Child Baptism?

[x_christiangirl_x]

I voted "YES" I was baptized as an infant, and so was my younger sister and my older brother. Although, I don't fully believe in what my religion believes in I have also had my 2 small children baptized into the same religion. My great grandfather on my mothers side of the family was a preist of the religion which is episcopal (sp?). However, it's your decision if you want your children baptized because the final say so is from you and your husband.

 

[Alabaster]

I think that a child should not be indoctrinated into any belief system that will define their life until the age or reason then they can make their own decision. Wether that be Islam, Christianity, Atheism, etc.

That would go against how God wants us to raise our children. He wants us to raise them in the knowledge of God so that they will never leave it.

 

[francisdesales]

Then what is the purpose of having an infant baptized? They won't even remember this event in their lives.

Well, the primary reason is to free the child from original sin. It is something inherited - separation from God - and baptism brings God back into the picture. The child becomes born from above, a new creation in the Second Adam. We Confirm people when they get older to 'confirm' that decision made by the parents in proxy. I think the idea is not far removed from circumcising 8 day old infants, either...

As a note, to what you say above, could we not,.. no... Should this also be understood by an Adult at their baptism?

Sure, but for an adult, the situation is different, since we speak for ourselves. As infants, the parents act in proxy that they will raise the child and speak for him/her.

Baptism is not a line in the sand between heaven and hell, and it is not a work of man. To what end then does it serve in an infants life toward salvation?

No doubt, it serves in the spiritual realm, not the physical.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Baptism does not remove sin. It represents the washing away of our sin by our faith in Jesus Christ, dying to sin and rising again to the new life in Christ.

It does remove sin, for the very reason you explain: Romans 6:2-3.

Regards

 

[Free]

Here is the issue with this line of thinking, it grants too much authority to a religious institution as opposed to the word of God. It matters not what the church teaches or authories, what matters is what God has declared on a subject (let God be true and every man a liar).

On the contrary, it very much does matter what the Church teaches.

Based solely on the scriptures we can see definitively that baptism is always and without exception an immersion of a consenting human being that understands the reasoning behind it. Those who were baptized according to John's baptism knew it was a baptism of repentance and those who were baptized into the Anointed One (Christ) realized that it was their entring into a covenant relationship with God's Anointed One.

Actually, you are going too far in what Scripture does and does not state. It is virtually silent on infant baptism, which does not mean that it is false or not to be done.

We know that consenting adults were baptized but that does not in anyway mean that infants were not baptized. We do see in Acts that whole households were baptized, whomever that may include.

 

[Alabaster]

It is a tradition and probably a relatively new one at at that. But if there is no biblical support for a baby dedication, then why are people against infant baptism?

Baptism of infants is an abuse of what God desires from us. Dedication of our children to raise them in the Lord is not.

There IS a biblical support for baptism of believers only. Babies are not believers.

 

[Alabaster]

It does remove sin, for the very reason you explain: Romans 6:2-3.

Regards

No, baptism does not remove our sin.

Romans 6:2-3 NLT says NOTHING about removing sin!
Of course not! Since we have died to sin, how can we continue to live in it? Or have you forgotten that when we were joined with Christ Jesus in baptism, we joined him in his death?


We, who have had our sin cleansed by the blood of the Lamb, are to enter into the waters of baptism, symbolizing that we identify with Jesus' death and resurrection.

 

[Free]

Baptism of infants is an abuse of what God desires from us. Dedication of our children to raise them in the Lord is not.

There IS a biblical support for baptism of believers only. Babies are not believers.

Are babies unbelievers then? And the point still stands that baby dedications have no biblical support.

 

[Alabaster]

Are babies unbelievers then?

Yes we are all born in need of a Saviour, aren't we? Hence the term 'born again', referring to receiving Jesus Christ as Saviour..

And the point still stands that baby dedications have no biblical support.

