Infant Baptism Is Just As Valid As Adult Baptism

[Cornelius]

The problem is that some have been taught that a baby that dies without the drops of water on its head, is heading straight for hell.

Who teaches that?

You don't want to get into a limbo discussion here. The RCC has only recently "given hope" to the unbaptized babies.

 

[Cornelius]

Heavy stuff for an infant to ponder, don't you think ?

This says it all, so I'll just address this...

You STILL believe you are saved by your own pondering, your own desires, your own repentance. This is not what being "born from above" is about.

Thus, you may cease and desist from speaking to me about "saved by grace", since clearly, you do not believe that. You are saved by yourself... YOUR pondering. YOUR desires. YOUR repentance.

You do not understand what Grace means, and all of this other stuff comes AFTER we receive God's gracious gift of salvation.

Regards

Your understanding of grace is not Biblical

God first calls the person to repentance (changing of the mind)
Then the person responds to the GRACE shown in that God called him, not his own efforts .

Under "own efforts" we can list all human activity that is seen as leading to "being chosen", "entering into the Kingdom" "starting the walk", including infant baptism.

Baptizing an infant, means that the parents choose or the particular church is "blessed" so that all who originate from that denomination , that is baptized as an infant, is the blessed with the "grace" of God and enters the Kingdom. Not so in the Bible.

This view is the opposite to Biblical repentance and Biblical grace.

Biblical repentance needs the person to be aware FIRST . He needs to see his sin, (Through grace, God reveals this) then through grace, he responds. He admits that his present way is wrong and sinful. He then sees the blood and sacrifice of Jesus as the answer. He then is allowed by God , through grace, to change his mind (repent) and now he is forgiven, and ready (through grace) to start his walk as a changed man.(repented) Now he heads for the water, that shows this repentance. He gets in, "dies" in the water to all his old ideas and ways (repented of) and gets up out of the water into the Kingdom life. This was not possible before he first repented.

This above is a very simplified version, but is the Biblical was. Anything else is not from God.

 

[francisdesales]

You have an interesting theory but I don't know if it is effective for infants as you say. According to Peter, baptism is an appeal for a clear conscience.

Certainly, the people who Peter writes to are adults who already have been baptized, so Peter would naturally address the promises that the baptized makes - to reject sin and Satan and to change, putting on the mind of Christ. However, to the infants, the parents stand in proxy. It is their faith that answers for the child - and all are in need of God's graces. There is plentiful precedent in Scriptures for one person bringing another person to Christ to be healed, such as the Centurion's servant. Based upon the faith of the Centurion, Christ chose to heal the servant.

But an infant would have no knowledge of sin. And I'm not sure if we can say if an infant even has a conscience. And Jesus was a man when he was baptized by John. Still it's an interesting theory. When Jesus came up out of the water, the heavens were opened and the Spirit of God descended like a dove and alighted on him. But this didn't happen to anyone else John baptized. I think you're saying as soon as you're baptized you are born anew? I don't know if I would agree with that statement. I think it would presuppose you believe Jesus is the Christ.

Naturally... When someone is born of water and the Spirit, they are born from above.

Remember, Mary did believe what the angel of the LORD said to her would happen, and it did happen, and that's why she is called 'blessed'. I believe believing mothers give birth to believing sons, and the entire household is blessed. I don't think baptism is a sign like circumcision.

No, it is more. And while I agree that believing mothers give birth to believing sons, we must not forget that it is GOD who is doing the "birthing" from above.

There will always be a tension between the proclamation of God's gracious gift and the amount of conversion that must take place before one is 'born from above'. However, to emphasize the later at the expense of the former makes baptism a work of man, rather than God. It is no longer a "birth from above".

You're absolutely right there francis. Many believe Jesus is the Christ and they are poor in spirit. Blessed are the poor in spirit! Maybe they can't read or they aren't educated. But they continue to believe, and God gives growth. They are blessed indeed! But at some point you have to believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that he was crucified and God raised him from the dead, and that belief comes by hearing the gospel, and that comes by reading the Bible - or it may come by hearing it from somebody.

