Why is there infant baptisim?

[thethinker]

th

Don't confuse the OT law of external circumcision that identified a nation, to the God given free will we have under the NT.
Many in Israel in the OT were externally circumcised but never made the internal transition to the heart and faith.

Circumcision was commanded to be put on the 8 day old infant BEFORE God founded Israel.

Now in the NT that is all we have to do is have our heart circumcised by giving it to Jesus as our savior.

Under the old covenant they were to have their hearts circumcised (Deuteronomy 10:16).

Fact is, there is no explicit prohibition against putting the new covenant sign of baptism on our children. As circumcision of the flesh was only a sign of heart circumcision under the old covenant, so water baptism is only a sign of Spirit baptism under the new covenant. God is pleased when His people act on the behalf of their children and put the sign of the covenant upon their persons.

 

[BigSodaExposer]

We have so-called infant baptism today because of Satan.

I was babtized as baby, lived a life of mental illness and sin. And I speak with true honesty when I say I could not. receive the holy spirit till I quit caffeine the first time in 2004. I did not even know what the holy spirit was. Just observed the "ghostly" but yet positive and fatherly effects around me steering my path. It wasn't until last year I would read the KJV and learn of the spirit of truth/holy spirit. You can say what you want about this, but I promise its true. I had just boxes of porn magazines and naturally I quit looking at them and just kept asking myself "what am I doing?" Same thing for sale papers and cataloges. I stopped caring about the material world. I naturally started having more repentent and guilty thoughts over things/wrong I had done to people in my life. You read in the bible about these people like Samson to barren mothers and they were usually given stipulations by Angels. They could not consume wine or strong drink. Well, maybe my thing was caffeine. All my life it was like being in a room with 10 tvs all on a different channel. Thats how scrambled my mind was. And after stopping all caffeine for 3 months I had complete silence in my brain. It was so silent it actually freaked me out. But it was so peaceful. I can't help but think of the bible verse that says Jesus knocks on the door and will come in and eat with any man that will answer. Thats kinda what happened when I quit caffiene. I was at an extremely low point. Going through a divorce and living alone in a rural house like miles and miles from a city. So it was kinda like a surrender for me. Stopping caffeine was one of the only things I had never tryed for mental illness. I did not go on to be perfect after this. I went for years and years on and off caffeine. It took me years to figure out the pattern of what it was doing to me. And thats why I am so active against it today. Not only cause I believed it caused me much mental anguish. But I think that addicition and stress led me to have an aneurism in 06 that pretty much benched me and cost me my entire 30 year old life. But during this time I did much reading. And all that study eventually led me to God and to the KJV. But before I did. I was praying just simple prayers "God thank you for giving me a wonderful family". I went from an agnostic after 06 to a christian by now.

 

[Stan1953]

Circumcision was commanded to be put on the 8 day old infant BEFORE God founded Israel.
Under the old covenant they were to have their hearts circumcised (Deuteronomy 10:16).

But not before He made His covenant with Abraham. I said OT, not Mosaic Law. You don't think what God commanded Abraham to do was OT law?
Yes, but very few got there.... that why I said many and not all.

Fact is, there is no explicit prohibition against putting the new covenant sign of baptism on our children. As circumcision of the flesh was only a sign of heart circumcision under the old covenant, so water baptism is only a sign of Spirit baptism under the new covenant. God is pleased when His people act on the behalf of their children and put the sign of the covenant upon their persons.

Well you would have to show that WATER baptism was a new covenant sign. I personally don't see that as such. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to baptise us. John's baptism was water baptism and it was a sign of repentance but salvation was still required.

 

[thethinker]

You don't think what God commanded Abraham to do was OT law?

That believers are to bring their babies to God is new covenant as it was old covenant. The Bible tells of people "bringing babies to Jesus" (Luke 18:15). The Lord's inner circle of disciples rebuked the parents for bringing the little ones. But what did Jesus do?

When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these..." And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and bless them. (Mark 10:14,16).

Under the old covenant when a man was circumcised so were his boys. This practice remained in effect under the new covenant. We see no change! When a man was baptized his whole family was baptized including his children.

The promise is for you and your children Acts 2:38-39

After Pentecost the Spirit added whole families. Entire households were baptized. When the Lord opened the heart of a woman named Lydia, the result was not just an individual baptism. "She and the members of her household were baptized" (Acts 16:15). It does NOT say that the members of her household believed. It says that they were baptized.

When the jailer asked the apostle Paul, "What must I do to be saved?" he was told, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household." The man believed, and "he and all his family were baptized" (Acts 16:31,33).

In one of Paul's letters, he wrote, "I also baptized the household of Stephanas" (1 Corinthians 1:14).

