to be with the Father.
This is a clear indication that this innocent baby is in heaven. David, because of his love for the Lord, knew that he would see his first born son again.

As for many Roman Catholics, I understand that they would never "want" a baby to go to hell. But the Catechism states differantly. If I can find what the bible says about babies getting instant heaven, than why can't the Roman Catholic Church state in the catacism that ALL babies go to heaven?
There is no way that the catacism could ever state that babies get instant heaven, it would take away from the doctrine of baptism of the RCC.

GEL

[jenptcfan]

So if someone never reaches an age of reason or to a state where they could accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour, say someone who was mentaly developmentaly disabled they could never be Baptised?
They wouldn't need to be baptized. Again, baptism doesn't mean anything to us if we can't understand it. If someone is mentally unable to grasp the concept, I believe that they are like babies and are received into heaven.

[Cary.Melvin]

2 Samuel 12:23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

This is King David talking after losing his first born son, who was an infant. God took away this baby because of the murder and adultry that David committed with his lover. Please note that Davids other son Absomlom, who later died in war, was mourned over for days, weeks, and months. So why did David stop fasting and stop mourning this infant, and not his older son? If you read both books od Samuel, you will see that Absomlom was not saved. David cried and mourned because he KNEW his son was not going to be with the Father.
This is a clear indication that this innocent baby is in heaven. David, because of his love for the Lord, knew that he would see his first born son again.

As for many Roman Catholics, I understand that they would never "want" a baby to go to hell. But the Catechism states differantly. If I can find what the bible says about babies getting instant heaven, than why can't the Roman Catholic Church state in the catacism that ALL babies go to heaven?
There is no way that the catacism could ever state that babies get instant heaven, it would take away from the doctrine of baptism of the RCC.

GELWell, I read the quote you posted and I can't see how it would prove that all children would go to heaven. Now I am not saying that all non-baptised children are not saved. What I am saying is that I don't know. I can't think of single line of scripture or apostolic teaching that would say either way. Just my personal oppinion, I would say that they would be saved even though it is not the normal means of salvation revealed to us by Jesus, but I have no real proof of that.

As far as the quote you gave goes, First you say that David's differing reaction to his sons' death is evidence that he beleives that his infant child will go to Heaven and Absolom would go to hell. Don't you think this could be explained because of the differing circumstances of his son's deaths? His infant child was taken away from him by God because of David's own sinfulness. He was told in advance what was going to happen. He appealed to God to save his child from death, but he died just as God said. It was God's will and David accepted it. Absolom was not killed necesarily because of God's will, but beacuse of David's own men killing him after David asked them to spare him. He suffered a lost that did not have to happen. The differing reactions is not that unusual to me.

Second, It is true that David says that he will go to him. Now is David saying this as a fact or just what he beleives (or hopes)? Assuming he is saying it as a fact, Just where does David think he is going to go to be with his son? Have you ever studied the way Jews view the afterlife. Its knowhere near as well defined as the Christian concepts of Heaven and Hell.

And lastly, keep in mind that these people in the Old Testament are Jews. And as Jews, their children would have been born under the Old Covenant as Jews and the male children would have been circumcised on the 8th day. So as a Jew, what would it matter if you died as an infant or as an old man? The only difference would be how righteous or wicked your life was to determine your place in the afterlife.

Christians are not born Christians. We must be born again through Baptism to enter into the New Covenant. This is why Catholics and Orthodox baptise children, just as Jewish children would have been born under the Old Covenant by simply being born and being circumcised.

What other scripture passages support this belief that persons that have not reached an age of accountability will automatically be saved?

[GreenEyedLady]

Cary,
Your question was answered from the bible. Why are you debating with me?
I posted a scripture which specifically indicates that David and his son will be reunited somewhere, that place MUST be heaven! That proves that his child went to heaven, unless you believe that King David, whom the Lord loved, went to hell. And that is just nonsense.
If you have a question to ask, then ask it and accept what Gods words says about it. Otherwise I think you are breaking the rules here in the forum.