Most Christians have HEARD the Gospel. Even Scriptures note the "hearing" aspect, rather than the "reading". One cannot deny the effects of hearing a good preaching.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

So the basic and most simple answer to why you cannot enter into the Kingdom without repentance is that you first need a "mind change" before you can enter.[/u] You first have to come into line with the Word of God.[/u]

here is something else for you to consider on baptism that I just found...

there is also no Scriptural account of Baptizing retarded or mentally-imbalanced people, yet the Church has always done so.

Case in point, in Matthew 17:14-18, we are told how Jesus cast out a demon from a young boy because of an appeal by the boy's father:

"When they came to the crowd, a man approached, knelt down before Him, and said, 'Lord, have pity on my son for he is a lunatic and suffers severly...."

And Jesus heals the boy because of the father's faith. Now, obviously, it was not possible for this boy to have faith in Jesus on his own. He was psychologically and spiritually disturbed (whether naturally or supernaturally); yet Jesus used the father's faith to make him whole again. So, if such a thing is possible with demonic possession, why should Baptism be any different?

Many retarded and/or insane people do not have the ability to reason so as to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior" (as the Evangelicals say ;-) Yet, didn't Jesus come to save them as well? Don't they need to be Baptized into Christ? (Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27)

Well, if so, then why should we assume that the ability to reason is necessary for Baptism? Why can't babies be Baptized before they reach the age of reason?

excerpt from "Infant Baptism"
by Mark J. Bonocore

The Church has been commanded to bring Christ to all, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, mentally retarded and children included... Why can't they be given a welcome into the Kingdom - keeping in mind that it is God who elects, not man. As I have already shown, God has been gracious enough to use the faith of another to heal or save someone else. Do not restrict God with man-made limitations.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Biblical repentance needs the person to be aware FIRST .

We are talking about being born from above, not repenting.

Did you have anything to do with your being born? Did you choose the day? How did you influence whether you were born or not?

 

[Cornelius]

there is also no Scriptural account of Baptizing retarded or mentally-imbalanced people, yet the Church has always done so.

Case in point, in Matthew 17:14-18, we are told how Jesus cast out a demon from a young boy because of an appeal by the boy's father:

"When they came to the crowd, a man approached, knelt down before Him, and said, 'Lord, have pity on my son for he is a lunatic and suffers severly...."

And Jesus heals the boy because of the father's faith. Now, obviously, it was not possible for this boy to have faith in Jesus on his own. He was psychologically and spiritually disturbed (whether naturally or supernaturally); yet Jesus used the father's faith to make him whole again. So, if such a thing is possible with demonic possession, why should Baptism be any different?

Many retarded and/or insane people do not have the ability to reason so as to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior" (as the Evangelicals say ;-) Yet, didn't Jesus come to save them as well? Don't they need to be Baptized into Christ? (Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27)

Well, if so, then why should we assume that the ability to reason is necessary for Baptism? Why can't babies be Baptized before they reach the age of reason?

excerpt from "Infant Baptism"
by Mark J. Bonocore

The Church has been commanded to bring Christ to all, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, mentally retarded and children included... Why can't they be given a welcome into the Kingdom - keeping in mind that it is God who elects, not man. As I have already shown, God has been gracious enough to use the faith of another to heal or save someone else. Do not restrict God with man-made limitations.

Regards

I understand your view better than you realize. I also can see where you err. You have been taught a certain way and now you look through those glasses , no matter what the truth is. You depend on the correctness of those who taught you. I most probably do the same in your position. Its a catch 22 for you. If you change your view, ALL your views fall. Scary thought.

They taught you baptism , no matter who you baptize, will bring you into the Kingdom. They did not teach you the true meaning of repentance and rebirth. They taught you to look at things separately and not as a whole. Its like you believe baptism is a one time thing, then that is over. Now you are in the Kingdom and now you must start walking the way of salvation. Now you must learn to repent.

All of which has a certain amount of truth to it, and can be argued to be so in the Bible. But not if you look at salvation in from the Biblical perspective as a whole.

You will see......preach the gospel.....when they repent.........baptize them.........now they start walking out that repentance daily. But they first need that first repentance to "leave Egypt" after they have eaten the passover Lamb (through grace they understand the sacrifice of Jesus and accept it for themselves).......THEN they cross over the Red Sea (Baptism)

That is the Bible way.

