Is it sinful to baptize babies?

I would assume most if not all sermonindex users are credobaptist: baptism is upon profession of faith. I was wondering, though, what you think of those who do baptize babies. Is it sinful? Is it okay if they are acting as they suppose in faith and good conscience?

Hi Stephen. As an ex Catholic it seems to me that if one baptized a child in ignorance to the truth that would be one thing, but if one baptized a child knowing better but seeking to pacify religious pressure, to compromise, that would be quite something else...............bro Frank

As an ex-Catholic, I would agree with you, Paul.

Is it scriptural, is a much better question. And, I would add, does baptism regenerate a person, causing them to receive the Spirit of God? Does baptism bring repentance to an individual causing them to turn to the Lord with all their heart?

If the infant has repented and turned to the Lord Jesus Christ with all their heart and received Him (John 1:12), then of course, baptism is scriptural. But, I have never heard of an infant recognizing they are a sinner in need of a Savior, much less, in need of baptism. Usually, they are just looking for their Mommy and don't even know about Jesus Christ.

If it is just the will of the parents, then no regeneration has taken place within the child. Men cannot force the Spirit of God into other men, He is received by faith.

John 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

A ceremony saves no one, only faith in Christ does.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

///Is the question baptism or doing something in faith? Stephen2, is there something else on your heart other than the proposed infant baptism you present? The way you presented your question appears to be the foundation for another subject which is your real purpose.///

The reason for the question (and MaryJane was also curious) is that I am trying to understand how others here at SI understand sin. I chose the subject of baptism because I assumed there would be almost unanimous agreement. Perhaps the thread should have been titled, "When is it sin?"

PaulWest suggested the better question is whether or not the practice is biblical - which I think gets to the heart of what I'm actually after. I didn't raise this subject so that we could have a debate on the subject of infant baptism, though I do appreciate some of the thoughtful responses including Savannah's. What I'm after is a definition of sin. If it is unbiblical is it sinful?

What makes something sinful? Is it my conscience? If I sin against my conscience is it sinful then - so that baptizing babies would be ok so long as I did it in good conscience? If so, how far does that extend? Does that extend to telling lies in good conscience? (Don't worry I'm not going to bring this back to a subject we've already dealt with elsewhere...)

Savannah said, ///As another poster has already mentioned,the scripturalness of the practice determines whether what I've stated above is true or false.///

Do others agree? Paul, you were saying that it is better to ask if it is scriptural? Is that one and the same question or is it different?

///I'm going to call you out to confess the sin you have been playing with and your desire to come to the Light and be restored. You've seen the maturity and grace of the saints.///

?

I appreciate you Jeremy for your boldness and your kindness, but in this case I think you have grossly misunderstood me. I am genuinely trying to understand how others here understand sin.

Thank you brother,

by Stephen2 on 2013/11/16 11:45:58

I am genuinely trying to understand how others here understand sin.

It would have been helpful if you just said that.

Here are some excerpts from an article and a link to the full version. It has been very helpful to me.

The either/or of spiritual character derivation is very clear in the scriptures. Righteousness is derived ek theos, "out of God” by faith (Phil. 3:9). Goodness is derived ek theos, "out of God” (III John 11) by one who has "seen God.” On the other hand, sin is derived ek diabolos, "out of the devil” (I John 3:8). Cain’s murder of his brother, Abel, was derived "out of the Evil One” (I John 3:12). The apostle John explains that "the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: every one not expressing righteousness is not ek theos, "out of God” (I John 3:10).

It is regrettable therefore, that many evangelical Christians cast a negative aspersion on man’s humanness, as if there was something sinful about being human. What they fail to realize is that sin has a spiritual source (I John 3:8), and to be a "sinner” is a derived spiritual condition caused by Adam’s act of disobedience (Rom. 5:19). There is nothing wrong with man’s spiritual function, only that fallen mankind has the spirit (I Cor. 2:12; Eph. 2:2; I Jn. 4:6) of the Evil One inhabiting and functioning in their spirit. This sinful depravity of man’s spiritual condition must not be projected or transferred into a condition of congenital psychological sinfulness. There is nothing about man’s mind, reason, or intellect that is intrinsically bad, evil, or sinful. God created man, and creates every individual man, with a full set of amoral God-given desires, that are not inherently sinful or evil. There is nothing inherently flawed with man’s decision-making, for man is a choosing creature, just as God created him to be. Christians must beware of negative overtones of implied sinfulness when referring to "human reason,” "human wisdom,” "human desires,” "human affections,” "human decisions,” etc. It must be carefully explained that the sinfulness of fallen man’s spiritual condition has led to the sinful and selfish orientation of unregenerate man’s psychological function. The human creature’s psychological function is as God created it to be. And we have just explained above that there is nothing sinful about man’s physicality in his physical body. The physiological function of man is intact. Sinfulness is not intrinsic to man’s humanness.

