Sistren_MML
Jun 25, 2007
Just curious to know if there is scriptural basis for or against infant baptism.
Mikah and Morgan
Just curious to know if there is scriptural basis for or against infant baptism.
Mikah and Morgan
All depends on your views of Covenants. Many who support infant baptism equate it with circumcision of the old covenant and are sure to teach that just as circumcision did not save a person, neither does baptism.
Here's a link to many articles about this
[url=http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Baptism/]Baptism
Infant baptism is unscriptural.
Baptism is an ordinance to be partaken of after a soul repents and is saved.
How could this possibly apply for infants?
Krispy
However, that comparison falls down because most of the early disciples were Jews and had already been circumcised. Many had also gone through John's baptism (as a sign of repentance). But that didn't stop them being baptized as Christians as well!
roaringlamb wrote:
All depends on your views of Covenants. Many who support infant baptism equate it with circumcision of the old covenant and are sure to teach that just as circumcision did not save a person, neither does baptism.Here's a link to many articles about this
[url=http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Baptism/]Baptism[/url]
Jeannette
This was why I had to leave the Presbyterian Church.
KrispyKrittr wrote:
Infant baptism is unscriptural.Baptism is an ordinance to be partaken of after a soul repents and is saved.
How could this possibly apply for infants?
Krispy
Although I soon realised that it was actually also a call of God - He used the matter of baptism as a way of getting me out.
The problem is also that many people think, (and some denominations actually teach it as fact), that baptism itself (of infants or otherwise) makes a person a Christian. Which it doesn't.
Blessings
Jeannette
However, that comparison falls down because most of the early disciples were Jews and had already been circumcised. Many had also gone through John's baptism (as a sign of repentance). But that didn't stop them being baptized as Christians as well!
I never said I was pro or con, just providing info that was asked for, also I think it's important to notice that I said that many who teach infant baptism under the covenant do not equate it to salvation, but simply to circumcision, and like the Jews whowere circumcised must be still be brought to repentance, so must those baptized as infants. Very few Protestant groups believe or teach baptismal regeneration.
I do not see this as a teaching worth splitting over, as I would much rather go to a Presbyterian Church that proclaimed Christ and His great work, than go to a non denominational one that is happy clappy with no mention of Christ. :-)
roaringlamb wrote:However, that comparison falls down because most of the early disciples were Jews and had already been circumcised. Many had also gone through John's baptism (as a sign of repentance). But that didn't stop them being baptized as Christians as well!
I'm not sure about that! I think Anglican (more or less = Episcopalian, and Lutheran?) still have it in their order of service for infant baptism. I know the Welsh Presbyterian Church does, having been connected with it. The only difference is that the service in the book is a suggested order, not a set one.I think it's important to notice that I said that many who teach infant baptism under the covenant do not equate it to salvation, but simply to circumcision, and like the Jews whowere circumcised must be still be brought to repentance, so must those baptized as infants. Very few Protestant groups believe or teach baptismal regeneration.
It clearly says something in the prayer section like, "this child is now a member of Your Church", or "Your child". Implying that the act of baptism has somehow made the child a Christian.
Even though the doctrine of baptismal regeneration probably isn't taught as such, (except in some "high" Anglican churches?) the form of words encourages that idea.
I do not see this as a teaching worth splitting over, as I would much rather go to a Presbyterian Church that proclaimed Christ and His great work, than go to a non denominational one that is happy I agree. Personally I wouldn't make a huge issue of it, unless the person who supports infant baptism is clearly not born again, and/or imagines that it makes one a Christian.Blessings
Jeannette
As we look at Baptism, let's consider a few things:
1. Its Purpose.
2. Its Application, Scripturaly.
1. Its purpose is (and this will be contraversial, i'm sure, but this is how i can see my way clear on it through God's Word...) this: It is an outward ordinance instituting an outward show of an inward reality- that is, one of being dead to the world, and alive to Christ. That is why it is refered to in many congregations as a "believer's" baptism.
2. It's application in Scripture: There are no instances in scripture saying that infants were baptised, only those who were converted (don't confuse a believer's baptism with the baptism of John, too. ;-) ) It appears that only those who repented of their sins, and belived on the Lord Jesus, were baptised. Peter (in his first encounter with the gentiles recieving God's Word) didn't say, "Hey guys, you all should be baptised before you hear this..." or anything like that. It was on the conversion of their hearts, and the anointing of the Holy Ghost (and by this we see that you don't need to be baptised outwardly in order to be converted, baptism is an ordinance therefore, not part of the steps to salvation... more a step to sanctification...) that he had them baptised (See Acts 10:3-48 for the context). It was an outward show of an inward reality, as i would see it.
So, seeing these things, i think we would be safe to say that infant baptism is not biblical, since infants have not the knowledge of sin yet, and therefore need no conversion.
This is a good thing to discuss, because i have heard of many people saying that "well, I was baptised when i was a baby, isn't that good enough?"
It is a matter of life or death, depending on how seriously the person that was baptised takes it... if you know what i mean.
God bless you all.
All for Jesus, Jesus for all,
-nathan
The youngest person I ever saw baptized as a believer was a nine year old boy. But an old lady missionary I used to know came to Christ when she was 6; although I don't know if her parents allowed her to be baptized so young.
Baptism isn't appropriate unless a person has believed in the Lord. Although It's perfectly possible for an earnest seeker (not a baby!) to actually receive the Lord upon, or soon after baptism, as happened in Acts. Just that it's not the effect of the water but of the Holy Spirit responding to the person's declaration of faith.
