Infant Baptism Is Just As Valid As Adult Baptism

[RobertMazar]

Infant Baptism is just as valid as Adult Baptism because it is also administered in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit(Which is the formula that Jesus prescribed for administering Baptism). Baptism of infants and adults is just a dedication of infants and adults to Jesus and thus is totally superfluous to salvation. So what difference does it make if infants are Baptized?

 

[mutzrein]

Infant Baptism is just as valid as Adult Baptism because it is also administered in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit(Which is the formula that Jesus prescribed for administering Baptism). Baptism of infants and adults is just a dedication of infants and adults to Jesus and thus is totally superfluous to salvation. So what difference does it make if infants are Baptized?

I believe it is a good thing for parents to dedicate their children to God, but to me this is not what baptism is for. Baptism should be a response of the will in obedience to Christ, signifying death to the old 'man' and being raised to newness of life in Christ. However I don't believe it is necessary for salvation as it does not actually EFFECT the indwelling of the Spirit which gives man life.

 

[Pogo]

Paul was told by Ananais to, "...arise and wash your sins away...".

Baptism, like many other things required by the scriptures, such as the communion rite and women veiling themselves during prayer, et al, is an act of necessary SYMBOLISM.

Like the leper(s) required to wash seven times in the River Jordan to be healed!

The water in the river wasn't magic water, 'talking-the-talk' is wonderful, and required as well, but we all know those who 'talk-the-talk' but don't 'walk-the-walk'.

When Christians 'walk-the-walk' we offer to the rest of the world a visible example of our belief in Christ by being obedient to His commands and examples.

I submit that since the water in the river wasn't magic, then it must be the public nature of visible obedience to Christ's commands that healed them.

A physical act, that triggers, if you will, a spiritual blessing!

Their acts of obedience SYMBOLIZED, not only to Christ Himself, but to the world as well, that they WERE believers in Christ, their Lord.

Most Christians today dismiss any, and all, symbolism as un-necessary!

There is NO command or example of infant baptism in all of the NT. It is contrived by man, therefore it is worthless.

There are repeated commands and examples of adults being baptised in water.

There are a least two elements to the rite of baptism, 1) physical, and 2) spiritual.

In my view, ignoring one will be very costly.

In Christ,

Pogo

 

[Adullam]

Infant Baptism is just as valid as Adult Baptism because it is also administered in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit(Which is the formula that Jesus prescribed for administering Baptism). Baptism of infants and adults is just a dedication of infants and adults to Jesus and thus is totally superfluous to salvation. So what difference does it make if infants are Baptized?

Do you believe in infant betrothals?

 

[Jon-Marc]

Since baptism doesn't save anyone or allow them into heaven, baby baptism is just as valid as any baptism in that respect. However, since baptism is for those who have believed and trusted in Jesus Christ, baptism alone also does not make a baby a Christian. However, babies are "safe" if not "saved" because of their innocence, which makes them immune to God's wrath.

 

[francisdesales]

Infant Baptism is just as valid as Adult Baptism because it is also administered in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit(Which is the formula that Jesus prescribed for administering Baptism). Baptism of infants and adults is just a dedication of infants and adults to Jesus and thus is totally superfluous to salvation. So what difference does it make if infants are Baptized?

Which leads us to question why the Jews bothered to circumcise their own infants - and those not circumcised were not part of the covenanted people of God. Those not circumcised remained unsaved...

 

[francisdesales]

Most Christians today dismiss any, and all, symbolism as un-necessary!

A big mistake.

There is NO command or example of infant baptism in all of the NT. It is contrived by man, therefore it is worthless.

Nor is there a command or example that Christian practice MUST be part of the NT. If one takes your command to "find it in the bible" literally, than we must consider the command to "find it in the Bible" to be "contrived by man,... worthless".

Infant baptism was practiced by the early Church as a replacement of circumcision when it became evident that the Lord was delayed in coming... "Paul" makes mention of this in replacement in Colossians, and we know that infants were circumcised, so why not infants baptized? Isn't the New Covenant supposed to be better than the Old?

Regards

 

[John]

Infant Baptism is just as valid as Adult Baptism because it is also administered in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit(Which is the formula that Jesus prescribed for administering Baptism). Baptism of infants and adults is just a dedication of infants and adults to Jesus and thus is totally superfluous to salvation. So what difference does it make if infants are Baptized?

For one Baptism does not save you at all. ;)

 

[kingdavid]

water baptism requires repentance first and a baby cannot repent


the blood of jesus christ made a propitiation for babies who have not reached the age of accountability to repent to go to heaven. they don't need to be water baptized

 

[Silver Bullet]

Infant Baptism is just as valid as Adult Baptism because it is also administered in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit(Which is the formula that Jesus prescribed for administering Baptism). Baptism of infants and adults is just a dedication of infants and adults to Jesus and thus is totally superfluous to salvation. So what difference does it make if infants are Baptized?

For one Baptism does not save you at all. ;)

Isn't that what Catholics believe - that baptism does save a baby and prevents it from going to "Limbo", permitting it to go to heaven?

 

[Pogo]

John,

Posted by John...

For one Baptism does not save you at all.

I'm afraid that I'm going to have to disagree with you here.

Baptism, to a hearing, believing, confessing, repenting adult, makes them a SAVED Christian at that exact point in time.

It doesn't, however, KEEP them a saved Christian until Judgement Day.

They are a saved Christian only up until the point where they commit a sin. At this point they become a dis-obedient Christian. And...they will stay a dis-obedient Christian until this sin, and any others they may have committed, are properly repented of.

At which point, they will once again become a saved obedient Christian!

And, so it will go until Judgement Day!