The British Bible teacher and author, W. Ian Thomas, expresses this dichotomy of derivation from either God or Satan so succinctly.

"As godliness is the direct and exclusive consequence of God’s activity, and God’s capacity to reproduce Himself in you, so all ungodliness is the direct and exclusive consequence of Satan’s activity, and of his capacity to reproduce the devil in you! …For iniquity is no more the consequence of your capacity to imitate the devil, than godliness is the consequence of your capacity to imitate God!”

Evangelicals, as a whole, are not willing to accept this clear-cut dichotomy of derivation, that "what man does, must be derived from a spirit-source.” Instead, they insist that whenever sinful character is expressed, whether in the unregenerate or in the regenerate, it is generated ek eautos, "out of oneself,” which effectively makes man a devil. A popular variation of the thesis explains that sinfulness is derived ek eautos from an intrinsic straw-man called "self.” What is this, but a variation of the humanistic premise that man is an "independent self” that can generate character and activity ek eautos, "out of himself” ”“ the very premise that was explicitly denied at the beginning of this section, because God alone Self-generates His character ek eautos. If sinful expression is blamed on an alleged independent personal resource called "self,” or on some "dirty old man” within, then religion can revert back to the self-effort of performance whereby man attempts to solve his own problems, for his alleged problem is a "self-problem.” In evangelical humanism this often takes the form of masochistic attempts to beat oneself into moral conformity, or to psycho-suicidal attempts to "crucify self” or to "die to self.” Though we are admonished by Jesus to "deny ourselves” (Luke 9:23), by disallowing self-oriented sinful expression in Christian behavior, this is not equivalent to the encouragement of evangelical humanism to become better Christians by crucifying or suppressing this alleged "self”-resource within that allegedly generates our sinfulness. What a con-game the Evil One has going on as he disguises his sin-activity under the cloak of "self,” deceiving man into thinking that man himself is the devil-self who is producing sin, and prompting man to engage in masochistic self-effort to destroy or crucify this "self.” Man is thus regarded to be his own devil and his own savior ”“ this is the lie of evangelical humanism!

The derivation of the character expressed in human behavior is either ek theos or ek diabolos. There is no third option or alternative of derivative source, whether it be called "self,” "old self,” "sinful self,” "natural self,” "old nature,” "sin-nature,” "fallen nature,” "carnal man,” "carnality,” "flesh,” etc. This latter term, "flesh,” is a Biblical term (Greek word, sarx), and our previous discussion denied that Paul’s usage of the term behaviorally was to be equated with physicality, or with any inherent sinfulness of man’s being. It is just as important to point out that the "flesh” is not a generative resource that effects sinful expression in either the Christian or the non-Christian. The "flesh” is Satan’s patterning of his character of selfishness and sinfulness upon or within the desires of man’s soul. It is not a substantive source of sin, a hidden hunk of evil, or a "dirty old man” within, driving us to dastardly deeds. "Flesh” patterns in the desires of our psyche are individuated tendencies and propensities to act and react in selfish and sinful ways. While the "flesh” is not a self-producing source of sin, it does provide a foothold for satanic temptation to sinful expression, in contrast to the Spirit’s impulses to manifest godly behavior in the Christian (Gal. 5:16-25).

It is important to reiterate that the character of man’s behavior is not self-generated by anything within man. Man derives what he does from either God or Satan, and that by a choice of receptivity to such character expression. If, as evangelicalism tends to indicate, man can manufacture and produce his own sin and unrighteousness ek eautos, "out of himself,” then it is logically imperative to likewise indicate that man is capable of generating his own righteousness and holiness ek eautos. If man is capable of the one, he is capable of the other. Ponder the logical consequences of such: If man is capable of self-generated unrighteousness, he becomes his own devil and is irredeemable. If man is capable of self-generated righteousness, then the incarnation of Jesus was superfluous and "Jesus died needlessly” (Gal. 2:21). If there is any truth in the humanistic premise that man is self-empowering and self-generative, then there is no "good news” of man’s redemption ”“ there is no Christian gospel! God forbid!

The repetitive and emphatic explanation of man’s inability to be a god-like producer and actuator of behavioral character is necessary to formulate a firm foundation for understanding the gospel. That is why we have belabored the point over and over again in this article. It is only when we understand that "what man does, he derives from another,” from a spirit-source other than himself, that we have a valid Christian premise that denies the humanistic premise en toto, and establishes a logical basis for understanding anthropological function.

