Infant Baptism

[TJAcorn]

How come we baptist believe that infant baptism should not be practised by Christian families? Doesn't God still have a covenant with us to bless our children?

Trevor

[SaggyWoman]

Does blessing require baptism?

How is infant baptism biblical?

[Squire Robertsson]

It's 10:13pm PDT now so I'm not going to do a run through my concordence on this post. However, one of the Baptist distinctives is Believers' Immersion. Meaning<LI>Immersion is the only valid form of this Ordinance and<LI>This ordinance is for Believers only.
Your question speaks to b. above. As an infant cannot be a Believer, an infant is not a valid canidate for the Ordinance. There are no doubt valid reasons for some type of dedication service for new borns and their parents. But that is better addressed in another thread.

I am y'r serv't in Christ,
Robertsson

[ April 29, 2001: Message edited by: The Squire ]

[ June 22, 2001: Message edited by: The Squire ]

[Dr. Bob]

How many examples of babies (unbelieving) being baptized are found in the NT?

I've heard some lame arguments that say, "well in a couple of places it says their whole house". Now, I am a logic prof, so will simply say that does not hold water. It is an argument from a priori assumption that a "house" = infants.

I believe and "my whole house believes" but brother, it's been 25 years since we had an infant around here!!

So, laying aside the fallacious non-proof, please answer my question: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How many examples of babies (unbelieving) being baptized are found in the NT?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[TJAcorn]

Of course none. I wouldn't expect that there would be since the new testament deals with new believers and little is said about their families.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I've heard some lame arguments that say, "well in a couple of places it says their whole house". Now, I am a logic prof, so will simply say that does not hold water. It is an argument from a priori assumption that a "house" = infants.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are quite right but there could still be the possibility that there were infants.
Did you ever wonder why the jailer's entire house was baptized when as far as we know only he believed? I've heard it said that he went home and witnessed to them and got them saved but we don't know that. I'm wondering if it might have something to do with the manner in which God views a Christian family (and since the jailor was the head of his home he then would have a "Christian" family in God's eyes).

Trevor

I have a couple verses I would like to bring up now and use later in the discussion.

Genesis 17:5-7
"Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.
And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee."


Galatians 3:7-9
"Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham."

[ June 28, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]

[Barnabas H.]

"TJAcorn," please check the Word of God and see what it says on this subject. The jailer was not the sole person who believed in his household! Let's read the Word together and observe:

Acts 16 (30) "And brought (the jailer) them (Paul & Silas) out (of the jail), and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? (31) And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. (32) And they (Paul & Silas) spake unto him (the jailer) the word of the Lord, AND TO ALL THAT WERE IN HIS HOUSE. (33) And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; AND WAS BAPTIZED, HE AND ALL HIS, STRAIGHTWAY."

Romans 10 (13) "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (14) How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?"

So you see, the Jailor was not alone who heard the word of God from Paul and Silas, but his entire household and they all understood and believed of what has been spoken by the two. In order to believe, one must understand what to believe in - so they were all mature enough to believe and be baptized by Paul and Silas. smile.gif

[ June 28, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]

[tentpreacher]

INFANT BAPTISM
====================
As with sprinkling, the doctrine of infant baptism cannot be found in the New Testament without adding to it.
Scripture logic cries out against infant baptism. The very mode (immersion) makes it illogical and impractical. The teaching surrounding baptism automatically prohibits it.

THE BIBLE SPEAKS!
====================
MATT. 28:19 - "Teach all nations, baptizing them" - Teaching or preaching must precede baptism. See Acts 2:41

ACTS 8:36,37 - Eunuch. "What doth hinder me to be baptized?" Phillip, "If Thou believest with all thine heart." Believing is a prerequisite of baptism. See, Mark 16:16.

ACTS 2:38 - "Repent and be baptized everyone of you." Repentance must precede Baptism. See, Luke 24:47.

DO YOU KNOW?
====================
That the first recipients of baptism were adults. Infant baptism was a later development that led to sprinkling. - Chambers Encyclopedia, Vol 2, Pg.112

There's no direct evidence in New Testament for infant baptism. - Interpreters Bible Dict. Vol 1, Pg. 352

The earliest Christian literature makes no reference to baptism of infants. - Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol 3, Pg 138

The first mention of infant baptism was about 185 A.D. Not universal until 6th Century. - History of Church, by WALKER, Pgs 87,88

That 350 Lutheran pastors of W. Germany wish to abandon infant baptism. Many of these same pastors refused to baptize their own infants. They felt that baptism should be understood first by the recipient. - Time Magazine, Pg 58-May, 1968

That Karl Barth of Swizterland, the best known Theologian of 20th Century said, "There is not Biblical basis for infant baptism-this tradition is simply an old error of the church." - Time Magazine, Pg 58-May, 1968

A child should be old enough to receive teaching, believe, and repent of sin before being baptized. Dedicating children to God and asking Him to bless them is Biblical. This Jesus did in Luke 18:15-17, Matthew 19:13-15

[ June 28, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]

[TJAcorn]

My question is: Why does one have to be baptized after he is saved?


In Genesis 3:7 we learn that God made an everlasting covenant with Abraham and his seed. We also learn that the sign of this covenant is circumcision (Gen. 17:11). Not only this but this sign was to be given to infants (Gen. 17:12). Now in our present situation baptism is a picture of the blood covenant that God now has with us, his chosen people. We learn from Gal. 3:7-9 that we (the church) are now the children of Abraham and that we are the recipients of the blessing given by God in Gen. 17. Remember that the covenant was everlasting which means that it is still for today and if we are now the children of Abraham than this covenant applies to us!
Colossians 2:11-13
"In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;"

Now it seems to me from these verses that baptism and circumcision are related signs. So if circumcision could be given to an infant why can't baptism? You might say that baptism represents something that God has already done in one's life therefore it cannot be given until a person believes. But why then did God allow infants to be circumcised even though they had not expressed their faith? Could it be that due to their parents and the covenant God had made with Abraham's seed that they were made the recipients of God's covenant(yet unbelieving themselves) and if this covenant applies to us still (being the children of Abraham) should we not apply the sign of this covenant to our children? (that sign no doubt being baptism)

Someone explain this verse to me:

I Corinthians 7:14


[ May 01, 2001: Message edited by: TJAcorn ]

[ June 28, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]

[Dr. Bob]

Trevor asked the meaning of: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The offspring of a union of Christians is blessed and sacred (nothing to do with being born again here). The offspring of a non-christian union is a curse.

By the saved spouse staying with the mate, the offspring is classified with the good rather than the bad. It's just a simple logical statement. Don't read more into it.

Most Protestants try to equate circumcision as the "seal" of the old covenant with sprinkling babies as the "seal" of the new. If God had meant these to be parallel, don't you think it would be clearly stated.

But instead of clarity we see NO reference (none, zero, zilch) to babies being baptized, NO reference to baptism as a seal of a covenant, NO parallel at all.

Hey, I think God was clear, after all! ;)

[TJAcorn]

Originally posted by tentpreacher:
DO YOU KNOW?
====================
That the first recipients of baptism were adults. Infant baptism was a later development that led to sprinkling. - Chambers Encyclopedia, Vol 2, Pg.112

The first Christians were adults so of course infant baptism wasn't practiced until later, that is until they had children

There's no direct evidence in New Testament for infant baptism. - Interpreters Bible Dict. Vol 1, Pg. 352

yep!

