Infant Baptism Is Just As Valid As Adult Baptism

[Rick W]

Many here attend church. Some here feel that is a mistake and make very pointed posts saying so.
I'm getting tired of reading these posts, mostly opinion, that discredit, belittle and degrade those who are not of that same opinion. People coming here may be affiliated with a church one way or another, a church of their choice and I have to wonder what they think of a Christian forum when reading these posts.
I don't mind discussion, after all this IS a forum but as far as I know attending church is still a Christian activity and promoted by many genuinely saved brothers and sisters.
Please, if anyone has a derogatory comment/opinion in mind toward another member/s exercising their right to attend the church of their choice then please keep it off the board.

 

[Cornelius]

NO ONE can MAKE someone ACCEPT forgiveness. That is IMPOSSIBLE. And there is NO CHURCH that has the POWER to forgive sin. This LOOSE AND BIND stuff is taken to awful extreme interpretation considering that it WAS the apostles that were offered such power and they have been DEAD for close to TWO THOUSAND YEARS.

I do not see this as something aimed just at the Catholic denomination, there are many other denominations that preach this too. As I said, I grew up in one such denomination myself.

This has nothing to do with the Catholic Church???

Whatever you say...

Not exclusively, no. There are other denominations that overlap in their beliefs with that of the Catholic denomination.

 

[Cornelius]

Where did you get the idea that I believe that the Bible is illogical? I do not and have never believed that the Bible is illogical.

I never said its illogical, but the Bible certainly is not based on human logic.

I believe that the Bible is totally logical. And you never answered the question "What is the matter with believing that Baptism and Dedication is the same thing?", considering that Baptism is just a dedication of infants and adults to Jesus.
:shades

Its not dedication. That is why I do not really want to answer. But that is why I also say, that it does not really matter if you get baptized, because for you it IS a dedication. So you have been dedicated.
That is great. But its not the baptism that the Bible speaks of.

I cannot really help you, because everything has been written already and if you still do not understand it, then I guess that is it.

 

[Rick W]

There are other denominations that overlap in their beliefs with that of the Catholic denomination.

True. That goes for many non-denominational churches as well.

 

[francisdesales]

NO ONE can MAKE someone ACCEPT forgiveness. That is IMPOSSIBLE. And there is NO CHURCH that has the POWER to forgive sin. This LOOSE AND BIND stuff is taken to awful extreme interpretation considering that it WAS the apostles that were offered such power and they have been DEAD for close to TWO THOUSAND YEARS.

I do not see this as something aimed just at the Catholic denomination, there are many other denominations that preach this too. As I said, I grew up in one such denomination myself.

------

There are other denominations that overlap in their beliefs with that of the Catholic denomination.

On the above citation from Imagican, Cornelius, please point out those "denominations" that overlap.

Certainly, we do share numerous beliefs. We do not mention it much, and we should, but Apologetics tends to accentuate where we disagree. However, really. The above citation is clearly refering to only ONE organization...

Regards

 

[Cornelius]

There are other denominations that overlap in their beliefs with that of the Catholic denomination.

True. That goes for many non-denominational churches as well.

I agree. I do not think there is such a thing as a non-denominational church. As soon as you say you are, you belong to the Non-denominational Church

There is another way that we can leave denominations. You have to start in your thinking. You have to see the real church first and know what it was meant as, in the New Testament. Then you "step over" into it. You can only do this, if you know the true meaning of the "called out ones"

As soon as you know this, you can do this and you will find yourself linked in a true way all the way back to Paul's time. All of a sudden you find yourself surrounded by brothers and sister from around the world and you KNOW you do not care about divisions anymore.

 

[Cornelius]

On the above citation from Imagican, Cornelius, please point out those "denominations" that overlap.

Well, I can only speak for the ones I know. In my country we have three "main" churches. The Dutch Reformed, the Reformed and the Re-reformed (for lack of a better translation) "Hervormde Kerk" Its no joke, they are all Protestant , but still steeped in many of the Catholic doctrines. They also belief that you can take a child and just because it happened to have been born Reformed it is now "chosen" and they sprinkle it. The same thing will be told to you be a Dutch Reformed as well and also the Re-reformed. All children that happened to be born into these denominations are lucky because THEY are the chosen.

As children we were not allowed into the other churches at all. But from their viewpoint, like the Catholic view, (that they came from) their children are the chosen , by way of sprinkling them with water.

This belief also stopped all three these churches from ever preaching the rebirth and way unto salvation, because that step was taken care of at the sprinkling. No need any further,............the child was now saved. No need for a holy walk etc. just a little water.

