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!

Why is there infant baptisim?

Lady Terra

Lady Terra

Member
I do not believe that infants are able to choose their faith as an infant. Parents can dedicate to raising their children in God"s way but, baptizing their children as infants is taking away God's beautiful gift of "Free will".
 
I will be the first to admit that I don't know much about baptism but my understanding has been that although there is the physical aspect of the water, it is not what we do from the outside but what God does from the inside.
 
I believe it is probably in the traditions of men, adopted to emulate the requirement of the circumcision of a week old baby in the old testament.
 
There are so many traditions that man has adopted and keep as Christians. One holiday is coming up. See it as resurrection Sunday. Not Easter. To me Easter is pagan. Many followers have tailored made it to fit in Christianity somehow?
 
Lady Terra said:
I do not believe that infants are able to choose their faith as an infant. Parents can dedicate to raising their children in God"s way but, baptizing their children as infants is taking away God's beautiful gift of "Free will".
Click to expand...
They don't think it saves them or gives them faith, Protestants who do this don't think it is salvific, but is about including their children among the Covenant community.

Just like how circumcision in the past was the sign of the Covenant, and now Baptism is viewed as the sign of the Covenant and emulating the Israelite community long to include their children.

Roman Catholics believe it for similar but additional reasons but we can't discuss their doctrine here.

I don't accept paedo baptism personally by the way.
 
From what I've been told, the logic behind infant baptism is pretty simple, but imho incorrect. The reasoning goes something like this...

When Peter was asked on Pentecost "What shall we do", he told them to repent and be baptized. From this people conclude that baptism is a requirement for salvation. So what happens when an infant that has not been baptized dies? If baptism is required for baptism, then the infant can't be saved. If it's not saved, then it must go to Hell. To avoid that, people started baptizing their babies.

That was nearly 2000 years ago, and today it's become just a custom. Nobody today is using that logic when they baptize their kids. When I pointed out this origin to a friend of mine once, she got furious. That certainly wasn't why she had her children baptized! That lady was a Lutheran. (I have nothing against Lutherans, I was one myself for many years.) The Augsburg Confession is the official confession of faith of Lutherans all over the world. Here's an excerpt (emphasis added).


Article II - Of Original Sin
Also [our churches] teach that since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost.

Article IX - Of Baptism
Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God's grace.

They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism.
Click to expand...
Source

There you have it. Baptism is necessary for salvation and those who aren't baptized, including children, go to Hell. I wonder how many Lutherans realize that that's in their confession. I left the Lutheran church when I found out.

The TOG​
 
The thief on the cross was not ever baptized. Yet our Lord told him he would be with him in paradise? That is a grown man that lived a live and committed sin. Lot's of debate has gone back and fourth over baptism.
 
Lady Terra said:
I do not believe that infants are able to choose their faith as an infant. Parents can dedicate to raising their children in God"s way but, baptizing their children as infants is taking away God's beautiful gift of "Free will".
Click to expand...


You're probably going to get about half and half on this question.. Someone already spoke about Protestant use of infant baptism, and I fully agree with that.

Here's how our Methodist position on baptism is explained and for me, one first principle covers it all: God is sovereign, and He will save whom He will save. It's not so important what man does, it's what God does, and God is active in imparting grace during baptism, whether as an infant or as an adult.


http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=4&mid=992
John Wesley retained the sacramental theology which he received from his Anglican heritage. He taught that in baptism a child was cleansed of the guilt of original sin, initiated into the covenant with God, admitted into the church, made an heir of the divine kingdom, and spiritually born anew. He said that while baptism was neither essential to nor sufficient for salvation, it was the "ordinary means" that God designated for applying the benefits of the work of Christ in human lives.

On the other hand, although he affirmed the regenerating grace of infant baptism, he also insisted upon the necessity of adult conversion for those who have fallen from grace. A person who matures into moral accountability must respond to God's grace in repentance and faith. Without personal decision and commitment to Christ, the baptismal gift is rendered ineffective.

Baptism for Wesley, therefore, was a part of the lifelong process of salvation. He saw spiritual rebirth as a twofold experience in the normal process of Christian development—to be received through baptism in infancy and through commitment to Christ later in life. Salvation included both God's initiating activity of grace and a willing human response.

The Baptismal Covenant: In both the Old and New Testaments, God enters into covenant relationship with God's people. A covenant involves promises and responsibilities of both parties; it is instituted through a special ceremony and expressed by a distinguishing sign. By covenant God constituted a servant community of the people of Israel, promising to be their God and giving them the Law to make clear how they were to live. The circumcision of male infants is the sign of this covenant (Genesis 17:1-14; Exodus 24:1-12). In the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God fulfilled the prophecy of a new covenant and called forth the church as a servant community (Jeremiah 31:31-34; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26). The baptism of infants and adults, both male and female, is the sign of this covenant.

Therefore, United Methodists identify our ritual for baptism as "The Services of the Baptismal Covenant" (The United Methodist Hymnal, pages 32-54). In baptism the church declares that it is bound in covenant to God; through baptism new persons are initiated into that covenant. The covenant connects God, the community of faith, and the person being baptized; all three are essential to the fulfillment of the baptismal covenant. The faithful grace of God initiates the covenant relationship and enables the community and the person to respond with faith.
 