[kayanne]

GEL,
I agree with lots of what you've said:
1) that Cary is crossing the line into debating
2) that babies go to heaven
3) that "instant heaven for babies" would create some problems for Cath's in regard to their beliefs about baptism

However.......
I do have to agree with Cary that the scriptures you used (to me anyway) don't PROVE your point. It does give some support, but to say it is outright proof, to me, is a stretch. As Cary pointed out, just because David said "I shall go to him" does not mean that David necessarily WOULD be reunited with his baby. It certainly isn't God saying ALL babies go to heaven. I think we need to be very careful in extrapolating opinions from Scripture that requires so many assumptions (the assumption that David was correct in his statement, the assumption that if David's baby went to heaven then every other baby must also go to heaven, the assumptions you made about the difference in David's mourning over this baby compared to Absolom.)
Again, I agree with your conclusion, but you aren't using valid reasoning to claim proof from these verses.

I DO, however, believe that all babies go to heaven, because to believe otherwise would totally contradict the very nature of the God I believe in. I could not worship or love a God who would create babies only for the purpose of sending them to Hell. The God I believe in is infinitely more loving and compassionate than I am, and even I, in my human sinful state, have enough love and compassion to want to scoop up a baby and love him and tend to his needs and ache for his hurts and cries--how much more would our loving heavenly Father want to take such a little one and protect him in His loving arms.

[Cary.Melvin]

Cary,
Your question was answered from the bible. Why are you debating with me?
I posted a scripture which specifically indicates that David and his son will be reunited somewhere, that place MUST be heaven! That proves that his child went to heaven, unless you believe that King David, whom the Lord loved, went to hell. And that is just nonsense.
If you have a question to ask, then ask it and accept what Gods words says about it. Otherwise I think you are breaking the rules here in the forum.


1) that Cary is crossing the line into debating

Actually, my post was placed 2 hours and 14 minutes before forum rules were set in place. ;)

And I could probably argue that I would be grandfathered into this thread because it was started before forum rules were in place as well. :D

[kayanne]

Actually, my post was placed 2 hours and 14 minutes before forum rules were set in place. ;)

And I could probably argue that I would be grandfathered into this thread because it was started before forum rules were in place as well. :D

Hee-hee, you got us on that one. :D And actually I don't mind a little bit of debate (even though it does violate rules). It's hard to dialogue back and forth, questions/answers/counter-responses, without it crossing the line into debate---but as long as it is done with utmost courtest and respect, I think that is how we learn from each other. It's just the "my way or the highway" attitude that turns me off.

[GreenEyedLady]

GEL,

However.......
I do have to agree with Cary that the scriptures you used (to me anyway) don't PROVE your point. It does give some support, but to say it is outright proof, to me, is a stretch. As Cary pointed out, just because David said "I shall go to him" does not mean that David necessarily WOULD be reunited with his baby. It certainly isn't God saying ALL babies go to heaven. I think we need to be very careful in extrapolating opinions from Scripture that requires so many assumptions (the assumption that David was correct in his statement, the assumption that if David's baby went to heaven then every other baby must also go to heaven, the assumptions you made about the difference in David's mourning over this baby compared to Absolom.)
Again, I agree with your conclusion, but you aren't using valid reasoning to claim proof from these verses.

I DO, however, believe that all babies go to heaven, because to believe otherwise would totally contradict the very nature of the God I believe in. I could not worship or love a God who would create babies only for the purpose of sending them to Hell. The God I believe in is infinitely more loving and compassionate than I am, and even I, in my human sinful state, have enough love and compassion to want to scoop up a baby and love him and tend to his needs and ache for his hurts and cries--how much more would our loving heavenly Father want to take such a little one and protect him in His loving arms.Let me post up this scripture again.
2 Samuel 12:23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.
God says in the bible that if you believe in the name of Jesus you "shall" be saved. That means that YOU ARE SAVED right or does it man you "could be or would be but we won't know until we die? I think that it is very possible to look beyond into the future, as David was doing, and claim that his son and him would be reunited. His son went somewhere, where would that be?
Maybe I should ask you, where do you think David ment when he said he would see his son again?
I understand that you are not going to find a scripture that says All babies get instant heaven, but there are several scripture that point out that innocent babies and children were saved by the wrath of God even those who were of the pagans. God uses plenty of scriptures in the bible to let us know that our babies are in heaven, I think this is a good example of how God allowed David to have enough peace in his heart to know that we would see his son again. Maybe I should have posted more scripture. I will pull up an old post of mine.......

http://www.christianforums.com/t146764&page=8

GEL

[n2wolves]