The earliest Christian literature makes no reference to baptism of infants. - Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol 3, Pg 138

The oldest Christian literature being the New testament (see previous question)

The first mention of infant baptism was about 185 A.D. Not universal until 6th Century. - History of Church, by WALKER, Pgs 87,88

Funny that it was mentioned only a couple generations after Paul's writings! seems like this "first mention" is nice evidence to support the practice!

That 350 Lutheran pastors of W. Germany wish to abandon infant baptism. Many of these same pastors refused to baptize their own infants. They felt that baptism should be understood first by the recipient. - Time Magazine, Pg 58-May, 1968

Not talking about Lutherans here. If they don't feel it's biblical then that's their business.

That Karl Barth of Swizterland, the best known Theologian of 20th Century said, "There is not Biblical basis for infant baptism-this tradition is simply an old error of the church." - Time Magazine, Pg 58-May, 1968

Karl who? (just kidding) It is interesting to note that Jonathan Edwards THE BEST THEOLOGIAN EVER IN AMERICA accepted infant baptism

A child should be old enough to receive teaching, believe, and repent of sin before being baptized. Dedicating children to God and asking Him to bless them is Biblical. This Jesus did in Luke 18:15-17, Matthew 19:13-15

God didn't think it was wrong to have an infant circumcised before he was saved.

not to be ungrateful but these copy and paste posts are very aggravating to answer. I'd much rather answer short and brief objections (like the powerful one by Dr. Bob which I am still stumped over)

[Dr. Bob]

Trevor - Forgive me, but I can't quit being a logic professor. You quoted <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Those opposed to infant baptism need to be honest enough to admit that baptism is not prescribed for only professing believers; Scripture simply indicates that those who profess belief in Christ ought to be baptized, logically not at all implying that there could not be another category of people who are appropriately baptized.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Whoever thought that up was defying every rule of logic and evidence I know!

The only authority and the only place where we can find out who is or who is not a candidate for baptism is the Word of God. Men's ideas mean nothing.

So the Bible teaches only believers (and by true logical inference, not babies since they cannot believe) are to be baptized.

But, says your authority, there may be other categories of people to be baptized that are not mentioned in the Bible. And the moon might be made of green cheese! We are people of the BOOK.

[ June 28, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]

[Damon]

Dr. Bob,

I do hope you'll forgive me for butting in.

&gt; Whoever thought that up was defying every rule of logic and evidence I know!

Actually, I don't know where you've been teaching logic, but you're wrong on this one. The argument that you are making here, against Trevor [and I'm not saying that I think that infant baptism is appropriate] is the same argument that folks use to argue for baptismal regeneration in Mk 16.16. You're argument is based on silence. That, my dear logic prof, is a logical fallacy [i.e., the claim that because a thing is not mentioned it must not be the case]. Unless we have a passage that claims that only believers can be rightly baptized then the argument is merely inductive based on the number of instances in which folks are baptized [and frankly, there aren't that many different instances].

&gt; So the Bible teaches only believers (and by true logical inference, not babies
&gt; since they cannot believe) are to be baptized.

First [if we're talking about logic here] we don't know that babies can't believe, we only know that we are unaware of any that have believed. At best, this is an inductive argument, and as a logic prof, I'm sure you're aware of the many problems involved with induction. Second, the Bible teaches that believers are to be baptized, but I've yet to see anyone here who's produced a passage in which the Bible says that only believers are to be baptized. Thus, unless we have such a scripture all our arguments are based on silence. Finally, even if we concede the first points, I still want to know what the qualitative difference between an infant and a 4 year old is.

Damon

[TJAcorn]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
The only authority and the only place where we can find out who is or who is not a candidate for baptism is the Word of God. Men's ideas mean nothing.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suppose that the man made doctrine of the trinity means nothing too? of course it does! men's ideas DO mean something if they are based on scripture and the laws of logic. One man says that the Bible teaches that you must be saved BEFORE you are baptized and another man says that the Bible teaches that baptism is more than just a symbol that you have been saved and that it can be given before salvation.

Who am I to believe? at this point they are BOTH man's ideas and both based on logic yet scripture proofs are in the lacking.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> We are people of the BOOK. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And people who believe in infant baptism may also be "people of the BOOK"!! because they would interpret it different then us by no means makes them not "of the BOOK"! we are seeking the TRUTH not division! Presbyterians are "of the BOOK" too and usual seem to know it a little better than we baptist do.



Trevor

[ June 28, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]

[Chris Temple]

Uh... the doctrine of the Trinity is man-made? :confused:

[ June 28, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]

[TJAcorn]

:rolleyes: Um...truth is I didn't think to much before I wrote that statement :(

My thinking was that that doctrine was reason out (using scripture) by men.

But this does not mean that it is man-made. Man simply discovered the truth.

Instead of the Trinity I think a better example would be tithing. Since it is an old testament principle which we still apply today.

Trevor

Sorry about the confusion!

[ June 28, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]

[melissa]

First all you have to consider where infant baptisim originated. Roman catholic church. They belive if an infant dies before they are "Baptized" the infant will go to hell. This is true research it. catholics belive in pergatory, which logicly thinking would make the gospel of CHRIST a lie. The purpose of Belivers Baptisim is a public profession of CHRIST. It is symbolic. It requires a person to be completely submerged. When a person is baptized,him standing in the water is identifying with CHRIST on the cross,when he is completely submerged, he is identifying with CHRIST being buried, when he is brought up from the water, he is identifying with CHRIST resurrecttion.You do not have to be baptized to go to heaven. Example: The two thieves on the side of CHRIST, one was saved the other wasn't. He died and went to heaven. You please the LORD when you get baptized after you are saved. That is why it is called beliver's baptizim. Read Romans 10:10. An infant can not reason but a child can.Therefore some people are saved as very young children and baptized.Most baptist churches WILL NOT baptize a person unless they speak with that person to ask if they have accepted CHRIST as LORD and savior. I was saved 11 years ago when I was 16.My husband got saved alittle over a year ago. We were baptized together on March 10 of 2000. It was a wonderful experience. I am so glad I done as my LORD commanded ,and followed him in Baptizim.[LIST]

[mtompset]

This is my disclaimer. It may not be understandable to all, but it is meaningful to me. I'm a programmer. In programming, you do both positive and negative testing, and I find it annoying that people hate negative testers. So, if I come across doctrinally incorrect, just realize I'm doing negative testing, because it's necessary for a good job.

But that aside, the issue of infant baptism is only important in the sense that baptism (regardless of age) does not save.

However, I think there may be merit for infant baptism. In the sense that believer's baptism is us showing God's intervention on our behalf (ie. we are saved, and eagerly want to make a public declaration via baptism), infant baptism could be thought of as a parent's call for God's grace and mercy on the life of their child. I know we aren't into rituals and all, but perhaps it's like offering the child to be used for God's glory... sort of like Hannah gave up Samuel.