 

[His_nee (Jeff)]

people have said that for a while. the Jews and gentiles in Jesus century still did not bury babies under water (immersion)>changed to 'baptism' later by characters we don't discuss here(separate area required).

http://www.k9safesearch.com/search.jsp?q=immersion+first+century+jews+gentiles+baptism&v=w&r=g

 

[Stan1953]

That believers are to bring their babies to God is new covenant as it was old covenant. The Bible tells of people "bringing babies to Jesus" (Luke 18:15). The Lord's inner circle of disciples rebuked the parents for bringing the little ones. But what did Jesus do?

When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these..." And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and bless them. (Mark 10:14,16).

Under the old covenant when a man was circumcised so were his boys. This practice remained in effect under the new covenant. We see no change! When a man was baptized his whole family was baptized including his children.

The promise is for you and your children Acts 2:38-39

After Pentecost the Spirit added whole families. Entire households were baptized. When the Lord opened the heart of a woman named Lydia, the result was not just an individual baptism. "She and the members of her household were baptized" (Acts 16:15). It does NOT say that the members of her household believed. It says that they were baptized.

When the jailer asked the apostle Paul, "What must I do to be saved?" he was told, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household." The man believed, and "he and all his family were baptized" (Acts 16:31,33).

In one of Paul's letters, he wrote, "I also baptized the household of Stephanas" (1 Corinthians 1:14).

Seems you quoted the wrong part of my post, but I'll address it.
A lot of invalids came to Jesus as well. This wasn't an instruction in anyway it was just how people reacted to a prophet in their midst. The fact that the children were being told not to bother Jesus was obvious it wasn't an acceptable practise for them to be brought.
The only time a family was circumcised was when they converted. Otherwise they were circumcised when instructed. The practise may have remained FOR SOME in the time of the NC, but it was not part of the NC.
No doubt that well to do households consisted of slaves, servants and others, and that this was the way things were done, but it is still NOT a command. The same thing happened in Acts 10, but in a slightly different order. They were all baptized in the Holy Spirit, spoke in tongues, then were baptized in water. Obviously they all believed as the Holy Spirit does not baptize/ fill a non-believer.
The social practises that existed at that time were not something Jesus nor the Apostles tried to deal with. They didn't preach against slavery and they didn't advocate it either. Facts of life were not things that were of concern when dealing with greater Kingdom of Heaven issues.

 

[elijah23]

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 think the reason for infant baptism is that parents think their kids might perish in eternal damnation if they aren't baptized before they die, so they have them baptized right away.

 

[Mike S]

I think the reason for infant baptism is that parents think their kids might perish in eternal damnation if they aren't baptized before they die, so they have them baptized right away.

I'm not sure where you get that idea. It's not the case for any Christian I know, certainly not for our Methodist churches, which DO perform infant baptism. Baptism is neither necessary nor sufficient for salvation, which is by faith alone.

 

[agua.]

I'm not sure where you get that idea. It's not the case for any Christian I know, certainly not for our Methodist churches, which DO perform infant baptism. Baptism is neither necessary nor sufficient for salvation, which is by faith alone.

Gday Mike,

I think in the Catholic sense infant baptism is a sacrament that gives remission of sins and in the infants case ( because they haven't willfully sinned yet, remission from the original sin. Most other groups that infant baptize do it as a kind of dedication ceremony is that right ?

 

[His_nee (Jeff)]

I think the reason for infant baptism is that parents think their kids might perish in eternal damnation if they aren't baptized before they die, so they have them baptized right away.

that is what we were taught in Lutheran Catechism Class a half century ago. (I think they still teach it). And they got it straight from the roman group in rome. (like changing "immersed" to "baptized" as if God would go along with it.)(they really still believe He will) It was an early change from what was written to what they wanted. What was written is still true.
Mark 16:15-18
Amplified Bible (AMP)
15 And He said to them, Go into all the world and preach and publish openly the good news (the Gospel) to every creature [of the whole human race].
16 He who believes [who adheres to and trusts in and relies on the Gospel and Him Whom it sets forth] and is baptized will be saved [from the penalty of eternal death]; but he who does not believe [who does not adhere to and trust in and rely on the Gospel and Him Whom it sets forth] will be condemned.
17 And these attesting signs will accompany those who believe: in My name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new languages;
18 They will pick up serpents; and [even] if they drink anything deadly, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will get well.

Mark 16:15-18
J.B. Phillips New Testament (PHILLIPS)
15-18 Then he said to them, “You must go out to the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature. He who believes it and is baptised will be saved, but he who disbelieves it will be condemned. These signs will follow those who do believe: they will drive out evil spirits in my name; they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up snakes, and if they drink anything poisonous it will do them no harm; they will lay their hands upon the sick and they will recover.”


Mark 16:15-18
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

15 Then he said to them, “As you go throughout the world, proclaim the Good News to all creation. 16 Whoever trusts and is immersed will be saved; whoever does not trust will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who do trust: in my name they will drive out demons, speak with new tongues, 18 not be injured if they handle snakes or drink poison, and heal the sick by laying hands on them.”