I'm not frankie, but I'll jump in. I think that all Baptists would agree that there is no saving power in being immersed. When you say "there is no need for getting wet," that is true, in that it is not *needed* for salvation.
Baptism should, however, be *desired*. I don't *need* to attend church, treat others kindly, tell others about Jesus, put others' needs ahead of my own, etc. But as a Christian, I certainly should have the *desire* to do those things!! And I should have a desire to be baptized. If a person doesn't want to be baptized, and he is genuinely saved, he probably doesn't have a clear understanding of what the Bible says about baptism. I can't imagine being saved, yet outright refusing to take this step of obedience.
On the contrary baptism is needed for salvation for if we are to be OBEDIENT to Christ and be baptized as he commands, if we reject that command is that not rebellion against Christ and if it is, are we really putting Christ on in the first place?

[Crazy Liz]

Yes'm absolutely. I think you may be confusing Mennonites with
Amish. Which I notice are also welcome on this board. Mind you we will
have to find one with a kerosene fired computer before they post.

I understand the Amish occasionally ride in taxis and use pay phones. Do you think they could connect up in a cyber cafe?

Question for Kenny Se or any of the folks from OBOB I hear that some RCC churches are going for full imersion baptism. Espescially as adults. (At least so says my dad who is doing some baptisms that way)

Is this a localized Arkansas thing or are you hearing / seeing this also?

I tried to post a picture of the baptismal font in the new Roman Catholic cathedral in Los Angeles (http://www.olacathedral.org/), but their website is designed to keep you from doing that. To see it, click the link, then select Baptismal Font at the bottom of the "Art" menu.

[Frankie]

In regards to babies going to heaven if they pass on. One thing that people often miss is that there is an age of accountability. That age would be different for everyone and only God truly knows when someone is accountable to either accept or reject Jesus. One thing we can all agree on (I hope), is that babies are not accountable. They are babies and are not yet old enough to even crasp the understanding of accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior of their lives. Since they are not yet accountable, they are covered under the grace of God and automatically go to Heaven. Jesus tells us in the Bible that children are such as the kingdom of God. He forbids anyone to keep children from coming to Him. Where Jesus shows sternness and blunt teachings and correction to adults in the Bible, He shows gentleness and open compasion to children. It is completly beyond me how some people can even think that children and babies that die would go to Hell if they weren't baptised first or that they can think that children or babies would go to Hell period. It just isn't gunna happen.


Frankie

[Crazy Liz]

Perhaps we would be better off not arguing about whether babies might possibly go to hell, and think more about the words of Jesus:

At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
"And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
--Matthew 18:1-6

[KennySe]

As for many Roman Catholics, I understand that they would never "want" a baby to go to hell. But the Catechism states differantly. If I can find what the bible says about babies getting instant heaven, than why can't the Roman Catholic Church state in the catacism that ALL babies go to heaven?
There is no way that the catacism could ever state that babies get instant heaven, it would take away from the doctrine of baptism of the RCC

How about we not discuss Catholic doctrine on this forum,, but instead on the Catholic Forum?

If you want to discuss the Catechism of the Catholic Church's section on Baptism, OBOB is the proper forum.

[Cright]

GEL,
I agree with lots of what you've said:
1) that Cary is crossing the line into debating
2) that babies go to heaven
3) that "instant heaven for babies" would create some problems for Cath's in regard to their beliefs about baptism

However.......
I agree with your conclusion, but you aren't using valid reasoning to claim proof from these verses.

I DO, however, believe that all babies go to heaven, because to believe otherwise would totally contradict the very nature of the God I believe in. I could not worship or love a God who would create babies only for the purpose of sending them to Hell. The God I believe in is infinitely more loving and compassionate than I am, and even I, in my human sinful state, have enough love and compassion to want to scoop up a baby and love him and tend to his needs and ache for his hurts and cries--how much more would our loving heavenly Father want to take such a little one and protect him in His loving arms.I agree with this post.