Another passage infant baptizers frequently point out is the passage about the parents bringing the children to Jesus and Jesus telling the disciples to let them come. From what I've read, the word for children does not indicate a post-toddler who could wander from one city to the next unattended. And in one sense, perhaps infant baptism is merely bringing the child to God in the same way the parent's brought their children. Jesus blessed the children then. Perhaps God wants to bless some children through infant baptism.

I'm being hypothetical, so that people do not jump all over me as a "pro-infant baptizer", but at the same time, it is important to realize, if praying on the behalf of others is acceptable, then why not infant baptism? Sure it's a ritual, but sometimes ritual gives us something concrete to grasp when talking about something intangible: God's blessing. Surely we want God's blessing on everyone's life. What's wrong with asking on the behalf of infants?

Someone mentioned unchristened babies going to hell. Moses successfully petitioned God to not slay all of Israel, it makes sense to me that parents make the same sort of request on the behalf of their child. If we as enemies of God have become friends, then surely the vessel can have its purpose changed. And if anyone can change its purposes, it is God. So why not ask?

Just some thoughts,
Mark Tompsett
(mtompset@ican.net)

[ June 28, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]

[Dajuid]

First off, God could change, but in doing so, it would nullify all of scripture.

[i]1 Corinthians 14; 33
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

God has given the word to not to confuse, but to teach, instruct:

[i]2 Timothy 3;16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Infant Baptism shows nothing, does nothing but cause confusion among Christians. We Baptists, as Bible believers, have a dedication service for a child. This is where the parents publicly oath to raise their child "in the nurture and admonition" of the Lord. In addition, the membership of the church also commits itself to aiding the parents in their commitment to the Lord. The child does not become a member of the church nor is baptized.

Baptizing an infant serves no purpose. The infant is already under God's protection. Scriptural baptism (immersion), biblically follows one's belief in the Lord Jesus and the person's public profession of faith. The ritual of infant baptism is unbiblical and misleading as to how a person is truly saved.

I work in a field where programmers run rampant. And, I fully understand the concept of negative testing. I assist in it quite often. However, we as Christians cannot afford to be "negative testers" or thinking "maybe God really means this".

[i]2 Peter 1; 20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

The Bible cannot be looked upon in an analytical method. The Bible is not meant to be a difficult thing to understand. It is only recently in our "enlightenment" that we feel we have to find more in the Bible than what there really is. There are no hidden codes. It is the Word of God.

God Bless,
Dave

[ June 28, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]

[mtompset]

Originally posted by Dajuid:
First off, God could change, but in doing so, it would nullify all of scripture.

My reply:
I think there is a misunderstanding here. I said (or at least I thought I did), if anyone can change [a vessel of wrath's] purpose, it is God. I'm not talking about God changing Himself.


Originally posted by Dajuid:
Infant Baptism shows nothing,...

My reply:
Nothing?! Come on. If Believer's baptism shows an identification with Christ for the believer, then surely Infant baptism shows something. Whether it be about the parents or the child is irrelevant. Infant Baptism does show something.

Originally posted by Dajuid:
... does nothing but cause confusion among Christians.

My reply:
The confusion is only a result of people not willingly to discuss possibilities. If you don't do the full gambit of testing, the program will likely crash and burn when put into production. Too often people shut their ears up, so that they can maintain a happy ignorance. That is far worse than a person wrestling with radical ideas. At least when you wrestle, you either win, lose, or are still wrestling. And that promotes growth, rather than the stagnation most people seem to prefer.


Originally posted by Dajuid:
We Baptists, as Bible believers, have a dedication service for a child. This is where the parents publicly oath to raise their child "in the nurture and admonition" of the Lord. In addition, the membership of the church also commits itself to aiding the parents in their commitment to the Lord. The child does not become a member of the church nor is baptized.

My reply:
So we baptists have removed infant baptism from the ritual of dedication. Is it wrong to do that? No, I don't think so. Is it right to do that? I'm not sure it is either right or wrong.

It doesn't change the fact that in both cases parents desire the same thing. If we called it a baby dedication and used some mode of what some people call baptism, does it mean it is a baptism?

I think the issue that most people fight against is the idea that infant baptism is a baptism. It isn't. The name is a mislabelling, but I don't think that prevents us from doing it any particular way.


Originally posted by Dajuid:
Baptizing an infant serves no purpose. The infant is already under God's protection.

My reply:
Infants aren't condemned to hell because all have sinned? Isn't that a waivering of God's standard? No seriously, if God let's in to heaven, children prior to this "age of accountability", then either all haven't sinned (sin by nature), or there is only sin by practice. This really is a side issue, so perhaps it should be addressed elsewhere.


Originally posted by Dajuid:
Scriptural baptism (immersion), biblically follows one's belief in the Lord Jesus and the person's public profession of faith. The ritual of infant baptism is unbiblical and misleading as to how a person is truly saved.

My reply:
So there were no babies sprinkled, poured, or immersed in the Bible? And I'm excluding the kind of liquid (ie. anointing with oil could be considered a "baptism" of sorts).


Originally posted by Dajuid:
I work in a field where programmers run rampant. And, I fully understand the concept of negative testing. I assist in it quite often. However, we as Christians cannot afford to be "negative testers" or thinking "maybe God really means this".

My reply:
It isn't a matter of "maybe God really means this". It is a matter of "Does God really mean this?"


Originally posted by Dajuid:
The Bible cannot be looked upon in an analytical method. The Bible is not meant to be a difficult thing to understand. It is only recently in our "enlightenment" that we feel we have to find more in the Bible than what there really is. There are no hidden codes. It is the Word of God.

My reply:
I disagree that the Bible can not be looked upon in an analytical method. God has called us to reason with Him (Isa. 1:18). God, through Paul, calls us to have our minds transformed, not conformed. If anything, God wants us to take what we do know and apply it. If we know how to think, then come reason, so we can go and reason. If we know how to feel, then come and be loved, so that we can show love. God meets us where we are. As one hymn writer wrote, "to us He'll condescend." If we analyze, God will give us data. And as such, the Bible is the perfect multi-dimensional matrix of data that reaches and applies to all parts of our lives, even now.

Originally posted by Dajuid:
God Bless,

My reply:
Numbers 6:24-26,

Mark Tompsett
(mtompset@ican.net)

[ May 14, 2001: Message edited by: mtompset ]

[TJAcorn]

Anyhow, the orthodox position on infant baptism holds to the belief that after the infant is baptized he will not need to be baptized again whenever he accepts Christ as savior later in life. Baptist don't seem to like this idea. Also, since the infant will not be baptized again after salvation it would follow that infant baptizm is more than just dedication.

Question: Why where infants circumsized in the Old Testament?

Trevor

[ June 28, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]

[r5dots]

I am curious about this subject also. We have many friends who are catholic, lutheran, and presbyterian, and they baptize their babies. Is that not biblical? If not, then why do these old, old Christian religions do so?