They really still talk about themselves as THE people of God and when our country was run by one of these denomination , the whole population was called the "people of God". Many saw themselves in the same manner as Israel. "Chosen". Their church was THE church. Again something they share with the RCC, and with equal strength in belief. Some will die to defend this.

 

[francisdesales]

Well, I can only speak for the ones I know. In my country we have three "main" churches. The Dutch Reformed, the Reformed and the Re-reformed (for lack of a better translation) "Hervormde Kerk" Its no joke, they are all Protestant , but still steeped in many of the Catholic doctrines. They also belief that you can take a child and just because it happened to have been born Reformed it is now "chosen" and they sprinkle it. The same thing will be told to you be a Dutch Reformed as well and also the Re-reformed. All children that happened to be born into these denominations are lucky because THEY are the chosen.

As children we were not allowed into the other churches at all. But from their viewpoint, like the Catholic view, (that they came from) their children are the chosen , by way of sprinkling them with water.

This belief also stopped all three these churches from ever preaching the rebirth and way unto salvation, because that step was taken care of at the sprinkling. No need any further,............the child was now saved. No need for a holy walk etc. just a little water.

They really still talk about themselves as THE people of God and when our country was run by one of these denomination , the whole population was called the "people of God". Many saw themselves in the same manner as Israel. "Chosen". Their church was THE church. Again something they share with the RCC, and with equal strength in belief. Some will die to defend this.

Thank you for the effort, but do these above communities have anything to do with the citation posted:

NO ONE can MAKE someone ACCEPT forgiveness. That is IMPOSSIBLE. And there is NO CHURCH that has the POWER to forgive sin. This LOOSE AND BIND stuff is taken to awful extreme interpretation considering that it WAS the apostles that were offered such power and they have been DEAD for close to TWO THOUSAND YEARS.

For starters, any of the above communities you mention 2000 years old?

Let's just drop it. We both know whom Imagican was refering to, and denying it just makes you look obstinate or foolish.

Regards

 

[Cornelius]

I am not saying he did not include the Catholic denomination, I am merely pointing out, that more than one organization fits the bill. All believers's roots go back 2000 years.

But I agree , drop it, discussing it is doing anything. It profits nobody.

C

 

[Imagican]

Fran,

My disagreement with the Catholic Church is NO indication of ANY hatred towards it.

Those that KNOW me know that I have offered the SAME disagreement with the PROTESTANT churches when it comes to doctrines NOT offered up in scripture.

I notice that you had much to offer concerning my previous post. But NEVER ONCE did you accept the challenge offered.

You would accuse my offerings as 'rants against the CC', yet obviously are ONLY able to attack MY credibility instead of attempting to 'stand up' to the challenge.

If you missed it the FIRST time I will offer it again: Show us SCRIPTURAL evidence of 'infant Baptism' and I will RECANT what I have offered. Show us that there is ANY validation offered through The Word and I will OPENLY ADMIT that it is "I" that am WRONG.

But, if you CAN NOT offer ANY evidence WHAT SO EVER except the TRADITION of YOUR church, then YOU ADMIT IT. ADMIT that it is MAN-MADE theology that was NEVER offered by God, Christ OR the apostles.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

If you missed it the FIRST time I will offer it again: Show us SCRIPTURAL evidence of 'infant Baptism' and I will RECANT what I have offered. Show us that there is ANY validation offered through The Word and I will OPENLY ADMIT that it is "I" that am WRONG.

Yes, you are wrong...

And when she was baptized, and her household Acts 16:15

And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed [their] stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. Acts 16:33

And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 1 Cor 16

Where do we see children and infants excluded in any of these passages? Nowhere. Are we to believe that "household" includes single women or single men ALONE? Of course not. Families of ancient times had numerous children. "Household" suggests a family, which includes children.

That is also the understanding of the first Christians of the second century...

Since infants are not excluded, not by Christ, not by the Old Testament Covenant, and not by Scriptures, baptizing infants is Scriptural. It is hard headed religious literalists who limit the power of God.

 

[Drew]

Since infants are not excluded, not by Christ, not by the Old Testament Covenant, and not by Scriptures, baptizing infants is Scriptural.

I am inclined to agree with you, although I have not studied this issue too much.

I think that people need to be open to the possibility that they are thinking of baptism the wrong way. I wonder whether people are bringing an unexamined assumption into this debate. And that is the assumption that baptism is a purely symbollic act. If you assume this, you will no doubt wonder about the sense of infant baptism.

But if you are open to the possiblity that God is at work in baptism, then the issues are different. If baptism is an event where God acts, independent of what we understand, then there is every reason to baptise infants.

Remember the "history" of baptism in the redemption story. Baptism, rather obviously, is a re-enactment of the Red Sea crossing - the Israelites pass from slavery to freedom through the waters of the Red Sea, foreshadowing the same transition in baptism.