I'd like to post *some* of the scriptures that helped me learn about salvation, and what I get from them. (to those who attend baptist/anabaptist/similar churches, feel free to correct me if you think I've lost direction... other denom's please feel free to ask me for further biblical support but please, no debate)

Salvation comes only from the grace of God through Jesus...
1 Peter 1:8-10
Romans 1:16
Jonah 2:9
Luke 1:77
Acts 4:12

Baptism not needed
Acts 15:11 (just as you are)
Acts 2:21 (everyone who calls to the lord will be saved, also next 2 vs)
Romans 10:10
Romans 10:13

Indication that salvation is all you need for heaven (not purgatory)
1 Thessalonians 5:9

Babies don't need baptism for salvation
1 Peter 2:2 (says like a baby grows, adults should grow in salvation... not babies should)
Hebrews 5:13 (infants can't comprehend righteousness)

** no examples of babies being baptised in the bible.
** the thief on the cross next to Jesus did not need baptism for salvation

Here the CCC says Baptism is NECESSARY for salvation
**"And the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation [John 3:5]. . . . Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament [Mark 16:16]" (CCC 1257)."
http://www.catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp

Here the CCC says Baptism is NOT NECESSARY for salvation of infants, and some adults.
** "Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized" (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system; cf. CCC 1260–1, 1283)."
http://www.catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp
(greeneyedlady - looks like Catholic doctrine does say unbaptized babies can go to heaven.. possibly anyway.)

Hope those verses are helpful, if you don't have a bible near by, check out www.biblegateway.com (http://www.biblegateway.com/), it has several versions, choose your favorite version to read with.

C

[kayanne]

frankie, your font is teensy-tiny so my late-night eyes can hardly read it! can you bump it up a few notches?

[Frankie]

frankie, your font is teensy-tiny so my late-night eyes can hardly read it! can you bump it up a few notches?I will be happy to make it bigger, just so everyone knows, I am not trying to get attention. :D

Now, can I ask a favor, can you make your font darker? The pink is so light that I have to strain to read it. :hug:

[Cary.Melvin]

I agree with this post.

I'd like to post *some* of the scriptures that helped me learn about salvation, and what I get from them. (to those who attend baptist/anabaptist/similar churches, feel free to correct me if you think I've lost direction... other denom's please feel free to ask me for further biblical support but please, no debate)

Salvation comes only from the grace of God through Jesus...
1 Peter 1:8-10
Romans 1:16
Jonah 2:9
Luke 1:77
Acts 4:12

Baptism not needed
Acts 15:11 (just as you are)
Acts 2:21 (everyone who calls to the lord will be saved, also next 2 vs)
Romans 10:10
Romans 10:13

Indication that salvation is all you need for heaven (not purgatory)
1 Thessalonians 5:9

Babies don't need baptism for salvation
1 Peter 2:2 (says like a baby grows, adults should grow in salvation... not babies should)
Hebrews 5:13 (infants can't comprehend righteousness)

** no examples of babies being baptised in the bible.
** the thief on the cross next to Jesus did not need baptism for salvation

Here is a good list I came across that summarised scripture verses about salvation.

According to the Bible we are Saved by:

Believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)
Repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)
Baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)
the Work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5, 2 Cor 3:6)
Declaring with our Mouths (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9)
Coming to a Knowlege of the Truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)
Works (Rom 2:6,7; James 2:24)
Grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)
His Blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)
His Righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)
His Cross (Eph 2:16; Col 2:14)

As taken from Steve Ray's Book Crossing the Tiber : Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historical Church (page 100)
Ignatius Press,www.catholic-convert.com (http://www.catholic-convert.com/)

[kayanne]

I will be happy to make it bigger, just so everyone knows, I am not trying to get attention. :D

Now, can I ask a favor, can you make your font darker? The pink is so light that I have to strain to read it. :hug:

frankie, interesting that you should ask that! After I asked you to enlarge your font, I decided to review my own font, and decided that my color was too pale. So I changed to another, which turned out to be even lighter! :o I've tried to change it again, but it keeps looking like the pale lavender it currently is. :scratch: So, sorry about my very pastel font--I'll keep trying to change it.

[KristiXP]

Hello Members! :wave:

I think I need to put my mod hat on for a few minutes here, so...

*Mod Hat On*
I'd like to remind those of you posting in this thread, of the new forum specific rules for this forum:

1) This forum is open to all Christians. Non-Christian members are not allowed to post here.

2) Baptist/Anabaptist, as well as all members of the Congregational Forums can post fellowship threads here. Only Baptist/Anabaptist members are allowed to debate threads to discuss various doctrines to do with their own denomination and other denominations (including the Catholic church), as long as they are within our rules.