[Circuitrider]

r5, they do so because they are protestants. They were once part of the RCC and left as protesters. Unfortunately they brought some of the baggage of the RCC with them when they left. Martin Luther, was a RCC monk but because a believer by faith. While he saw the truth about justification by faith, he did not think through all the other areas of doctrine which he had been trained. Thus he incorporated them into the church which formed out of his movement. In fact, it seems he never planned to be a protestant, but they kicked him out. Other founders of protestant groups also had the same experience. Baptists historically have looked back to the NT church for both their faith and order and thus have rejected infant baptism as biblical baptism and as a violation of regenerated church membership. smile.gif

[Contender]

With all due respects for Trevor's original post (I have not read the others), sprinkling was begun by the Catholics as a convenience, especially those who were too ill to be immersed. To even make such a statement "we baptist believe that infant baptism should not be practised by Christian families?" "WE BAPTISTS?" This is not a statement made by a true Baptist but one who says he is a Baptist with Catholicism interjected. That's what the early "Jews who believed" in the book of Acts did. They were adding circumcism to faith in Christ. This type of thinking is pure humanism, i.e., human reasoning. That's where cults come from. Nowhere in the Bible is there a command or an example of infants of infants being sprinkled, or, for that matter, even immersed. Only those who were old enough to make the decision to receive Christ as their Saviour were baptized. A baby cannot repent (change his mind to trust Christ), adults can. Baptism was VOLUNTARY, a DECISION made by the convert. A baby cannot make this decision-it is made for him by his parents. You cannot call yourself a true Baptist, either historically or doctrinally and believe in infant baptism. Perhaps you should be honest and call yourself a Catholic.

TJAcorn
posted April 28, 2001 10:08 PM
---------------------------------------------
How come we baptist believe that infant baptism should not be practised by Christian families? Doesn't God still have a covenant with us to bless our children?
Trevor

[Sir Ed]

Discussing Luther above, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> While he saw the truth about justification by faith, he did not think through all the other areas of doctrine which he had been trained. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh come on. On what do you base that statement on?

Where does it say in the Bible that only a believer should be baptized? And where does it say infants can't or don't believe?

The fact is that Baptism is an act of God, it is not an act of man. This whole idea that Baptism is some type of public confession of faith has no basis in the Scriptures. That whole concept developed as a way for men to show men how righteous they are. Its very disappointing to see the spectacle that it has turned into.

Christ's Church on earth has been baptizing babies for 2000 years. Only a 1000 years into it did some men decide that it was inappropriate. What is the basis for changing it other than the fact that what had become the RCC still did it? :D

[ June 21, 2001: Message edited by: Sir Ed ]

[Don]

Oh, come on Ed. It takes a man to walk to the pool of water; it takes a man to dunk under the water; if you hold to sprinkling, it takes a man to sprinkle the water.

In other words, it's an act of men. What you're actually attempting to say is that God works through the baptism; but even if God works through it, it requires a conscious, physical act of a man in order for it to occur.

THAT is the main problem with baptism having a part in salvation, whether the RCC and the Lutherans want to admit it or not.

[Sir Ed]

Like I said Don, show me where the Bible says everything you just shared.

[Don]

What, the part where men have to physically put themselves in water?

Matthew 3, Mark 1, Luke 3, John 1, Acts 2, Acts 8, Acts 9, Acts 10, Acts 22...I'll stop there.

Unless, scanning through this, I missed something and you're talking about the baptism of the Holy Ghost, I'm not seeing anything different.

Are you taking opposition to my statement about this being the problem with the RCC and the Lutherans?

[Sir Ed]

Once again: Where does it say in the Bible that only a believer should be baptized? And where does it say infants can't or don't believe? Where does it say not to baptize infants?

Doesn't Matthew, v. 19 say "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." It doesn't say baptize those who are old enough to talk does it? What about those who grow old with the mental capacity of a two year old? Do we disobey God and not baptize them too?

The first post in this thread asked "How come we baptist believe that infant baptism should not be practised by Christian families?"

There still has not been a Scriptural answer to this.


[ June 21, 2001: Message edited by: Sir Ed ]

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]

[Dajuid]

And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Acts 8:36-38

I think this pretty much says it all. I read the verses while I wrote them and they seemed pretty straightforward. If the eunuch didn't believe, he couldn't be baptized.

If this particular verse isn't clear enough, or you require further evidence, I suggest you read Acts 10:43-48 (Gentiles), Acts 16:14-15 (Lydia) and Acts 16:30-33 (Philippian Jailor).

Dave

[ June 21, 2001: Message edited by: Dajuid ]

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]

[Dr. Bob]

And if you look at the Great Commision, it says to "make disciples of all nations", then baptize (them, the disciples), then teach (them, the baptized disciples).

A logical inference is given. You cannot "disciple" a newborn. It takes volition and rational will to make a disciple. You cannot "teach" a newborn; again it is simply beyond the mental capability.

The commission was dealing with non-infants -- oh yeah, including the part of immersing.

One of my favorite quotations: "Infant baptism will **** more people to hell than any other false doctrine foisted upon the christian church."

Just wish Martin Luther had posted a 96th thesis on the door . . .

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]

[DocCas]

Scriptural baptism straight from the bible!

Matthew 3:6, the subjects were "confessing" - I.E. talking. Infants cannot confess/talk.

Matthew 3:8 John required evidence of conversion. Infants can give no such evidence.

Acts 8:36-38. The Ethiopian expressed his personal faith in Christ before he was baptized.

And on and on and on.

The NT order in baptism teacher only believers baptism.

Matthew 28:19. The great commission places baptism after evangelization.

John 4:1. The order is "made" (first) and "baptized" (second."

Acts 2:38. Repent first, the be baptized.

Acts 2:41. Received, baptized, added.

Acts 8:12. The Samaritans believed, and then were baptized.

Acts 8:13. Simon believed and then was baptized.

Galatians 3:26-27. Children of God by faith (verse 26) baptized (verse 27).

Now to deal with the argument from Matthew 18:1-6 where Jesus said "Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not." These children were old enough to be "called" - spoken to by Jesus. See Matthew 18:2.

They were old enough to believe. Verse 6.

Baptism is for believers only subsequent to their salvation by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Any other type of "baptism" is false.

smile.gif

[Kiffin]

Amen. Excellent post, Dr C! :cool:

[Don]

As for infants believing or not believing, please give us the verses that show where they can believe or not believe. See, the problem with the so-called support for infant baptism is that it arises from an argument of silence. As Dr. Cassidy pointed out, there is a whole bunch of verses pointing out that believers were baptized, and that they weren't infants. Those that support infant baptism tend to use the verses that say "and all their household" without recognizing that this phrase is too ambiguous. "All their household" could include infants--or it might not. It might include sheep--or it might not. It might include the household pets--or it might not. It cannot be conclusively stated that "all their household" meant that infants were also baptized.

Further Ed, your statement that only 1,000 years after baptizing infants did someone object is erroneous. I believe it was Tertullian, who is held up by the Lutherans as proving that infant baptism existed early, who was actually telling people that infant baptism was improper.

So Ed, if your premise is that we should baptize infants, then please scripturally prove it. Simply stating that we've been doing it for 2,000 years doesn't mean that it's right.

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]

[CorpseNoMore]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TJAcorn:
How come we baptist believe that infant baptism should not be practised by Christian families? Doesn't God still have a covenant with us to bless our children? Trevor <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Trevor there were many good pieces in the answers, and some not so good. The argument for Infant Baptism is theological, though not necessarily biblical. Someone brought up the point that the same situation applies with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, and in a sense that is true, since one cannot simply "chapter-n-verse" the Trinity the way one does many doctrines.