I am off to our Bible study and must rush out of here.See you later.
blessings
C

 

[francisdesales]

I understand your view better than you realize. I also can see where you err. You have been taught a certain way and now you look through those glasses , no matter what the truth is. You depend on the correctness of those who taught you. I most probably do the same in your position. Its a catch 22 for you. If you change your view, ALL your views fall. Scary thought.

And you? This doesn't apply to you? If your view has the "truth", you have yet to divulge it... So far, we have you in denial of what the Scriptures and early Church taught - that being born from above is entirely a gift.

You will see......preach the gospel.....when they repent.........baptize them.........now they start walking out that repentance daily. But they first need that first repentance to "leave Egypt" after they have eaten the passover Lamb (through grace they understand the sacrifice of Jesus and accept it for themselves).......THEN they cross over the Red Sea (Baptism)

Excuse me, where is the "repentance" of the Jews when they crossed over the Reed Sea and escaped Egypt? Verse, please...

Your analogy falls flat on its face, since the Jews didn't repent of anything. They accepted the gracious offer of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. LIKE BAPTISM, which Peter compares to the Flood and Paul to the Exodus, God granted an entirely gracious and free gift that required no repentance BEFORE the offer was given. Your attempt to prove one thing proves the opposite, just as Scriptures note.

Apparently, you are not aware of the gift of Grace that God offers, an unconditional offer to those who will accept it, not something that is given ONLY upon our proper "repentance".

Does God offer the gift before or after you repent?

Our repentance is our response to the gift, not the cause of it. You still believe you are saved by your own works...

Regards

 

[Drew]

From what I have read, many think it is either some kind of dedication, and others think it is a ritual that takes a person into the Kingdom. It is not a dedication, and a ritual cannot take anybody into the Kingdom of Heaven.

All true, but these errors do not mean that it is not proper to baptize infants.

You appear to be arguing like this:

1. Some people who baptize infants do so based on a misunderstanding of what baptism is
2. Therefore, we should not baptize infants.

There are at least two problems with this. First, this kind of argument ignores the possibility that there is indeed a correct understanding of baptism that includes infant baptism. Second, this argument ignores the possiblity that God is at work in the act of baptism, even if those baptized misunderstand what is going on.

This is the problem with seeing baptism solely from the "human" perspective. Do I understand brain surgery? No I do not. But I can assure you that if I needed brain surgery, I would seek it nonetheless. And, of course, the reason why this makes sense is that is the surgeon who is "at work" in brain surgery, not the patient.

In the same way, we need to be open to the possibility that God is at work in baptism - so it may not matter what the "baptised person" understands about what is happening in the act of baptism.

 

[Drew]

That I have discussed at length in previous posts. But those post do not really get read (I know, I have been on forums long enough to know people are not interested in what others have to say, if it goes against what they belief)

Let's see what you have written in previous posts and whether you make a solid case against infant baptism:

In your very first post on this subject, you wrote this:

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.

You basically assume that a conscious act of repentence is required prior to baptism. You argue, correctly I believe, that baptism has the power to somehow confer something about the nature and character of the Father onto the person that is baptized. Fine, I think. But you seem to think that repentence is a necessary prior condition before any "inner transformation" can take place in the person baptized.

You need to defend that - can you mount a scriptural case that repentance is necessary before God can begin to work in the life of the individual.

Be careful not to assume that I hold the position that "baptism saves" - I never said this. But I can indeed believe that baptism "transforms" without believing that "baptisms seals the deal" in a the sense that "once you are baptized, your salvation is assured".

 

[Drew]

By the way, being born of water and the Spirit doesn't have anything to do with water or water baptism. Water represents the water from above. The ones who thirst for the word of God know what I mean.

You cannot simply assume this "methaphorical" reading as if it is self-evidently true that the text is not referring to a literal water baptism. Perhaps you have defended such a reading in another post.

I believe that one of the reasons why so many are inclined to "metaphor-ize" the act of baptism - to see it purely as a symbolic act - is that they have bought into a dualism that is not really there in the scriptures. Because we erroneously understand the world to be constituted of the "bad, fallen material order" and a separate "spiritual order", we all too easily think that physical acts - such as water baptism - cannot actually be the means by which God works in the world.

But, I would suggest (without defending this idea in the present post), such a dualistic concept of the world is not really countenanced by the Scriptures - the Hebrew mind did not think in this way.