3) Non-Baptist/Anabaptist members (eg. Catholic,Charasmatic, Weselyan, Lutheran, etc... members) can only post fellowship posts here or posts to ask a question regarding Baptist/Anabaptist doctrine. Once the question is answered, there shall be no debate over the answer in this forum by the Non-Baptist/Anabaptist members. Any debate posts by Non-Baptist/Anabaptist members will be deleted or moved to the appropriate forum. In other words, only Baptist/Anabaptist members can debate here.

4) No posts that denigrate a Christian denomination or Christian group will not be tolerated - these will be deleted and the poster will be warned.

Basically, we do NOT allow accusations that a particular Christian denomination or group is non-Christian. That is the bottom line. Debates regarding doctrine is allowed (for Baptist/Anabaptist members only). Accusations are not.

These rules are in addition to the original Christian Forums rules that have been written and set out before you by the Owner and Webmaster, Erwin.

Please remember these rules, as they are placed here for a reason. Non-Baptist/Anabaptist members cannot debate in this forum. I am seeing some non-Baptist/Anabaptist members starting to step over the line here. Please, let's remember these rules, they are an important part of Christian Forums and are here for a reason.

Thank you,
KristiXP

*Mod Hat Off*

[Blazin4Christ]

Per the Baptist faith, is my baptism as an infant valid?

I have read posts by former Catholics (baptized as infants), who are now Baptists, who were baptized a second time and were THEN saved.

What about those, like me, who were baptized as babies, do we need to be baptized again as adults?

Baptism never saves no matter how young, regardless of religion,denomination, etc..., it is grace that saves, if you want salvation seek grace, not a second Baptism

[GreenEyedLady]

I agree with this post.

I'd like to post *some* of the scriptures that helped me learn about salvation, and what I get from them. (to those who attend baptist/anabaptist/similar churches, feel free to correct me if you think I've lost direction... other denom's please feel free to ask me for further biblical support but please, no debate)

Salvation comes only from the grace of God through Jesus...
1 Peter 1:8-10
Romans 1:16
Jonah 2:9
Luke 1:77
Acts 4:12

Baptism not needed
Acts 15:11 (just as you are)
Acts 2:21 (everyone who calls to the lord will be saved, also next 2 vs)
Romans 10:10
Romans 10:13

Indication that salvation is all you need for heaven (not purgatory)
1 Thessalonians 5:9

Babies don't need baptism for salvation
1 Peter 2:2 (says like a baby grows, adults should grow in salvation... not babies should)
Hebrews 5:13 (infants can't comprehend righteousness)

** no examples of babies being baptised in the bible.
** the thief on the cross next to Jesus did not need baptism for salvation

Here the CCC says Baptism is NECESSARY for salvation
**"And the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation [John 3:5]. . . . Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament [Mark 16:16]" (CCC 1257)."
http://www.catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp

Here the CCC says Baptism is NOT NECESSARY for salvation of infants, and some adults.
** "Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized" (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system; cf. CCC 1260–1, 1283)."
http://www.catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp
(greeneyedlady - looks like Catholic doctrine does say unbaptized babies can go to heaven.. possibly anyway.)

Hope those verses are helpful, if you don't have a bible near by, check out www.biblegateway.com (http://www.biblegateway.com/), it has several versions, choose your favorite version to read with.

CGreat POST!!!! I could not agree with you more. :hug:

I missed the part about the RCC saying they are in heaven. I will post that part of the catechism in just a second.

[GreenEyedLady]

1231 Where infant Baptism has become the form in which this sacrament is usually celebrated, it has become a single act encapsulating the preparatory stages of Christian initiation in a very abridged way. By its very nature infant Baptism requires a post-baptismal catechumenate. Not only is there a need for instruction after Baptism, but also for the necessary flowering of baptismal grace in personal growth. The catechism has its proper place here.
http://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-bot-left.gifhttp://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-bot-right.gif


http://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-left.gifQuote:http://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-right.gifhttp://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-right-10.gif
1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. 50 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=1250&FNoteNum=50) The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth. 51 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=1250&FNoteNum=51)

1251 Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them. 52 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=1251&FNoteNum=52)

1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole "households" received baptism, infants may also have been baptized. 53 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=1252&FNoteNum=53)
http://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-bot-left.gifhttp://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-bot-right.gif

http://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-left.gifQuote:http://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-right.gifhttp://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-right-10.gif
1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," 64 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=1261&FNoteNum=64) allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
http://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-bot-left.gifhttp://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-bot-right.gif
The problem that I have with this is not that it states "Babies go to Hell." I never thought the church actually would come out and say that. However parents who have left the church not baptizing thier children get the feeling that if thier child dies, thier childs salvation was in "thier" hands. It also state that we as parents can hold our children back from being "children of God"
which I have highlighted in orange. If we are not a child of God, then what are we and where do we go when we die?
Again, I want to point out that it does state that they "hope" there is a way that the child gets to heaben but then at the end it urges parents not to prevent children from baptism. WHY not?
Can I say that there is MORE than hope in the Bible, that babies go to heaven? Is that fair?