Nevertheless, the doctrine of the Trinity is strongly (nay over-whelmingly) inferential. In this spirit, I submit that not only is there no express commands to baptize infants in the bible, AND no example of an infant ever being baptized, but also just as important, there is an appalling lack of inferences to suggest the validity of the doctrine or practice.

Moreover, baptizing infants is a NEW practice. We are then asked to institute a BRAND NEW practice without biblical warrant to do so. I ask you, what other uniquely New Testament practice finds it's sole justification in an Old Testament theological inference? That is a hermeneutical nightmare!

The argument is "as infants were once circumcised under the old covenant, so they should be baptized under the new." This argument can sound logical on the face of it if we grant that baptism is the new covenant sign, AND I DO GRANT THAT.

However, what paedobaptists of all stripes do not recognize(for whatever reason) is the primary fundamental discontinuity between the old covenant and the new. Which is this.

The old covenant was primarily: outward, physical, national/ethnic, and typical. The new covenant is primarily: inward, spiritual, universal and real.

Now you say, "didn't you just ADMIT that baptism is the new covenant sign?" Why... yes, yes I did. However the question that is yet not expressed is this...

WHEN & HOW does one enter the new covenant, and is that different than the old?

In the Old covenant with its physical/ethnic locus one entered that covenant at the time of physical birth, to covenant parents, through a fleshly gate. One received the fleshly sign, which signified the perpetuity of the physical/ethnic covenant through the progenitors of the covenant race.

Conversely, the new covenant has nothing at all to do with our parentage.(John 1:13) But rather the new covenant finds it's fulfillment in the NEW birth, the Spiritual birth.(John 3:3-8) So YES... yes, baptism corresponds to circumcision, but NOT in every way. Circumcision is a typical sign, one that shows the promise, baptism is a sign of fulfillment in the new birth wrought by the Holy Ghost!

If an infant shows the evidence of regeneration(such as John the Baptist, ironically) they could then theoretically be baptized. As a practical matter, how would the Church, who has the authority of Christ to baptize, recognize such regenerations? Such regenerations if they occur(other than John) are in the secret counsel of the Holy and are witnessed in time by the Church with the same discernment all other regenerations are witnessed by... a credible profession of faith and evidence of a transformed life.

[Sir Ed]

All we know from the scriptures is:
1. We are to baptize all.
2. We are only to baptize adults that believe and have repented.

Yeah, I see how that means you don't baptize infants, young children, or mentally incompetent adults.

Matthew, v. 19 say "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." As for the Dr's argument that you cannot teach a newborn, you aren't serious are you?

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]

[rlvaughn]

Sir Ed, "All we know from the scriptures is:
1. We are to baptize all..."

TWO QUESTIONS
1. ALL of whom?
2. What scriptures?

You have made no attempt to show anything you have said to be Biblically true; but tackle the two questions above and tell us about what you are talking.

[rlvaughn]

Previous posts have established that baptizing believers is founded on command, precept and example.

Those who disagree (and have any arguments) usually base their arguments on the Old Covenant and circumcision. Baptism becomes the sign in replacement of circumcision, and since babies were circumcized, babies should be baptized. How did circumcision become the sign of the Covenant? By the command of God! How did Abraham (and later Israel) know who should be circumcized? God laid down the law of circumcision, which includes the specifics of whom and when, etc.! If baptism replaces circumcision, how do you know that? By the command of God! So look to the command of God to know the whom and when, etc. of baptism - Matthew 28:18-20, "..All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth; Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." The first use of the word teach (v.19) means to make disciples. Those who have been made disciples are to be baptized. John 4:1,2 "Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John." Infants were never made disciples. Infants were never baptized. Baptizing infants is based almost wholely on the mistake that whoever was "signed" under the Old Covenant is "signed" under the New. If this foundation be removed, what shall the paedobaptist do?

[Sir Ed]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The first use of the word teach (v.19) means to make disciples. Those who have been made disciples are to be baptized. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thats a pretty big jump you make from your first sentence to the your second.

As for you question above RL, the most obvious answer is in Matthew.

[Don]

Ed, "We're supposed to baptize all" is all you can come up with?

I've been "discussing" the issue of tongues with a Oneness Pentecostal; all he can keep falling back on for support of his beliefs is 1 Cor 13:1. I humbly submit to you that if all you can keep falling back on is one verse, then you have a one-verse theology going, and that's not doctrinally correct.

However, I give you full credit, and I mean this in all seriousness, for the courage of your convictions. However, when faced with overwhelming scriptural support to the opposite of those convictions, one MUST re-evaluate those convictions. I had to do it with "decision theology"; I humbly and with a meek spirit ask you to consider the same regarding infant baptism.

[rlvaughn]

No big jump, just simple English (understanding to whom the pronoun refers) - "Baptizing them" Who is them? The them who have been taught or made disciples.

AND, if the most obvious answer is, as you say, in Matthew, it shouldn't be that hard for you to tell us what you mean. Although Matthew is a big book of 28 chapters. tongue.gif You see, you actually give no answers, just some kind of general statement that can't be contradicted nor discussed. Come out of the comfort zone and get in the debate! :eek:

[ June 25, 2001: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

[Sir Ed]

Ok, here we go. Peter explained, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38 ). Baptism is a gift of the Holy Spirit, it is not a "public confession of faith."

Furthermore, he didn't restrict this to adults. "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. We must be baptized, we must believe, we must repent. There is no rule on the order.

No one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). Aren't we all (infant, child, adult, and imbecile) capable of having a right to his kingdom? Jesus asserted such a right even for children: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14).

Most of you, of course, will not admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults. You have just concluded that's what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text doesn't explicitly support such a view. Of course, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture (and there aren't many who are individually identified) are adults because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just starting out and there were no "cradle Christians," no people brought up from childhood in Christian homes.

Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when there were beginning to be children raised in Christian homes, there never--not even once--is an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ." Children of Christian homes are already Christians; they have already been "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule among early Christians, then surely there should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.

Just as you attempt to point to the lack of a specific reference to an infant baptism in the Scriptures, I too can point to a lack of an example of this Baptist practice.
Lydia was converted by Paul's preaching. "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).
In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailor and his wife, then it would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but it doesn't. His children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture. Nowhere does the Scripture say "everyone in the family of the age of reason."

It's true that Christ prescribed instruction and actual faith for adult converts (Matt. 28:19-20), but baptism (John 3:5) puts no restriction on the subjects of baptism. The same was true of circumcision; faith in the Lord was necessary for an adult convert to receive it, but it was not necessary for the children of believers.

Although the Bible does not explicitly state that infants are to be baptized (unless Acts 2:38 says so), it certainly implies it, which was the position of the earliest Christian practice and writings we have and there is no good reason to abandon it.

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]

[CorpseNoMore]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sir Ed:
Although the Bible does not explicitly state that infants are to be baptized (unless Acts 2:38 says so), it certainly implies it...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really... please see my post on page 3 of this thread.