It doesn't make them wrong. No one is conferring anything spiritual on our children when we dedicate ourselves to raising them according to God's ways.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

On the contrary, it very much does matter what the Church teaches.


Actually, you are going too far in what Scripture does and does not state. It is virtually silent on infant baptism, which does not mean that it is false or not to be done.

We know that consenting adults were baptized but that does not in anyway mean that infants were not baptized. We do see in Acts that whole households were baptized, whomever that may include.

From a spiritual standpoint, church doctrine has NO authority whatsoever. A church, which is simply a corporate hierchial institution that differs greatly from the Ekklesia established by Jesus can dictate and practice what it wills, but if that will is not in line with God's it amounts to nill.

Scripture is definately silent on infact baptism, but it is not silent on baptism. Here's how to approach the subject of infant baptism. STUDY AND LEARN all the scriptures say about baptism. That will cover even infant baptism though it is not specifically mentioned. It's like being a counterfit money expert. Those guys don't learn all the different counterfits, what they do is familiarize themselves with the real to the point that when anything other than the real is presented to them, they can stiff it out.

And as I said earlier, ultimately infant baptism is irrelevant and accomplishes nothing ill or good other than perhaps making the parents of the infant feel good. other than that, it has no biblically spiritual significance.

 

[Alabaster]

From a spiritual standpoint, church doctrine has NO authority whatsoever. A church, which is simply a corporate hierchial institution that differs greatly from the Ekklesia established by Jesus can dictate and practice what it wills, but if that will is not in line with God's it amounts to nill.

Scripture is definately silent on infact baptism, but it is not silent on baptism. Here's how to approach the subject of infant baptism. STUDY AND LEARN all the scriptures say about baptism. That will cover even infant baptism though it is not specifically mentioned. It's like being a counterfit money expert. Those guys don't learn all the different counterfits, what they do is familiarize themselves with the real to the point that when anything other than the real is presented to them, they can stiff it out.

And as I said earlier, ultimately infant baptism is irrelevant and accomplishes nothing ill or good other than perhaps making the parents of the infant feel good. other than that, it has no biblically spiritual significance.

 

[A-Christian]

The Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults. Some here just conclude that is what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text does not explicitly support such a view. Naturally enough, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture (and few are individually identified) are adults, because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just beginning—there were no "cradle Christians," people brought up from childhood in Christian homes.

Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ." Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.

But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).

In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we don’t. Therefore his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.

Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.

 

[Alabaster]

Scripturally, baptism is restricted to those who have repented, and have received salvation already, which precludes infants, who cannot repent, and to those who can choose for themselves to obey the command.

 

[A-Christian]

You say "Scripturally, baptism is restricted to those who have repented, and have received salvation already, which precludes infants, who cannot repent, and to those who can choose for themselves to obey the command."

I say that scripture disagrees with your opinion as shown in my previous post. Who's right?

 

[Alabaster]

You say "Scripturally, baptism is restricted to those who have repented, and have received salvation already, which precludes infants, who cannot repent, and to those who can choose for themselves to obey the command."

I say that scripture disagrees with your opinion as shown in my previous post. Who's right?

Scripture gives the requirements for baptism. Unless a baby can reason, and be aware of his sinfulness and a need for a Saviour and feel remorse and repent and receive Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord, then he doesn't meet the prerequisite.

We cannot confer salvation or any other thing to another person, and especially through baptism. There is nothing in baptizing a baby that he will receive, except just good and wet. Infant baptism is simply an act of religiosity, and has become a commandment of men, rather than the command of God we need to follow properly.

 

[WalkingOnAir]

That would go against how God wants us to raise or children. He wants us to raise them in the knowledge of God so that they will never leave it.