I am not trying to attack the church here. This is somthing that I have been wanting to discuss openly with other Baptist. I am so thankful to have a place to finally do that.
THANK YOU GUYS!
GEL

[KennySe]

GreenEyedLady, did you miss my following post, addressed to you?

How about we not discuss Catholic doctrine on this forum,, but instead on the Catholic Forum?

If you want to discuss the Catechism of the Catholic Church's section on Baptism, OBOB is the proper forum.

[jenptcfan]

If you read the rules, we are allowed to discuss Catholic docterine (or that of another denomination) here.

I don't see the need for anyone to start another thread. This thread is about infant baptism...the posts are about infant baptism.

Anyway, that's just my two cents.

[KristiXP]

Baptist/Anabaptist members are allowed to discuss/debate the doctrine of any denomination, as long as the discussions/debates are within our rules. Also, Catholics in the OBOB forum are allowed to discuss/debate the doctrine of other denominations, so it's a win-win situation here.

[Crazy Liz]

The problem is that if Baptists happen to misinterpret or mischaracterize a doctrine from a tradition outide those included here, members from that tradition may not be able correct them without starting a debate that would violate the forum rules.

It seems like if GEL wants to know how Catholics interpret the quotations she posted, she has to go to OBOB to ask. If she wants to know what Bapists think about Catholic doctrine, that's OK to talk about here, but there's no assurance any of the Baptists really understand the Catholic doctrine they are discussing.

It is also against the rules, as I understand them, to argue about a post in a different forum than the one it was originally posted in.

IMHO, these denominational ghettos make it very difficult to discuss what other denominations believe without perpetuating the kinds of stereotypes that have kept us from understanding each other for a long time. :sigh: Now that the PRE forum has been broken down into even smaller ghettos, it is getting harder and harder to discuss issues that might help lead us to a better common understanding.

The motto of CF is "UNITING ALL CHRISTIANS AS ONE BODY." Yet these denominational forums seem to do the opposite.

Just my $.02.

[jenptcfan]

I agree that it might not be healthy for us to speculate on what another denomination believes, but in all fairness, it wasn't a baptist who brought up the idea of infant baptism. It was actually brought up by a Catholic member who wanted to know what Baptists thought of it.

I haven't really noticed any speculating on what another denomination believes in the other threads in this forum though.

[KennySe]

I agree that it might not be healthy for us to speculate on what another denomination believes, but in all fairness, it wasn't a baptist who brought up the idea of infant baptism. It was actually brought up by a Catholic member who wanted to know what Baptists thought of it.
I am that Catholic member. :)

And I have received answers to my initial inquiry.

[KennySe]

The problem is that if Baptists happen to misinterpret or mischaracterize a doctrine from a tradition outide those included here, members from that tradition may not be able correct them without starting a debate that would violate the forum rules.

It seems like if GEL wants to know how Catholics interpret the quotations she posted, she has to go to OBOB to ask. If she wants to know what Bapists think about Catholic doctrine, that's OK to talk about here, but there's no assurance any of the Baptists really understand the Catholic doctrine they are discussing.

It is also against the rules, as I understand them, to argue about a post in a different forum than the one it was originally posted in.

IMHO, these denominational ghettos make it very difficult to discuss what other denominations believe without perpetuating the kinds of stereotypes that have kept us from understanding each other for a long time. :sigh: Now that the PRE forum has been broken down into even smaller ghettos, it is getting harder and harder to discuss issues that might help lead us to a better common understanding.

The motto of CF is "UNITING ALL CHRISTIANS AS ONE BODY." Yet these denominational forums seem to do the opposite.

Just my $.02.