[Sir Ed]

Your post on page three mainly deals with the baptism/circumcision argument.

Baptizing infants is not a NEW practice. The sole justification for baptism is not in an Old Testament theological inference to circumcision. Please see my post above.

Baptism is so much more than a sign of the New Covenant.

Despite the belief, ironically, of Baptists, Baptism IS primarily inward, spiritual, universal and real. Baptism is a means for God's spirtual, inward, universal and real work in us.


[ June 22, 2001: Message edited by: Sir Ed ]

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]

[Squire Robertsson]

Anyone here know which articles in the First (1644) and Second (1689) London Confessions and the Philadelphia (1742) Confession address baptism?

[DocCas]

First London confession: Article 39
Second London confession: Chapter 29
Philidelphia confession: Chapter 30

smile.gif

[Squire Robertsson]

Thank you Dr. Cassidy. I would refer those who presume that our Baptist Distinctive of Believer's Immersion is some kind of piece of foggy dispensationalist logic to the Confessions and articles just refered to.

Please, note from the dates. All of these Confessions were formulated long before the dispensationalist school of interpertation was systematized and formalized in the early 1800s. In 1644 and 1689, the men writting these confessions would be of the Calivinist/Covenant school of thought.

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]

[Don]

Ed, "households" was addressed and answered.

You are aware, of course, that "household" included servants and/or slaves?

In which case, who's to say that the jailer's "household" didn't include just he, his wife, and their servant? Or both their servants? And their servants' wives?

See, the "argument from silence" here is that we're just not sure who was in the household.

Lydia? How old was she? Was she 20, with a bouncing baby boy? Or was she 30, with a 10 year old girl and a pair of infant boy twins? Or perhaps she was fourty or fifty, and her "household" consisted only of her five male boy-toy servants?

So I could just as easily argue that "whole household" meant that even the slaves were baptized--except that I don't know if the jailer had any slaves. I could just as easily argue that "whole household" meant even the servants were baptized--except that I don't know if Lydia had any servants.

The "argument of silence" used by the RCC and the Lutherans requires an assumption, and bases a statement of fact on that assumption. Which, even to my puny, uneducated, illogical mind, is an erroneous beginning.

If you really want definitive answers, you have to turn to additional writings, such as Tertullian--which I mentioned before--or this one: About the year 68: "It is stated that in the time of Nero, two daughters of Valentinian, a Christian at Aquileia, who had been brought up by their father in the Christian faith and the fear of God, were instructed by the priest or teacher Hermagoras, and baptized at a running water." See De gantsch klare en grondige bewijsinge van den Doop, printed A.D.[15]81. (Courtesy of Martyr's Mirror, Thieleman J. van Braght)

So there's a story about children raised in a Christian home, who were later instructed and then baptized.

Just something for you to chew on, Ed.

[CorpseNoMore]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sir Ed:
Baptizing infants is not a NEW practice.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not a new practice TODAY, no. But baptism, in general, is a new practice in the New Testament,(Old Testament ceremonial washings notwithstanding) because circumcision was the covenantal sign in the old. Jesus instituted the rite that we Christians call baptism. The question is how can someone build a credible hermeneutical case for a UNIQUELY New Testament practice, based primarily on an Old Testament theological extrapolation.

cordially,

CNM

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]

[Pastor Larry]

An interesting historical sidenote -- John Smyth in 1609-11 argued against the paedobaptism of the separatist churches of England by arguing that believer's baptism was different than OT circumcision. This predates the formalized confessions mentioned above. Smyth founded the general baptists prior to his conversion to the Mennonites. However, when he argued for infant baptism, he was most likely still a calvinist in his doctrine.

These quotes are from Whitley's two volume compilation of the writings of John Smyth. The Scripture that he argues from is not included in these quotes.

The true constitution of the Chu. is of a new creature baptized into the Father, the Sonne, & the holy Ghost: The false constitution is of infants baptized: we professe therfor that al those Churches that baptize infants are of the same false constitution: & al those Chu. that baptize the new creature, those that are made Disciples by teaching, men confessing their faith & their sinnes, are of one true constitution. (2:165)

circumcision was a seale of the promises of the old Testament to the carnal seed, & that the Spirit is the seale of the promises of the new Testament to the faithful seed of Abraha[m], therfor neither doth baptisme of water succeed circumcision, neither doth baptisme with water seale vp any promises to the Faithfull, but onely doth visibly declare what promises they already are partakers of, viz: of the Spirit of promise (2:586-87).

Christ commaundeth to baptise only those that are by teaching made Disciples … therefore infants are by expresse prohibition excluded … so Christ expressly excludeth infants. … I deny that infants are capable of baptisme, for they cannot confesse their faith & their sinnes, neither declare that they are baptized inwardly with the Spirit, & so cannot outwardly by the baptisme with water declare the same, but are in every respect vnable therto, & vncapable thereof. (2:586-87).

Historian Winthrop Hudson says that the real issue is why Protestantism as a whole rejected believers baptism (The Chronicle, Oct 1953, 174).

The early John Smyth (who most consider the founder of the English General Baptists) was a calvinist. His split from the separatist churches in 1609-10 was over infant baptism after a lengthy exchange with a man named Chilton. He later gave up his calvinism when he became a Mennonite after being disciplined from the Baptist church he had started for departing from his own earlier beliefs. Thomas Helwys, his follower, led the move to discipline him for his doctrine and lead the church back to England.

[CorpseNoMore]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sir Ed:
Ok, here we go. Peter explained, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38 ). Baptism is a gift of the Holy Spirit, it is not a "public confession of faith." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sir Ed... you have a few things jumbled around here. First off, the "gift" being talked about in this passage is the Holy Spirit Himself. Second, repentance is the activating principle by which everything takes place. Baptism is in the picture as two things, a public testimony to the genuineness of the repentance, and an act of personal obedience (or worship)to God, in other words a fruit of repentance.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sir Ed:
Furthermore, he didn't restrict this to adults. "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes... he is telling us that the Holy Spirit is coming in MORE than a one-time visitation as He had done intermittently in the Old Testament. The point is the promised New Covenant(Jer. 31:31-34), and spiritual kingdom which John the Baptist & Jesus proclaimed is unfolding(Matt. 3:2, Mark 1:14-15, Luke 1:33, etc.) and that kingdom is without end.

The qualifying phrase here is "as many
as the LORD our God shall call." That is HOW one enters the covenant, by the CALL of the Lord and the proper response of repentance.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sir Ed:
We must be baptized, we must believe, we must repent. There is no rule on the order. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is a logical(theological) order in that one does not enter the NEW Covenant, until the spiritual quickening(Eph. 2:1). The Old Covenant was entered through the birth-canal as a symbol of it's racial/ethnic locus in the nation of Israel. The NEW Covenant, however, has a spiritual gate. Without the sovereign quickening of the Holy Spirit(2 Cor. 5:17) all of these activities: baptism, belief, repentance are simply... wholly human works and are of no avail(John 6:44, Hebrews 12:16-17.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sir Ed:
No one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). Aren't we all (infant, child, adult, and imbecile) capable of having a right to his kingdom?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No... only, "as many as the LORD our God shall call."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sir Ed:
Jesus asserted such a right even for children: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, no... that's not what is being taught here. It is an illustration of what our posture and relationship is toward God as our Father, and consequently our proper response to Him. As was previously illustrated in Matthew...