Skipping ahead to Conclusion:
Conclusion

The Christian understanding of God was given much clarification early in Christian history as the various councils produced statements concerning Christology and the Trinitarian relationality of God. The Christian understanding of man, however, did not receive the same attention and scrutiny. Clear and comprehensive statements of the human creature’s constitution and function were not provided in the creedal formulations of the early church. Throughout church history there have been particular systems of thought that have encroached upon a Christian understanding of man, such as Gnosticism, Pelagianism, Arminianism, etc., but the church’s response to them did not produce a comprehensive anthropological understanding.

There is a dire need in our day to explain how the human creature functions ”“ what he is and is not capable of. The philosophical premises of humanism have become the popular and accepted bases for anthropological understanding in contemporary society. To counter humanistic thought with an antithetical explanation of derivative man is to encounter much ridicule and rejection. Since humanism elevates man to a place of ultimate concern and deification, the explanation of man as a dependent, contingent, and derivate creature appears to be a denigration of man that diminishes man’s abilities, and projects humanity to be of lesser consequence. To proclaim a Christian understanding of man will be an iconoclastic effort of destroying the false and idolatrous concepts that man is a god unto himself.

The effort to explain that man is only and always a derivative creature is further complicated and countered by the fact that most of Christian teaching has adopted many of the presuppositions of humanism. Many who call themselves "Christians” believe, in one form or another, that man is capable of generating his own character expression ”“ if not by human "works” of performance righteousness, then at least capable and responsible for self-generating his own sin and unrighteousness. Accepting the premise of a "self” that operates independently of a spirit source in either God or Satan, such religious teaching is forced into finding a solution to the alleged "self-problem” by encouraging the self-effort of self-suppression or the "crucifying of self.” The selfism prevalent in "evangelical humanism” today reacts strongly against the understanding of man as a derivative creature.

The outline for understanding man that we have presented in this article is intended to provide a complete antithesis to humanistic presuppositions of human potentiality, and to reject humanistic philosophy en toto. Instead of man having intrinsic self-generative ability, we have explained that man is a derivative creature designed by the Creator to be dependent upon the Creator and receptive to the character expression of the Creator, in order to be the human creature that the Creator intended the creature to be. Thereby, and only thereby, is man fulfilled as man, and God glorified as the God that He is.

Read the entire article:

TOWARD A CHRISTIAN UNDERSTANDING OF MAN
http://www.christinyou.net/pages/understandman.html

And to go with it, "Towards a Christian Understanding of God".
http://www.christinyou.net/pages/understandgod.html

Then perhaps another thread needs to be set up with that particular question. I was going to post in response to the infant baptism question. But see this thread going a different direction.

Bearmaster.

I think its helpful to entertain the question of the nature of sin in relation to something specific like baptism... and this thread has actually brought that out.

Savannah said,

///Your question - Is it sinful to baptize babies?

Answer: NO!

Another question - Is it sinful NOT to baptize babies?

Answer: YES!

As another poster has already mentioned,the scripturalness of the practice determines whether what I've stated above is true or false.///

So far most have posted saying that while infant baptism is not scriptural it is not sinful. Ironically, the only person posting in favour of infant baptism says it is sinful not to baptize them - I assume Savannah means not baptizing children of believers...

This highlights what may actually be a more fundamental difference. Are there those who do believe baptizing babies is sinful? On the other hand, if it is unscriptural (and I assume you don't mean in the same sense that driving cars would be considered a-scriptural because not discussed) then why isn't it also sinful?

Based on my understanding of Mathew 28:18-20. I would say pastors in the Reformed tradition are in serious error baptizing infants in the name if the Triune God. They are distorting a precious scriptural truth that baptism is for believers and believers only. Also I would say the baptism of infants is an ungodly practice. I cringe when a Reformed pastor baptizes an infant in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Without further reflection I am not going to say such Reformed pastors are in sin. But will maintain they are in serious error as infant baptism cannot be established in scripture

Now if you would like to ask were the Reformers in sin for putting the Anabaptists to death over the issue believers baptism? Several million times I will answer "yes". On that score the Reformers committed a grievious sin for putting other brethren to death over this issue of believers baptism.

Bearmaster.

Mark Dever: ///"In my article in the new 9Marks Journal, I wrote, "I have many dear paedo-baptists friends from whom I have learned much. Yet I see their practice as a sinful (though sincere) error from which God protects them by allowing for inconsistency in their doctrinal system, just as he graciously protects me from consistency with my own errors." That statement, much to my surprise, has caused concern among some. That a Baptist thinks infant baptism is wrong was no news to earlier generations of paedobaptists.///

Mark Dever's surprise is the point. Those on both sides of this have historically said that the other side was guilty of sin. Are we in this generation able to say that? If not, why not?

If something is ungodly and a serious error how can it not be sin? Sin is missing the mark... anything short of perfection.