What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Infant Baptism

RobertMazar said:
If an individual was Baptized as an infant and then later on in life they receive Christ as their Savior then they do not have to be Baptized again because their Baptism as an infant was a valid Baptism because it was done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But if an individual was not Baptized as an infant and then later on in life they received Christ as their Savior then they should get Baptized to be dedicated to Christ. When my late Uncle converted to the Baptist Church from the Catholic Church he decided not to be Baptized again because he believed that his Baptism as an infant in the Catholic Church was a valid Baptism because it was done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And my late Uncle's Baptist minister did not require that my late Uncle be Baptized again in the Baptist Church. 8-)
Click to expand...
If that is true, then it would not matter if one puts the cart before the horse in their trek to town to pick up supplies.

I was baptized as an infant, and it was meaningless, and did nothing more than get my head wet. When I was born again I repented, believed, and followed Jesus Christ in believers' baptism. I was immersed as was Jesus Christ, and the profession of my baptism was a witness to others of my entrance into the body of Christ.

Are all those that are circumcised, Jewish?
 
Heidi said:
The problem with infant baptism though, is that when a person does become born again later in life, he doesn't know whether he should be re-baptized. No such problem existed in biblical times because those who were baptized asked to be baptized. They therefore consciously knew what baptism meant. So it wasn't just a ritual of which the participants had no understanding like babies who don't even have a clue who Jesus is, much less can make a commitment to follow him. :o
Click to expand...

Simple question, yes or no, is baptism a means of Grace? A means by which the holy spirit creates and/or sustains faith?
 
In my church infant baptism is a lot to do with the parents. Its like giving their child to Christ, but really promising to bring them up in a Christian home, teaching them about God and encouraging them in their faith and encouraging them to seek out God. When you are older, if you choose you can be confirmed.

I was baptised as a baby, when I found God for myself, I got confirmed. Which is really the same as adult baptism but without the water. I made the promises for myself, to live my life for Christ, promising to try and know Him better etc.
 
Fnerb said:
Simple question, yes or no, is baptism a means of Grace? A means by which the holy spirit creates and/or sustains faith?
Click to expand...
No, God is the means of Grace. Water Baptism is being obedient to a Commandment of Jesus Christ and a profession of Faith after one believes and is saved.

If water baptism saved individuals, why would not we load every one up against their will and sprinkle water on their heads in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost?

Read this three part series that defines what Grace is:
  1. The Grace of God, Part I (Eph 1:5-12; 2:1-10)
    [/*:m:cad08]
  2. The Grace of God, Part II (Rom 6:12-14; 7:1-25)
    [/*:m:cad08]
  3. The Grace of God, Part III (Rom 12:1-21)[/*:m:cad08]
 
Solo said:
If that is true, then it would not matter if one puts the cart before the horse in their trek to town to pick up supplies.

I was baptized as an infant, and it was meaningless, and did nothing more than get my head wet. When I was born again I repented, believed, and followed Jesus Christ in believers' baptism. I was immersed as was Jesus Christ, and the profession of my baptism was a witness to others of my entrance into the body of Christ.

Are all those that are circumcised, Jewish?
Click to expand...
Well my late Uncle's Baptist minister did not require that my late Uncle be Baptized again after he received Christ as his Savior. Infant Baptism and Adult Baptism is just a dedication of infants and adults to Christ and does not impart salvation and thus it is totally superfluous if infants are Baptized. I became Born Again by receiving Christ as my Savior but I have no desire to be Baptized again because my Baptism as an infant was a valid Baptism because it was done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And besides I am remaining a member of the Catholic Church and have no intention of ever joining any Protestant Church because even if I do not leave the Catholic Church I will still gain entrance into Heaven because I received Christ as my Savior which is the only requirement there is for gaining entrance into Heaven. 8-)
 
RobertMazar said:
Well my late Uncle's Baptist minister did not require that my late Uncle be Baptized again after he received Christ as his Savior. Infant Baptism and Adult Baptism is just a dedication of infants and adults to Christ and does not impart salvation and thus it is totally superfluous if infants are Baptized. I became Born Again by receiving Christ as my Savior but I have no desire to be Baptized again because my Baptism as an infant was a valid Baptism because it was done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And besides I am remaining a member of the Catholic Church and have no intention of ever joining any Protestant Church because even if I do not leave the Catholic Church I will still gain entrance into Heaven because I received Christ as my Savior which is the only requirement there is for gaining entrance into Heaven. 8-)
Click to expand...

Robert,

I appreciate your defense of remaining Catholic, but I think it might be wise to read the Catechism to learn why we believe what we believe. You seem to be under some mistaken perceptions on several items of the faith. The Catholic Church is a voluntary organization - and as a result, one should hold to their beliefs if they profess membership. One of the key elements of being Catholic is that we believe that Christ establshed her and her authority. If you accept that, then it follows that we should also listen and believe in what she teaches. The Church teaches infallibly that baptism confers grace upon the recipient and makes us children of God. We become new creations in Christ - even if we are infants and the effect is not seen yet.

Regards
 
From the way I understand Scripture, baptism doesn't sustain one's faith; that would be one of the roles of The HS. Baptism, in effect, confirms one's faith. Grace is a gift; the way in which we receive that gift is through faith (trust) in the Lord; when we receive and unwrap the gift, we reveal "salvation".