Matt. 18:1-4
1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sir Ed:
Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when there were beginning to be children raised in Christian homes, there never--not even once--is an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ." Children of Christian homes are already Christians; they have already been "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule among early Christians, then surely there should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your own example condemns you because there is also "not once" an incident of infant baptism cited. The fact is that all of the New Testament books were written after the mid 40s A.D., at least. Which is ample time for incidents of infant baptisms to occur, and make it into the text, if the practice were that common, but either way that is not of primary importance because of the theological flaw of the practice.

Moreover, if infant baptisms "were the rule," as you say, then the most illustrative opportune time to demonstrate it's importance would be in the very encounters(that we've both cited) with: Jesus, the Disciples, and "the children," especially given the fact that Jesus and the Disciples were routinely baptizing, (John 4:1-2.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sir Ed:
Just as you attempt to point to the lack of a specific reference to an infant baptism in the Scriptures, I too can point to a lack of an example of this Baptist practice.
Lydia was converted by Paul's preaching. "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A quote by the late professor Jewett is instructive in the case of Lydia...

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>"Nothing in the passage implies that Lydia was a married woman with nursing children, for she traveled some 300 miles from her native city and felt the liberty, as head of the house, to invite men into her home. Since Luke speaks of her household being baptized, and of the importunity with which she constrained the apostles to abide in her house, no mention being made of her husband, the most likely hypothesis is that she had no husband. In any event, there must have been other adults in her household - domestics, friends, business associates - who were led by her example to confess their faith with her in baptism."
[/list]


cordially,

CNM

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]

[MagicDar]

Basically, infant baptism is dedication of the child to Jesus. We believe that baptism is a sign of a believer as commanded in scripture, but what we did with our son is had my grandad who is a retired nazzarine minister dedicate him to Jesus in front of friends and family, didn't baptise him though especially since the dedication was held in Hoss's restaurant LOL

Dar

[Dajuid]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MagicDar:
Basically, infant baptism is dedication of the child to Jesus. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Infant baptism is a way for a parent and family to get a warm fuzzy feeling. Other than that, it does or shows nothing. Most Baptist churches that I am aware of do have a dedication ceremony, but it is simply the parents bringing the child up in front of the church and making a public statement.

[curley]

I've talked to a lot of people that had been baptized as a baby. They all seem to have a false assurance of salvation saying, "I've been baptized so I'm on my way to Heaven." About the only thing "good" about infant baptism (and this is temporary only) is that it seems to ease the parent's conscience, which is a big deception. Parents of some churches are compelled to have their babies baptized or the baby won't have a name in Heaven. My oldest daughter was baptized as a baby in the Catholic Church, then when she got saved as a young person, she was baptized in a Baptist Church. So I say "Keep 'em high and dry 'til they get saved and then immerse 'em!"

[Sir Ed]

Don: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It is stated that in the time of Nero, two daughters of Valentinian, a Christian at Aquileia, who had been brought up by their father in the Christian faith and the fear of God, were instructed by the priest or teacher Hermagoras, and baptized at a running water." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You assume a lot here. How do we know the daughters weren't adults? Perhaps the mother or the father's family was not Christian and refused to allow the child to be Baptized. Again, there never--not even once--is an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ." Children of Christian homes are already Christians; they have already been "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule among early Christians, then surely there should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.

Corpsenomore: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> We believe that "regeneration" occurs by the sovereign visitation of the Holy Spirit.(John 3:8, John 6:63, Acts 10:44, I Thess. 1:5-6, Hebrews 2:4) and not at the dispensation of a priestly class. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Agreed, it is a means of grace, but not to regeneration, only to a sanctifying blessing to the one who is already born-again(as is the Lord's Table.) Water baptism to the non-regenerate person is just an episode of getting wet, and a human work of spiritual delusion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Baptism is never a human work, it is a work of God.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Europe is awash in apostacy, and yet nearly every citizen has been baptized as an infant. If water baptism dispensed the Holy Spirit as Romanists, Lutherans and Anglicans teach it does there certainly should be an awful lot more vital churches there. Yet the entire continent has been all but swallowed up in the wake of the Enlightenment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you can give me some facts to back this up, I'd be more than happy to respond. Again, Baptism doesn't force anyone to be a good Christian (I'm sure many can agree with this, examples abound of the young man who "got saved" in a Baptist Church and by the next week was acting very "European"). smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The qualifying phrase here is "as many as the LORD our God shall call." That is HOW one enters the covenant, by the CALL of the Lord and the proper response of repentance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

God doesn't wait until you are 7 years old to call you.

Dajuid: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Infant baptism is a way for a parent and family to get a warm fuzzy feeling. Other than that, it does or shows nothing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That begs the question now doesn't it?

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]

[Don]

Ah, Ed. Your argument lacks merit, and methinks you know it.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You assume a lot here. How do we know the daughters weren't adults? Perhaps the mother or the father's family was not Christian and refused to allow the child to be Baptized. Again, there never--not even once--is an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ." Children of Christian homes are already Christians; they have already been "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule among early Christians, then surely there should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your original premise was exactly what you reiterated here: 'Children of Christian parents joining the church after they had come to the age of reason.' I capitulate that we have no evidence of this in the Bible; just as we have no evidence to the contrary. I provided you a quotation that you could feel free to look up and investigate for yourself.

Instead, you make the same mistake that you make with supporting infant baptism: Assumption. I make no assumptions about the fact that the Bible says "entire household"; instead, I take those words at face value and acknowledge that it's not clearly explained what "entire household" consists of for each of the times it's referenced.

The same goes with the reference I gave you: I make no assumptions. The reference simply says the two girls were raised in a Christian home, so automatically your statement ("there never--not even once--is an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a 'decision for Christ.'") is invalid, and you presume to use circular logic in order to prove your point (i.e., we don't know if "entire household" included infants or not, so you'll use the ambiguity to prove your point; but the passage I provided doesn't mention whether the girls are young or adults, so you'll use the ambiguity to disprove my point. I figure I have just as much right to use ambiguity to prove a point as you do, and I think it intellectually dishonest of you to apply your rules only to yourself).

(Besides which, you have a second erroneous assumption: "Decisions" for Christ. No one can make a decision for Christ; they can only accept the fact that there's absolutely nothing they can do for salvation, including "making a decision")

Now, Ed, think wisely before you respond with "this isn't a biblical reference"; because if you do, I'll just have to throw out that Luther's writings aren't biblical references, either.

[ June 25, 2001: Message edited by: Don ]

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]

[Sir Ed]

Don, that is exactly the point I was attempting to make (although obviously not very clearly).

Just as their is no example of infant Baptism in the Bible, there is no example of children who have reached the "age of accountability" being Baptized.

If we are only to look to specific examples of people who were Baptized, we would be left with what appear to be adults; ie: the age of majority.

[Don]

So, Ed, make yourself clear: Are we to assume that we should baptize infants?

Where exactly do you stand on this issue?

[Sir Ed]

Like the Good Book says, we are to Baptize all.