Infant baptism is not found in scripture as a baby can not know faith and regeneration as this takes place at the same point in time. Many in the Church dedicate a baby to Christ and the Church is charged with it's Spiritual growth and I see nothing wrong with that. The baptism that Peter was talking about in Acts 2:38 was a Spiritual rebirth through the word of God. Some people think it is being dunked or sprinkled with water the way John the Baptist did and there is nothing wrong with that for it is an outward appearance to man that you have received Jesus and the Holy Spirit into your life, Matthew 3:11, but Jesus himself never baptized with water, John 4:2, for the baptism of Jesus was for receiving the Spirit of God (Holy Spirit) that helps us to know the will of the Father, 1 Thessalonians 4:1-12.
 
The argument whether baptism should be done as an infant or adult is one that has been going on for centuries and will continue. One question I have is that I was baptized as an infant but when I was a young man I fell away and stopped believing in God. Later in life I came to my senses so-to-speak but I have often wondered if I should consider being baptized again. In other words, once one is baptized is it permanent or should it be performed again. My believe has been it is permanent but I'd like to hear others' thoughts.
 
WIP said:
The argument whether baptism should be done as an infant or adult is one that has been going on for centuries and will continue. One question I have is that I was baptized as an infant but when I was a young man I fell away and stopped believing in God. Later in life I came to my senses so-to-speak but I have often wondered if I should consider being baptized again. In other words, once one is baptized is it permanent or should it be performed again. My believe has been it is permanent but I'd like to hear others' thoughts.
Click to expand...


In Methodist practice baptism is performed just one. If it's an infant, later as an older child or adult able to make free will informed choices, there is a confirmation ritual. Even if one loses faith for awhile, then returns, the baptism isn't repeated.
 
WIP said:
The argument whether baptism should be done as an infant or adult is one that has been going on for centuries and will continue. One question I have is that I was baptized as an infant but when I was a young man I fell away and stopped believing in God. Later in life I came to my senses so-to-speak but I have often wondered if I should consider being baptized again. In other words, once one is baptized is it permanent or should it be performed again. My believe has been it is permanent but I'd like to hear others' thoughts.
Click to expand...
WIP, thank you for that.

I've wondered about it too and in my heart, my father's heart, I believe that there is an answer that will strike a chord with you. I love my kids very much. I'm also commanded to love my enemies and I've tried to implement this command to one degree of success or another. One way (for strangers) is a personal rule that I have and try to keep. If somebody isn't trying to offend me it's actually difficult to really offend me. Jesus is our example here, right?

If somebody said something off-handed that hurt my feelings maybe I might respond with, "Oh? What do you mean?" Then, if it turned out that they wanted to offend, I still might not take offense. You have similar number of years in your life and have learned to try to have patience with others as well.

But with my kids? Heck, my sons used to quote Adam Sandler to me saying, "Quiet, old man or I'll break your hip!" You would not believe some of the liberties that they take. I'm pretty sure if you made a wisecrack to your dad like that you would quickly be reminded who was in charge, right? But that's not the kind of thing that governs our relationships today.

I know your Father. He loves you. You're not going to offend him by offering your heart to him again any more than you would offend your wife by offering a renewal of your vows of matrimony. Nobody is going to say, "What??? Are you trying to suggest that our vows are not good anymore?" The love gift that is offered by an adult who is baptized is offered to The God of Hearts and He knows every single hair, every single thought and every part of you. You're not going to go wrong no matter the choice you make. It's your heart that reaffirms your immersion into the Love of Christ and you are free to express yourself to Him.

With this in mind, please re-read your favorite chapter in the Bible. Yes. That one. The Love chapter in 1 Corinthians. You know it and have been thrilled by the love that He has for you from the moment you first heard it. I see this even today and am blessed by it. We are not yet revealed but there will come a time when the Mountains will clap their hands in joy over us. He means it when He says it and I'm here to remind you of what you already know.

~A little Sparrow
 
Last edited:
WIP said:
The argument whether baptism should be done as an infant or adult is one that has been going on for centuries and will continue. One question I have is that I was baptized as an infant but when I was a young man I fell away and stopped believing in God. Later in life I came to my senses so-to-speak but I have often wondered if I should consider being baptized again. In other words, once one is baptized is it permanent or should it be performed again. My believe has been it is permanent but I'd like to hear others' thoughts.
Click to expand...

WIP I think in your case it wouldn't be a new confession of faith to be baptized again but it would be a great witness to everyone you know.
 
Lady Terra said:
I do not believe that infants are able to choose their faith as an infant. Parents can dedicate to raising their children in God"s way but, baptizing their children as infants is taking away God's beautiful gift of "Free will".
Click to expand...

It is a construct of the RCC and was also propagated by John Calvin, the ex RC who started the Calvinist movement.
Clearly the NT shows us that water baptism is for repentance, which infants cannot do. It is a point of contention that water baptism is even taught as a necessary action following salvation. John the Baptist and Paul both taught Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire.
 
There is nothing wrong with infant baptism if they feel led of the Spirit to do so. Like the act of circumcision under the law, infant baptism is simply a witness to the world that you are dedicating your child to God. This dedication is much more about the parents commitment and intent of how they intend to raise their child before the Lord, then it has anything to do with the infant being baptized what so ever.

Where Christians do error, is when they start to claim that infant baptism is a requirement that must be performed: they make it a law and then teach others to follow it. And they have taken what was and acceptable offering through Faith, and they have dishonored themselves, leaving Faith to follow after a commandment, where their offering is not acceptable because it came by works of obedience instead of FAITH.
 
".... and he will change the laws and the days ..." (O.T. prophecy of what the enemy will do/did/does)
one of the best evidence other than Scripture(as if any is needed, though it's not) is that the roman group started it.
 
p.s. re the thief ... some have shown that he well might have been immersed for the remission of sins before he was ever arrested, possibly (likely?) before his crime that got him arrested.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top