 

[francisdesales]

Be careful not to assume that I hold the position that "baptism saves" - I never said this. But I can indeed believe that baptism "transforms" without believing that "baptisms seals the deal" in a the sense that "once you are baptized, your salvation is assured".

Just to clarify the "infant baptism" position - since Drew is playing the neutral party very well...

When I say "baptism saves", I am refering to the forgiveness of sins, being born from above (without which we cannot enter the Kingdom) and POTENTIALLY bringing about eternal life in heaven. However, all that Cornelius speaks of and more effects a "different salvation".

Salvation has several meanings in Scriptures. Baptizing an infant does not guarantee heaven, if they reject God later in life. This is not an unusual concept, as we see in John 6 that even the APOSTLES had a choice to walk away from Eternal Life, Jesus Christ, God become flesh. The gift is freely given, but many do not want the gift and prefer darkness (to remain in the metaphorical sense of John). All the talk about conversion and repentance is operative as part of Baptism (esp. the adult, but someone else can take their place and call upon God for the other, as I have noted) but does not bring it about. Only God does.

Hope this clears matters.

Regards

 

[Drew]

Now we all know that is not true, don't we. That would be a real nice gospel though : Every baby that is sprinkled is a child of God We should run through the hospitals as soon as they are born and sprinkle them as fast as we can, and fill the kingdom of God.

If that WERE true, no man would need repentance to come to God , we would just "sprinkle , sprinkle " and all would be well.
Nowhere in the Bible does it even come close to such a heresy.

I think you are arguing against a position that no one is advocating. I do not believe that anyone here - certainly not FDS or myself - is saying that "sprinkling a baby" is fully sufficient to create an obedient and ultimately saved saint.

 

[Free]

Personally, I don't see much difference between infant baptism and a 'baby dedication' that is common in Evangelical churches.

since Drew is playing the neutral party very well...

He usually does. ;)

 

[Cornelius]

And you? This doesn't apply to you? If your view has the "truth", you have yet to divulge it... So far, we have you in denial of what the Scriptures and early Church taught - that being born from above is entirely a gift.

No it does not apply to me. I have accepted correction many times and my faith did not fall because of it.
Oh, I do disagree with what the early church taught, that came after the Apostles. But lets not go there.

I have not denied the free gift of salvation, I merely stick to the Scriptural way of how we receive it. It is not for everybody.

Excuse me, where is the "repentance" of the Jews when they crossed over the Reed Sea and escaped Egypt? Verse, please...

Egypt , as we all know, is the type for the world and sin. Leaving Egypt symbolizes repentance. I cannot believe that you do not know this.

Your analogy falls flat on its face, since the Jews didn't repent of anything.

Of course they did. Why do you think God punished them when they wanted to go back to the "fleshpots" (flesh) of Egypt !They changed their minds about leaving Egypt (sin) and wanted to return to their old fleshly ways.

They accepted the gracious offer of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

That gracious offer could only become theirs if they were willing to leave Egypt. If they repented first.

LIKE BAPTISM, which Peter compares to the Flood and Paul to the Exodus, God granted an entirely gracious and free gift that required no repentance BEFORE the offer was given. Your attempt to prove one thing proves the opposite, just as Scriptures note.

NO again, leaving Egypt could only be done if they ate the Lamb. (Eat my flesh ) and they placed the blood on the doorposts. A doorpost is where you walk through. It symbolize our walk that must now be washed by the blood of Jesus.

Apparently, you are not aware of the gift of Grace that God offers, an unconditional offer to those who will accept it, not something that is given ONLY upon our proper "repentance".

That is absolute nonsense. If you do not repent, you cannot enter the Kingdom. Then you stay in "Egypt"

Does God offer the gift before or after you repent?

Our repentance is our response to the gift, not the cause of it. You still believe you are saved by your own works...

[/quote]

Before, and then you repent (change your mind ) and then you get baptized and start your walk unto salvation. No work will save you. Repentance is not a work , its a requirement .

A baby cannot repent, so it cannot be baptized.

 

[Cornelius]

Apparently, you are not aware of the gift of Grace that God offers, an unconditional offer to those who will accept it,

Exactly. You give the condition here yourself. To whom does God make the offer ?"