Then of course, there's the issue of sprinkling vs dipping. Full immersion is, I believe, more appropriate to the meaning of baptism. But is it essential???
Another thought: Do you think that a baby may already have received the Lord at that young age? John Baptist himself was filled with the Spirit before he was even born! (at 6 months gestation - when Mary came to visit Elizabeth). I think it's possible, because the spirit of a person is aware of spiritual things - and able to respond even when the mind is unable to grasp things.
But how would we know if the baby had believed until he could talk!
So infant baptism is still not appropriate until a child is able to make known his faith.
Just a few thoughts!
Jeannette
I'm not sure about that! I think Anglican (more or less = Episcopalian, and Lutheran?) still have it in their order of service for infant baptism. I know the Welsh Presbyterian Church does, having been connected with it. The only difference is that the service in the book is a suggested order, not a set one.It clearly says something in the prayer section like, "this child is now a member of Your Church", or "Your child". Implying that the act of baptism has somehow made the child a Christian.
Even though the doctrine of baptismal regeneration probably isn't taught as such, (except in some "high" Anglican churches?) the form of words encourages that idea.
I am strongly for repentant-believers baptism but there have been some wondeful saints who embraced infact baptism; Andrew Murray was one. Some rejected baptism altogether like the Quakers and the Salvation Army.
Yes, I have Salvation Army friends who realised that the Lord wanted them to be baptized, so they did it.
philologos wrote:
The Anglican theology has always been in a state of tension. The Anglical church was designed to be a compromise between Catholicism and the Reformers. Consequently it has a Reformed Theology but a Catholic Liturgy. The theology (the 39 articles) are pretty solidly reformed and refer to baptism only as a sign, but the liturgy identifies a newly baptised infant as having become part of the body of Christ.I am strongly for repentant-believers baptism but there have been some wondeful saints who embraced infact baptism; Andrew Murray was one. Some rejected baptism altogether like the Quakers and the Salvation Army.
I wouldn't make a major issue of it if a person disagreed with us on this, yet clearly knew the lord. I would seek to put forward the case agains infant baptism, but if the person was adamant, well, there are far worse errors!
The repentant thief on the cross never had opportunity to be baptized, but Jesus welcomed him into heaven all the same!
The main danger is that a person who isn't born again is encouraged by this practice (and some of the teaching or implications of it) to think they are now "OK" with God.
Blessings
Jeannette
We have heard a friend say that the only Scriptural backup for infant baptism that they knew of was in Acts 16:15, where Lydia and her whole household were baptized. However, we don't think you can prove infant baptism on that verse, since there is no mention of age distinctions in the household. We have heard another respected friend say that he didn't see infant baptism as unscriptural, because he thought it could be a symbol for Christ's covering over the infant until they are accountable. So we were unsure about all of it.
From Scripture we've seen that baptism is a symbol of us dying to our sins (Rom. 6:3-4), and then rising with Christ into a new life. So, since infants do not understand this, then we see it as unscriptural. We have enjoyed reading everone's imput, as it has cemented our reasoning.
Mikah and Morgan
No!
I'm with vsuarez No. It is so far out it doesn't even draw an argument. One can have any type theology they desire when they base a doctrine on one verse alone. Line upon line. Precept upon Precept people.
After I almost died in a bike accident, my mother, God bless her, had me baptized in our Baptist church the fall I was nine. I had grown up in the church so understood what was happening but I had no calling on my life until a cold winter night during revival at our church when I was 14 and made a public profession of faith that night after God drew me to Him.
As the years went by I thought from time to time that I would like to be baptized again as a believing adult but had never heard of anyone being baptized twice.
I dedicated my life totally to the Lord Jesus the fall of 1997 and the desire to be baptized again became somewhat of a passion but I didn't discuss it with anyone.
So, when I was in Israel that next summer, I did just that, quietly with no fan faire, and while there's nothing special about being baptized in the River Jordan, it was to me. Being refreshed in that cold water in that great heat was so symbolic of my walk in the Lord, renewed, revived to serve Him for what time remains.
What a lovely testimony!
FreebyWord wrote:After I almost died in a bike accident, my mother, God bless her, had me baptized in our Baptist church the fall I was nine. I had grown up in the church so understood what was happening but I had no calling on my life until a cold winter night during revival at our church when I was 14 and made a public profession of faith that night after God drew me to Him.
As the years went by I thought from time to time that I would like to be baptized again as a believing adult but had never heard of anyone being baptized twice.
I dedicated my life totally to the Lord Jesus the fall of 1997 and the desire to be baptized again became somewhat of a passion but I didn't discuss it with anyone.
So, when I was in Israel that next summer, I did just that, quietly with no fan faire, and while there's nothing special about being baptized in the River Jordan, it was to me. Being refreshed in that cold water in that great heat was so symbolic of my walk in the Lord, renewed, revived to serve Him for what time remains.
I don't think there's anything in Scripture about not being baptized (in water) a second time - especially if the first time wasn't as a believer.
After all, many of those who Jesus' disciples baptized had already been baptized by John.
Apparently religious Jews (Orthodox at least) can be baptized any number of times. Maybe, as with John Baptist, as a public confession of sins.
In fact I think that's the only argument I can think of AGAINST a Christian being baptized more than once: Jesus died "once for all" so we don't have to keep on doing it!
Some denominations that practice infant baptism seem to have a horror of it and (in the case of the Welsh Presbyterians at least) used to forbid their members having a re-baptism for any reason. They didn't mind someone being baptized by immersian or as an adult, but not if they'd been "done" as a baby.
Blessings
Jeannette
This discussion is locked.