In Christ,

Pogo

 

[francisdesales]

Isn't that what Catholics believe - that baptism does save a baby and prevents it from going to "Limbo", permitting it to go to heaven?

We believe that the baby is buried with Christ just as any other adult as a result of Baptism, since it is God who makes Baptism efficacious, not the person's amount of faith or the type of water or the holiness of the minister. It is a work of God that is not dependent upon the individual.

Just as circumcision was practiced on infants under the desire of the parents who stood in proxy for the child's "faith", so too is baptism. Infant baptism is the ultimate sign that salvation is ENTIRELY a gift, since the child can do NOTHING to deserve salvation, not even his own "faith" to call upon the Name of Jesus.

"Limbo" was the result of Scholastic pondering on where infants who die go who have NOT received baptism. Hell was reserved only for those who rejected God and Heaven for those who were "born from above". So they postulated this third place of existence. This was never official Catholic doctrine, just the schoolmen's theory. Now, Catholics are taught that the infant is at the mercy of the Almighty God and that we pray that He will unite Himself to those unbaptized for no fault of the infant. This line of thought has done away with the "need" for Limbo.

Regards

 

[FightingAtheism]

I have never seen in the Bible "baby baptism" or the Apostles baptizing infants. This is just illogical. An infant is not capable to make a choice, and a person other then the infant cannot make a choice for him. Just logic.

And the Apostles never baptized in the name of the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". 1)Father is not a name, Son is not a name, Holy Spirit is not a name. 2) In all the ocassions in Acts, the Apostles always baptized in the name of Jesus Christ!

 

[Cornelius]

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:

Can you see INTO , can you see it does not say :"IN" ?

Do you know that the word that is translated "NAME" in both Greek and Hebrew means" Nature, Character and Authority ?
So when you get baptized, the Bible says, you get baptized INTO the nature, character and authority of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. So for this unfortunately infants are excluded until they repent one day. Its not a walk for those who have not yet repented.

Baptism is NOT a dedication. Not for an infant and not for an adult.

You have to first know the reason for the circumcision and what that represents and the ADULT baptism will become clear to you. And no, the circumcision of a child does not mean we must baptize infants. That is a false doctrine.

 

[francisdesales]

I have never seen in the Bible "baby baptism" or the Apostles baptizing infants. This is just illogical.

Sir, you are basing this "argument" on an illogical idea that does not exist in the very Bible you claim to defend. That false idea is "everything a Christian is to believe is found in the bible". THAT idea is NOWHERE in the Bible itself, thus, as you say, making it ILLOGICAL...

An infant is not capable to make a choice, and a person other then the infant cannot make a choice for him. Just logic.

I am quite certain that not a single infant was circumcised by choice...

Paul writes that baptism replaces circumcision to the Colossians. It doesn't take much thought to see a parallelism between infant baptism and infant circumcision. Nor did the Lord prevent the children from being brought to Him, despite self righteous disciples making other claims...

And the Apostles never baptized in the name of the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit".

The Lord TOLD them to do all He taught, EMPHASIZING how to baptize! Yikes... Do you realize what you are saying here?

1)Father is not a name, Son is not a name, Holy Spirit is not a name. 2) In all the ocassions in Acts, the Apostles always baptized in the name of Jesus Christ!

Acts is not stating the liturgical formula, but merely stating that a person is baptized into Christ. Acts does not state that a person is baptized in the Father, either. Have you considered those implications?

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

You have to first know the reason for the circumcision and what that represents and the ADULT baptism will become clear to you. And no, the circumcision of a child does not mean we must baptize infants. That is a false doctrine.

Paul tells us that circumcision is replaced by baptism. We know that the New Covenant surpasses the Old, except, according to your opinion above, in the realm of baptism.

Apparently, the Old Covenant was more powerful, making children part of the Kingdom, the People of God - while the New Covenant is too weak and requires an assent of belief before it "works" to bring people into the Kindgom... :gah

No. Baptism is MORE powerful than circumcision and at the end of the day, does NOT ABSOLUTELY require a statement of faith, since it is GOD who baptizes, not one's own faith. We are born from above in Baptism. Not by our own intellect or emotional outbursts.

Regards

 

[Cornelius]

Now we still need to know what circumcision means.

Why was the foreskin separated from the body ?
Why was the blood necessary ?
Why the foreskin? and not the tip of the pinkie , or ear and a little skin from the buttocks ?

 

[francisdesales]

Now we still need to know what circumcision means.

Why was the foreskin separated from the body ?
Why was the blood necessary ?
Why the foreskin? and not the tip of the pinkie , or ear and a little skin from the buttocks ?

I suppose the infant would know of the meaning behind why one and not the other...

 

[Cornelius]

Now we still need to know what circumcision means.

Why was the foreskin separated from the body ?
Why was the blood necessary ?
Why the foreskin? and not the tip of the pinkie , or ear and a little skin from the buttocks ?

I suppose the infant would know of the meaning behind why one and not the other...

Your post makes no sense Francisdesales

 

[francisdesales]

Now we still need to know what circumcision means.

Why was the foreskin separated from the body ?
Why was the blood necessary ?
Why the foreskin? and not the tip of the pinkie , or ear and a little skin from the buttocks ?

I suppose the infant would know of the meaning behind why one and not the other...

Your post makes no sense Francisdesales

Sorry if I didn't clarify...

You say "we must know what circumcision means".

To the infant, it doesn't matter. After the ritual, he is a child of God. He does not know about "why the blood is necessary?" or "why not the pinkie?" He just IS.

I understand the answers to your questions, but to the RECIPIENT, they are meaningless.

Is baptism a lesser sacrament than circumcision? One must first "know" the meanings before it takes effect in baptism? Or is it strictly a grace from God?

Regards