Here is your answer :

"To those who will accept it"

That means you come to a place where you make the decision to accept it. Something a baby cannot do.

Turns out it is not so unconditional after all, by your own words.

 

[francisdesales]

And you? This doesn't apply to you? If your view has the "truth", you have yet to divulge it... So far, we have you in denial of what the Scriptures and early Church taught - that being born from above is entirely a gift.

No it does not apply to me. I have accepted correction many times and my faith did not fall because of it. Oh, I do disagree with what the early church taught, that came after the Apostles. But lets not go there.

You disagree with the early Church on matters that are practically unanimous? I suppose you also disagree that the Bible is the Word of God? Or do you pick and choose what to "believe" on this matter?

If you cannot trust those first Christians, your faith is in vain, since we cannot trust their witness to Jesus rising from the dead.

[

have not denied the free gift of salvation, I merely stick to the Scriptural way of how we receive it. It is not for everybody.

Salvation is a free gift that one can accept or deny. However, the offer is not dependent upon you, no matter how often you try to change the subject and ignore what I write regarding Scriptures... Even by your own analogy, you are proven wrong. Unlike your above claim, you do NOT accept correction...

I had thought you would actually try to prove your position, but all you have been doing is giving me rhetoric. Sorry, I'm not interested in your opinions without any sort of backings. I tire of endless arguments and lectures from the likes of you. It is quite obvious that you cannot back up your position from Scriptures, so adios.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Apparently, you are not aware of the gift of Grace that God offers, an unconditional offer to those who will accept it,

Exactly. You give the condition here yourself. To whom does God make the offer ?"

Here is your answer :

"To those who will accept it"

The grace I am speaking about is the grace of repentance, conversion, and sanctification. This follows upon accepting the offer freely given. You are misunderstanding what I wrote, since I said the graces of BAPTISM are unconditional. That means they are not dependent upon us.

The offer is given to all mankind, only those who accept it (or those who stand in proxy) will benefit from the graces of repentence, conversion, and sanctification which follow after Baptism. Some prefer darkness, as John writes. They will not accept the unconditional offer and condemn themselves to darkness.

Your view has God waiting for your OK before the offer of salvation is made. Scriptures do not support that view.

 

[Cornelius]

The offer is given to all mankind, only those who accept it (or those who stand in proxy) will benefit from the graces of repentence, conversion, and sanctification which follow after Baptism. Some prefer darkness, as John writes. They will not accept the unconditional offer and condemn themselves to darkness.

So they prefer darkness even though some are standing in proxy? Now what ?

Your view has God waiting for your OK before the offer of salvation is made. Scriptures do not support that view.

God makes the offer , then He calls me through grace, then He allows me to say yes, then I repent through His grace, then He tells me to get baptized, then I start my walk

How many times must I tell you this?

Everybody knows there is no such thing as salvation by proxy. That is pure nonsense.

 

[Cornelius]

You disagree with the early Church on matters that are practically unanimous?

No I agree with the teaching of the Bible and agree with all the teachings of the Apostles. But I do not agree with the teachings of those that followed them

I suppose you also disagree that the Bible is the Word of God?

I believe ONLY in the Word of God. Sola !

Or do you pick and choose what to "believe" on this matter?

Yes, I do choose. I choose to believe ONLY the Bible.

If you cannot trust those first Christians, your faith is in vain, since we cannot trust their witness to Jesus rising from the dead.

I can only trust what is written in the Bible. SO I do trust the witness in the Bible that Jesus rose from the dead

Salvation is a free gift that one can accept or deny. However, the offer is not dependent upon you, no matter how often you try to change the subject and ignore what I write regarding Scriptures... Even by your own analogy, you are proven wrong. Unlike your above claim, you do NOT accept correction...

[/quote]
I have been corrected in the past, and I accepted it. I use to think infant baptism is correct. Somebody corrected me and then I repented of that ritual AFTER I then became a Christian and got baptized.
See, I was not Christian after I was baptized as an infant.

 

[Veritas]

See, I was not Christian after I was baptized as an infant

Some people definitely are (I'm not trying to indicate you are really bad in comparison or something like that). Many of my friends could never tell you when they became Christian. They've just always believed as far back as they can remember.