And I add mine to yours. :)

[GreenEyedLady]

It seems like if GEL wants to know how Catholics interpret the quotations she posted, she has to go to OBOB to ask. If she wants to know what Bapists think about Catholic doctrine, that's OK to talk about here, but there's no assurance any of the Baptists really understand the Catholic doctrine they are discussing.

.
I know exactly how Catholics interpret what I have posted because I was born and raised in the RCC and my entire family is also in the RCC. I even had a Aunt who was a nun and we discussed this several times.
I see no harm in talking about the doctrine. I think its healthy and I feel that everyone should be able to have a voice on this website without feeling like they are getting stomped on. I just don't understand what the big deal is?
I am also wondering, why someone has to interpret what the catechism says. Its pretty black and white and is clearly written. I could understand feather getting ruffled if I was bashing the church. We are simply discussing doctrine and applying it to what the bible says, thats all! I still love Catholics! :hug:

GEL

[Sinai]

So, let's take my mom for example: She was baptized as an infant in the United Methodist Church. Her husband (my dad) was brought to Christianity through her, and was baptised as an adult. She was a loyal member of the UMC for fifty years, and he for thirty. Then, in their opinion (and mine, but I digress) the UMC went tolerance-crazy and was no longer the church they had joined.

So, my folks went church shopping. They were told by every Baptist church they went to that she would have to be re-baptized. He wouldn't, because having been raised with no church at all, he was baptized as an adult by immersion into the UMC.

Mom refuses to be re-baptized because to her that is basically saying that she is not saved because of the circumstances of her baptism, whereas my dad who was baptized into the exact same church and who holds the very same beliefs is saved because the circumstances differ. The judgement of their salvation had nothing to do with what was in their hearts, but rather with outward signs of faith...dare I say it.....works.

Does that seem right?Since Baptists do not consider baptism to be essential for salvation, whether either of your parents were previously baptized should not be considered as being a salvation issue. Both of your parents have accepted Christ as their personal savior; therefore, both of them are saved. That is not the issue. However, most Baptist churches require a person to partake of believer's baptism prior to receiving full membership in that church [though a person can generally join a Sunday school class and various other church groups without being a member of the church per se].

Since each Baptist church is generally autonomous, each church is generally entitled to decide for itself whether to accept someone's prior baptism as being sufficient. Since your father has had believer's baptism by immersion, it is not surprising that he could find a Baptist church that would accept him as a member without requiring him to again be baptised. Your mother, on the other hand, has not been baptized since receiving Christ as her savior. I am not sure I understand why she is so opposed to doing so. If she is upset because baptism is required for her membership but is not being required for her husband, then he might consider joining her in the baptismal pool. The pastor could explain to the congregation that both of them have been Christians for many years, that both of them have been baptised in another Christian faith, and that they now are following their Lord in believer's baptism so that they may continue their Christian witness as members of this church.

[ema0941]

Are paedobaptists included in the Baptist/Anabaptist grouping? I am not a paedobaptist but I know a few people with these views and they seem to share all the same views as regular Baptists except on this point we are discussing here.
I understand that Paedobaptists believe that christian families should baptise their infants based on the texts (in Acts mainly) where a conversion was followed by the baptism of the new convert and their whole household without any indication that any of them had been saved.

[bleechers]

For my Baptist friends:

One must understand the truth to be converted and then baptized. It is the understandding and the believing that convert, then baptism follows.

Acts 8:36-37
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Understanding also necessary to be converted:

Matthew 13
15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Matthew 13
19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

John 12
40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.


As you've guessed. I was baptized as an infant. I didn't have understanding nor did I believe with all my heart. I was baptized by immersion as an adult (Ana-baptism) much to the chagrin of my family.


1 Corinthians 1:17
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

:)

[Iollain]

Then, I will not be fully immersed as there is no saving power in it.

I have been baptized of the Holy Spirit through faith in Jesus. My baptism of the Holy Spirit is valid. There is no need for getting wet.

Right, Frankie?
Yes you should get wet, there is a Bridegroom coming and you should get ready for the wedding.

[theseed]

Baptism should always be after a profession of faith, if they were saved after baptism then it would be. . . proper.

baptism does not save or impart grace or forgiveness (we believe) but is a command that glorifies God and proclaims Him before men, and is a symbol of the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer.

So, it is not required, but it is proper if one was not truly saved the first time to get rebaptized.

[Iollain]

Jesus didn't have to be baptized either, but He was.