 

[Mike S]

Gday Mike,

I think in the Catholic sense infant baptism is a sacrament that gives remission of sins and in the infants case ( because they haven't willfully sinned yet, remission from the original sin. Most other groups that infant baptize do it as a kind of dedication ceremony is that right ?

Good morning. Hope your weather is a good as it is in New England today. God's given us a beautiful world.

Yes, of course you're right about Catholic theology. I should have been more careful how I phrased my response. I'm a Protestant, my Christian experiences and relationships are primarily Protestant, and we have baptism - including infant baptism n our liturgy. I have many Catholics in my life - Connecticut is one of the most Catholic of U.S. states - but, frankly, we don't spend a lot of time discussing the differences between our faiths. My faith remains the same, baptism is an important Christian sacrament, but it is not necessary nor sufficient for salvation. Baptism is not the path through by which we gain salvation, faith alone - acceptance of Christ as our Lord and a complete submission of our lives to his will - is that path,

I guess my basic belief is that we can disagree on the issue of infant baptism, we are imperfect human creatures, and we can find scriptural interpretations to support either position, but God remains sovereign. God will save whom God will save, and we'll each stand before Him in judgment one day. I'll do my best to work out my salvation with fear and trembling, and won't presume to judge others as they do the same.

 

[DRS81]

Infant baptism is not biblical, not really sure why people do it...it's probably a comforting thing.
When scripture says, you must be born of water and spirit (water is a spiritual symbol). John 3:5
Water here is not speaking of running water in which we drink, it's spiritual water from within us. John 7:38
Where does this spiritual water come from?
It comes from the throne of God, and they call this water the river of life. Rev 22:1
For example, when a person is indwelled with the Holy Spirit, they receive his anointing/grace/love/healing/glory etc...
This grace and love for example, directly comes from the river of the water of life. Rev 22:1
Why do they call it the river of (life), because simply put..God (the Holy Spirit) is life, eternal life.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.
John 7:38 Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them."
Rev 22:1 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb

 

[Mike S]

Infant baptism is not biblical, not really sure why people do it...it's probably a comforting thing.
When scripture says, you must be born of water and spirit (water is a spiritual symbol). John 3:5

You seem to be saying that baptism is necessary for salvation, and that is based in scripture. Is that what you're saying?

If that IS what you're saying, how do you reconcile Jesus's saying to the criminal on the cross next to Him "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise," and earlier in His ministry "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die." Both of these seem to indicate that baptism is not necessary for salvation, but is a ritual of inclusion into following Christ. I find no scriptural basis for believing that baptism is necessary for salvation, not do I find prohibition against infant baptism. If an adult is baptized, baptism is a sign of personal acceptance, if an infant is baptized, it's a sign of inclusion in a Christian community.

I understand if there are Christian who believe baptism is necessary for salvation and should only be administered after an individual affirmation of faith, I won't try to convince them otherwise. They're working out their own faith and their own salvation.

 

[DRS81]

You seem to be saying that baptism is necessary for salvation, and that is based in scripture. Is that what you're saying?

Infant baptism is not biblical

Hello Mike S, greetings. Quite the opposite. I am saying that infant baptism isn't necessary for faith based salvation in your later years. We are not saved by what John the Baptist did, we are saved by what Jesus Christ did on the cross (Mark 1:7). Some think they cannot be saved in their later years because they were not baptized by water in a Christian community, and that's simply not true. For example, Muslims come to faith in Christ every day. It is by (His grace) and (our faith) alone in which we are saved, not by pouring water on heads. If that person hasn't followed Romans 10:9 (in their heart) after being baptized by water, then all you get are wet clothes and soaking hair. - DRS81

 

[Mike S]

Thanks, I understand your position better now.

 

[agua.]

Good morning. Hope your weather is a good as it is in New England today. God's given us a beautiful world.

Yes, of course you're right about Catholic theology. I should have been more careful how I phrased my response. I'm a Protestant, my Christian experiences and relationships are primarily Protestant, and we have baptism - including infant baptism n our liturgy. I have many Catholics in my life - Connecticut is one of the most Catholic of U.S. states - but, frankly, we don't spend a lot of time discussing the differences between our faiths. My faith remains the same, baptism is an important Christian sacrament, but it is not necessary nor sufficient for salvation. Baptism is not the path through by which we gain salvation, faith alone - acceptance of Christ as our Lord and a complete submission of our lives to his will - is that path,

I guess my basic belief is that we can disagree on the issue of infant baptism, we are imperfect human creatures, and we can find scriptural interpretations to support either position, but God remains sovereign. God will save whom God will save, and we'll each stand before Him in judgment one day. I'll do my best to work out my salvation with fear and trembling, and won't presume to judge others as they do the same.

We're entering winter here in Australia and SE QLD has been unusually warm. Last week in the paper there were pics of a beach in Surfers crowded with sun bakers. Today is a little cooler I might even get to start a fire in a couple of weeks.

I agree with your ideas on Baptism well said.