Did every man-jack of the Israelites, children included, understand what was going on when they were led across the dry bed of the Red Sea? Of course not. But God was redeeming them nonetheless.

Remember - God is at work in baptism. It is not just a symbolic act reflecting what the person understands about "his salvation".

 

[francisdesales]

I am inclined to agree with you, although I have not studied this issue too much.

I think that people need to be open to the possibility that they are thinking of baptism the wrong way. I wonder whether people are bringing an unexamined assumption into this debate. And that is the assumption that baptism is a purely symbollic act. If you assume this, you will no doubt wonder about the sense of infant baptism.

But if you are open to the possiblity that God is at work in baptism, then the issues are different. If baptism is an event where God acts, independent of what we understand, then there is every reason to baptise infants.

Remember the "history" of baptism in the redemption story. Baptism, rather obviously, is a re-enactment of the Red Sea crossing - the Israelites pass from slavery to freedom through the waters of the Red Sea, foreshadowing the same transition in baptism.

Did every man-jack of the Israelites, children included, understand what was going on when they were led across the dry bed of the Red Sea? Of course not. But God was redeeming them nonetheless.

Remember - God is at work in baptism. It is not just a symbolic act reflecting what the person understands about "his salvation".

Exactly. Within the key text for baptism, John 3, we find THE statement of God at work in the world - God so loved the world that He sent His only Son...

No one asked. No one is limited or prevented. GOD LOVED THE WORLD.

No one needs to make a faith proclamation to have God love them or free them from sin.

Baptism is THE work of God, a God who unconditionlly gives of Himself, no limitations.

People get confused on whether they will condemn themselves by remaining in the dark, rather than follow the light. That's something else. But it is God doing the saving from sin, opening heaven to those who are not fearful of the light.

Regards

 

[Imagican]

Talk about ASSUMPTIONS. I can't believe that this is your 'lame' explanation of the doctrine concerning infant Baptism. You have NO REASON to believe that there were ANY children present in EITHER of the TWO instances that you offered. And as FAR as we KNOW, the 'households' mentioned WERE ADULT members. Children, up until RECENT TIMES, NEVER held a position of VALUE unless they were offspring of those that were of Royal Blood.

Fran, upon Pentacost, HOW MANY CHILDREN WERE PRESENT?

NO, infant Baptism was just ANOTHER WAY for 'the churches' that taught it to 'make MORE money'. And another way to MANIPULATE it's members into PROMISING to raise their children according to THEIR 'rules'. Nothing MORE, nothing less.

Once again, SHOW us in scripture where WE are ABLE to 'save a single soul'. Where WE can do ANYTHING to bring about the Salvation of another. Whether through Baptism or ANY OTHER MEANS.

I choose to place MY faith in God through His Son. Not in ANY man that would TELL me that HE is able to offer me ANYTHING other than 'understanding and love'.

I have read The Word,,,,,,,,,over and over. And I don't recall a SINGLE instance of 'children being Baptised'. NOT ONE. If you have any scriptural evidence, (other than MERE speculation), PLEASE, by all means, let us have it. Inventing that which doesn't actually exist proves NOTHING but the ability to offer innovation without evidence.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Drew]

Talk about ASSUMPTIONS. I can't believe that this is your 'lame' explanation of the doctrine concerning infant Baptism. You have NO REASON to believe that there were ANY children present in EITHER of the TWO instances that you offered. And as FAR as we KNOW, the 'households' mentioned WERE ADULT members. Children, up until RECENT TIMES, NEVER held a position of VALUE unless they were offspring of those that were of Royal Blood.

I think that the way the culture referred to human beings is against you here.

It is my understanding that it was common practice to only count men, with the implicit understanding that these men had wives and children with them. I believe that at least one of the accounts of the mass feedings (the 4000 and the 5000) support this way of characterizing who was in a "crowd" or group.

Once again, SHOW us in scripture where WE are ABLE to 'save a single soul'. Where WE can do ANYTHING to bring about the Salvation of another. Whether through Baptism or ANY OTHER MEANS.

I think you are framing things the wrong way. In baptism, it is not "we" who are at work - it is God. The following text from Romans 6 has, as its most natural reading, one whereby baptism really does bring about something very significant in relation to salvation.

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. 6For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin 7because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. 8Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God

Baptism is, I think, rather complex. I have little doubt that a person who is baptized as a child is not "guaranteed" salvation. But, here in Romans 6, Paul is clearly referring to baptism and establishing a powerful connection to our ultimate salvation.

But again, you cannot argue from the absence of explicit example of children being baptized. I believe that I am correct in claiming that, in the culture of the time, a reference to a man entailed implicit inclusion of the members of his househould - the "wife and kids, as it were".