That is how I understand:

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Nothing added to Faith... no baptism, no speaking in "tongues",... God's grace is contingent upon our Faith, not conditional upon our "works".
 
Folks....
I will say this...While infant baptism does not save the child in anyway shape or form....(if it did, the bible would teach it) there is some merit in doing this....not for the baby, but for the parents....While I did not baptize my children as infants, I did have a dedication at my church...I made a promise before the church to raise my children the best I could teaching them the ways of the Lord....In turn the church promised us to help us with this...

Now some protestant churches, primarily Wesleyan churches do sprinklings on the infants....Yes, John Wesley DID teach this, but not as a form of salvation but accountability.....for the parents....It is saying ''I will consecrate this child to the Lord''......It is up to the Child when old enough to decide if he/she will follow the Lord.....

Anyway, That is all I wish to say on this matter....
 
Dedications are perfectly legit Javs, scripturally-speaking. Jesus was dedicated as an infant, but wasn't baptized until He was about 30. Jesus partook of a Jewish ritual of purification called a Mikvah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikvah

something to keep in mind: (from the link above)

"... The fact of Jewish law that “living water†retains its life while in the apparently lifeless frozen state, and will be living water again, is remembered by Jews who adhere to the traditional Jewish belief in resurrection."
Click to expand...

Something to think about when reading John chapter 3. 8-)
 
jgredline said:
Folks....
I will say this...While infant baptism does not save the child in anyway shape or form....(if it did, the bible would teach it)
Click to expand...

Ever wonder why Jews circumcised at eight days? Isn't it at that point that one became a child of God? Baptism supplants and improves on the OT sacrament. As such, the Church (as Paul says in Col 2) sees the connection between circumcision and baptism and has continued to baptize infants from the beginning. By making the connection, Paul implies that one can baptize at eight days, unless you think the Old Covenant is superior to the New Covenant sacraments. Is that what you are saying? That baptism isn't good enough to do what circumcision did???

Regards
 
francisdesales said:
Ever wonder why Jews circumcised at eight days? Isn't it at that point that one became a child of God? Baptism supplants and improves on the OT sacrament. As such, the Church (as Paul says in Col 2) sees the connection between circumcision and baptism and has continued to baptize infants from the beginning. By making the connection, Paul implies that one can baptize at eight days, unless you think the Old Covenant is superior to the New Covenant sacraments. Is that what you are saying? That baptism isn't good enough to do what circumcision did???

Regards
Click to expand...

Circumcision did not 'save' - rather it was an 'identify' mark.
 
Ever wonder why Jews circumcised at eight days?
Click to expand...

Because medically, the highest antibody count in infants is at 8 days and God knew this. Even today in Africa it is being proved, that circumcision reduces the occurance of AIDS. Because mitochrondria hide and multiply under the first layer of skin.
 
francisdesales said:
Ever wonder why Jews circumcised at eight days? Isn't it at that point that one became a child of God? Baptism supplants and improves on the OT sacrament. As such, the Church (as Paul says in Col 2) sees the connection between circumcision and baptism and has continued to baptize infants from the beginning. By making the connection, Paul implies that one can baptize at eight days, unless you think the Old Covenant is superior to the New Covenant sacraments. Is that what you are saying? That baptism isn't good enough to do what circumcision did???

Regards
Click to expand...

you have got to be kidding...The baptism that Paul is speaking about is ''spiritual baptism'' that happens as soon as one is born again...This is not water baptism.....Water baptism has NO power to save anyone....Spiritual baptism is spoken of by paul though out his letters....

Rom 6:4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life


Now here Jesus is saying and making a distinction between the two....
4 And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,†He said, “you have heard from Me; 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.â€Â

To the best of my knowledge Paul never baptized anyone...Certainly if he thought it were important as far as salvation goes he would have...but instead he says....
1 Cor 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

Do not confuse spiritual baptism with water baptism....The water baptism never saved a single soul......
 
jgredline said:
you have got to be kidding...The baptism that Paul is speaking about is ''spiritual baptism'' that happens as soon as one is born again...This is not water baptism.....Water baptism has NO power to save anyone....Spiritual baptism is spoken of by paul though out his letters....

Rom 6:4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life


Now here Jesus is saying and making a distinction between the two....
4 And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,†He said, “you have heard from Me; 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.â€Â

To the best of my knowledge Paul never baptized anyone...Certainly if he thought it were important as far as salvation goes he would have...but instead he says....
1 Cor 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

Do not confuse spiritual baptism with water baptism....The water baptism never saved a single soul......
Click to expand...

Great post! :D Virtually 100% of the atheists I polled were baptized as infants. ;-)
 
How many are circumcised today and are not Jewish, let alone children of God?
 
Heidi said:
Great post! :D Virtually 100% of the atheists I polled were baptized as infants. ;-)
Click to expand...

So my infant baptism was not sufficent?
 
Fnerb said:
So my infant baptism was not sufficent?
Click to expand...

The Church says it is. You are a child of God and have entered through the doors of the Church. Those who believe in works salvation will say it is not.

Regards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top