My problem with that is modern pyschology has shown that indoctrination is a powerful tool and can really mess someone up for life. I personally do not think the parents should decide what the kid believes. A kid raised thinking red is blue that core idea is fundamentally wrong and will never change although through repetition he will acclimate. A person who is not indoctrinated will live a more open minded life then someone who is forced to believe something because there will be no unjustified (You cannot justify anything to a child whose brain is not yet developed it is taken on "faith") first actions that might mess with the way his brain does cognitive analysis.

 

[Alabaster]

My problem with that is modern pyschology has shown that indoctrination is a powerful tool and can really mess someone up for life. I personally do not think the parents should decide what the kid believes. A kid raised thinking red is blue that core idea is fundamentally wrong and will never change although through repetition he will acclimate. A person who is not indoctrinated will live a more open minded life then someone who is forced to believe something because there will be no unjustified (You cannot justify anything to a child whose brain is not yet developed it is taken on "faith") first actions that might mess with the way his brain does cognitive analysis.

Modern psychology be damned. It isn't a Godly virtue to have an open mind regarding these matters.

If you neglect the command of God regarding teaching our children the way they should go, then you will be failing as a Christian parent, but you will succeed as a secular one. It's compromise--- simple as that.

 

[Scotth1960]

From a spiritual standpoint, church doctrine has NO authority whatsoever. A church, which is simply a corporate hierchial institution that differs greatly from the Ekklesia established by Jesus can dictate and practice what it wills, but if that will is not in line with God's it amounts to nill.

Scripture is definately silent on infact baptism, but it is not silent on baptism. Here's how to approach the subject of infant baptism. STUDY AND LEARN all the scriptures say about baptism. That will cover even infant baptism though it is not specifically mentioned. It's like being a counterfit money expert. Those guys don't learn all the different counterfits, what they do is familiarize themselves with the real to the point that when anything other than the real is presented to them, they can stiff it out.

And as I said earlier, ultimately infant baptism is irrelevant and accomplishes nothing ill or good other than perhaps making the parents of the infant feel good. other than that, it has no biblically spiritual significance.

Dear Truth over Tradition, If the Church has no authority whatever in spiritual matters, what do you do with Matthew 16:18. In there, Christ says, the very gates of hell (that is the mouths of heretics) shall not prevail against His Church. Sounds like great authority given to believing Christians. Church tradition is the only tradition as the Church wrote the Bible. The Bible did not write itself. Someone had to write the NT. Who wrote the NT? The Greek-speaking Jews, and a few Gentiles like Saint Luke. This is the same Body of Christ as today's GOC.
Take care. Scott H. Erie PA:nod

 

[A_Wretch_Loved]

A great deal of heated discussion and at times accusation going on. Nothing wrong with heated discussion or lively debate.

As to my understanding of the situation, infant baptism deals in the thought process that by baptizing an infant, their sins have been now removed and they are thus marked by God and in good standing with Him, regardless of how they live their lives.

To that I must whole-heartily disagree. For all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God. Being justified freely by His grace.

Now this topic and tradition and belief can have serious repercussions on the life of a child-young adult-adult. Just as we will stand before the judgment seat of Christ to give an account for the deeds done in the body, so we too must also, choose ye this day Whom ye shall serve. We MUST choose. No one can do this for us.

 

[WalkingOnAir]

Modern psychology be damned. It isn't a Godly virtue to have an open mind regarding these matters.

If you neglect the command of God regarding teaching our children the way they should go, then you will be failing as a Christian parent, but you will succeed as a secular one. It's compromise--- simple as that.

It is all about how you want to live your life. If you want to raise your kids to be a blind leader only later to come up if ever with justification (Because let's be honest there are people on all sides of the fence that are just plain dumb) ok that is fine by me, but as long as that doesn't infringe on my right to let my kids choose. I'm all about intellectual honesty so I couldn't let myself tell my kids when I know their brains aren't developed about gods or the lack there of. It will be a non issue and I will let them choose like I have chosen myself. But regardless I will love them, be they an atheist, christian, islam, gay or straight. As long as they are healthy and happy I don't care.