 

[Imagican]

And once again Drew, I propose that what YOU offer is mere speculation. Since there is NOT ONE example of children being Baptised, it IS speculation to ASSUME it.

How many children do YOU reacon John Baptized?

Or, how about this: do you BELIEVE that if I went out and kidnapped a Muslim and Baptized him with some water and words that I am ABLE against HIS WILL to 'bring him TO GOD'?

For that is EXACTLY what 'infant Baptism' would entail. ME trying to FORCE 'rebirth' upon a child. Me attempting to teach that it is MY Baptism that 'saves'.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

Talk about ASSUMPTIONS. I can't believe that this is your 'lame' explanation of the doctrine concerning infant Baptism. You have NO REASON to believe that there were ANY children present in EITHER of the TWO instances that you offered. And as FAR as we KNOW, the 'households' mentioned WERE ADULT members. Children, up until RECENT TIMES, NEVER held a position of VALUE unless they were offspring of those that were of Royal Blood.

I have no reason NOT to believe there were children present. Children go with their parents. Thus, they followed Jesus with their parents. People brought their children to be blessed.

Fortunately, the Word is more accepting to the young, as it appears you would lock them out of the Kingdom. Recall that Jesus came for the sake of the WORLD, not just adults...

Fran, upon Pentacost, HOW MANY CHILDREN WERE PRESENT?

??? I suppose the Spirit does NOT blow where He wills, but only where Imagican says He will blow. Clearly, you do not know God, because those who know God know that forgiveness of sin is offered to the entire world, every man, woman, and child. The Lamb OF God does not just forgive sins of a few Jews in time (the High Priest during the Day of Atonement called upon God to forgive the sins of the ENTIRE community, not just the adults), but ALL people.

NO, infant Baptism was just ANOTHER WAY for 'the churches' that taught it to 'make MORE money'.

Where is your Scriptural reference for this? If it is not in the bible, it is not so...

Once again, SHOW us in scripture where WE are ABLE to 'save a single soul'. Where WE can do ANYTHING to bring about the Salvation of another. Whether through Baptism or ANY OTHER MEANS.

I do not recall EVER saying that! Apparently, you have not read the last few pages of this very thread. Again, jumping to conclusions...

I have read The Word,,,,,,,,,over and over.

And you still don't get it.

And I don't recall a SINGLE instance of 'children being Baptised'.

You have not proven one bit that "household" excludes anyone. That is YOUR presumption. EVERYONE in the household was baptized. No one is excluded. The reason why YOU exclude infants is because you think baptism requires a proclamation of faith to be effective. However, one is BORN FROM ABOVE, not by their own power or will.

If you understood baptism, infant baptism would make perfect sense, since it replaces circumcision. I recall numerous children being circumcised in the OT, and if the NT Covenant is better, why do you continue with your false presumptions that the NT Covenant is inferior, excluding people that were previously allowed to enter the People of God???

As usual, relying on yourself to understand such things is fraught with danger. A church of one can never match the power of a church of many in Christ.

 

[francisdesales]

How many children do YOU reacon John Baptized?

Inconsequential, since we are not talking about the baptisms performed by John, but Christian baptisms of water and the Spirit.

 

[Drew]

And once again Drew, I propose that what YOU offer is mere speculation. Since there is NOT ONE example of children being Baptised, it IS speculation to ASSUME it.

No.

If, as I have been arguing, the linguistic convention is such that references to children are implied, then we have every reason to believe that infants were baptized.

From Matthew:

21The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children.

Although children are indeed mentioned here, we see the different way a Hebrew writer refers to people - children and women are "secondary" and, therefore I suggest their presence and participation is often implied.

And thus we get this from Mark:

The number of the men who had eaten was five thousand.

Were women and children present? Yes - we know this from the Matthew account. And yet they are not "counted" in the Markan version of the story.

This essentially undermines any argument that since there are no explicit references to the baptism of infants, that infants were therefore not baptized.

 

[Drew]

Or, how about this: do you BELIEVE that if I went out and kidnapped a Muslim and Baptized him with some water and words that I am ABLE against HIS WILL to 'bring him TO GOD'?

For that is EXACTLY what 'infant Baptism' would entail. ME trying to FORCE 'rebirth' upon a child. Me attempting to teach that it is MY Baptism that 'saves'.

No. You are essentially demanding that I see the power of baptism as lying in the "human effort" side. And thus you are trying to make the case that your opponents are advocating a position that has human beings as the agents of salvation.

I am, of course, not forced into such a position.

When a parent brings a child to be baptized, the parent is asking God to act, that God be the agent of transformation in the event of baptism. I am not saying that my bringing that child forward is the central element of the event.