[rlvaughn]

Sir Ed, we are to baptize all...

ALL of whom? The totality of the human race? All adults? All adults who are born again? All adults and infants identified as Christians? All who want to be baptized?

I asked you this once before but you avoided it, saying only that the obvious answer was in Matthew. That's no answer. Come on and say what you mean.

[Dajuid]

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mark 16:15

Since we are told to preach to every creature, then logically, we must also baptize creatures. So, not only have we erred in not baptizing infants, but we've also erred in not baptizing ALL creatures.
:eek:

[ June 26, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]

[Don]

Okay, Ed; I see we're back to one-verse theology again.

I see that you're going to use the argument of silence to support your position, while also using it to detract from others' position.

Ya know, that's also known as a "double standard," and could also fit into the category of "double minded men...."

Feel free to answer Pastor Vaughn. But I have a distinct impression that you...can't. Or that you'll simply fall back onto "baptize all."

[Squire Robertsson]

My dear Sir Edward: When are you going to reply to my contention the Believer's Immersion is an historic Baptist distinctive? And if so why should we Baptist deal treat it as an a priori element?

At this point, I usually give this illustration <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>All the Irish pubs in San Francisco are Nationalist in their sympathies. Most I assume have a NORAid collection jar on the bar. Now these establishments are normally more than happy to serve all who enter. However, if a person were to enter the Abbey Tavern wearing a RUC rugby shirt, singing some kick the pope song, well, you can be assured that person would be none to welcome and be not so gently shown the door. If on the other hand, this lonesome beer loving Ulsterman had come in quietly wearing a 49ers sweat shirt. Well, he'd be welcome as long as he could pay for his drinks<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
For a seemingly well educated gentleman, Sir Edward, I fear you really don't know the history of the issues at hand.
I am, Sir Edward, y'r humble serv't in Christ,
Robertsson

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]

[Sir Ed]

Don, that is exactly my point. Other than the universal command to baptize all, the Scriptures are silent on whether or not the Baptism of infants is ok, just as it is silent as to whether or not the Baptism of seven year olds is ok.

There is no evidence against infant baptism; so that our choice is to follow what generations of Christians before us have believed based upon a rational understanding of Scripture and baptize infants or to reconstruct by a priori methods a history for which we have no evidence; ie: the Baptism of 7 year olds.

[rlvaughn]

The command of our Lord to baptize those who are made disciples ought to be ample evidence of whom we should baptize and sufficient authority for us to do so. The ALL of Matthew 28 is not all indiscriminately, but rather all of a certain class of people.

[Sir Ed]

Vaughn, a critical reading of Matthew (in context) makes it pretty clear that isn't what it says.

[rlvaughn]

Then show us what it says!! Tell us what you mean. Is it not ALL of a certain class of people, but rather ALL regardless of who they are?? A little explanation, please. The context is the aftermath of Jesus' resurrection. He is about to ascend back into heaven. He is leaving His church with a command to go forth. They are to go and teach (make disciples of) all the peoples of the world (cf. Acts 1:8). Those who are made disciples are to be baptized (baptizing them...). Those baptized disciples are to be taught all the commands of the Lord (teaching them...). I think this is the third time I have brought this up and you have made no rebuttal other than some general statement about Matthew that cannot be investigated nor discussed because it is too generic.

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

[Sir Ed]

Vaughn, it would help if you would read the entire thread, but I will say this again.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It says to teach all nations, to baptize them. There is no qualification. I understand where you are coming from though. You want to rewrite the verse to read " . . . teach all nations, THEN baptize them in the name . . ." in order to fit your doctrine.

However, it doesn't say that.

[rlvaughn]

Sir, I have read the entire thread as it has progressed, and have gone back and read your posts again. But, as in the last post for example, your answer is no answer, "It says to teach all nations, to baptize them. There is no qualification." Baptizing THEM is the qualification. NOT JUST EVERYBODY - THEM! If we identify who 'them' is, we will know who is to be baptized. I have stated who I believe them is - those who have been made disciples (cf. John 4:1). What you have said, taken at face value, would mean to baptize every single individual of every single nation - infants, disciples, and unbelievers! That's not what you mean, is it?? What do you mean??

[Sir Ed]

Ok, we are almost there.

Just looking at the language of Matthew 28 we know that we are to baptize "every single individual of every single nation - infants, disciples, and unbelievers!"

However, the Bible does go on to qualify that as it applies to adults by giving examples of adults who have been baptized. THEY must be believers.

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: Sir Ed ]

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Quick question,

What if somebody from say an Islamic country does not want to be baptized in the name of the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit? Should we baptize them anyway and then teach them to obey allthings which Christ has commanded us? Or, should we go with free will and allow the person to choose whom he shall serve? If adults are able to choose, then why shouldn't infants be allowed to choose? Is it because they don't have the mental capacity to choose? Are we therefore forcing Jesus upon them? What if they grow up and decide they are atheist? Shouldn't they be allowed to choose that as well? Isn't one of the principles of the Catholic faith the doctrine of free will?

Joseph

[Sir Ed]

We choose every day of our lives if we wish to accept the gift of our baptism, God's Grace. Even if we aren't baptized, we still make that choice every day.

[rlvaughn]

Maybe we are just so far apart in our presuppositions that we just can't understand one another; but from where I am, Sir, it looks like you're just playing games. You want Matthew 28 to mean EVERYONE is qualified to be baptized; then you will go somewhere else and disqualify all those that you have just qualified, except for those you do not want to be disqualified. Then you must requalify those that you have disqualified that you want to be qualified. That is contradiction, Sir.

[Sir Ed]

No, its qualification of a general rule. For example, the law generally says killing is wrong. It qualifies that by saying that killing is ok if it is in self-defense. As another example: All American citizens may vote, however American citizens who have been convicted of a felony must receive a pardon to be eligible to vote.

All are to be baptized, however all who are adults must first believe to be baptized.

I know you don't want to admit it, but thats what the Bible says just looking strictly at the words there.

BTW: Why don't you answer my post above instead of just making some statement that I'm "contradicting" myself. Show me how I'm wrong in reading the words of the Lord in Matthew and believing them and then putting then comparing them to other verses that deal with baptism.

Feel free to skip the verses dealing with families, that has been dealt with in detail. What is the difference between Jesus in Matthew and in other stories of baptisms? In each of those "individual" stories of baptisms, an adult is being baptized. Those adults are (as best we can tell) all required to be believers before Baptism.

So we see that generally Baptism is for everyone, but since an adult has the ability to believe or not (as opposed to the child or mental incompetent), an additional requirement exists for the adult.

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: Sir Ed ]

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Ed,

Do you equate baptizing infants with assuring their salvation? If so, then you are forcing salvation upon them without free will, aren't you?

Joseph

[Sir Ed]

Joseph (great name btw; that is what we hope to name our unborn son in a couple of months!),

No. Baptism in no way assures Salvation.

[rlvaughn]

The BIGGEST (not the only, just the biggest) is that the sentence of Matthew 28:18-20 just doesn't say what you want it to say.

It says, "You go [imperative] and teach (matheteuo, make disciples of, cf. Mt. 13:52; 27:57; Acts 14:21) all nations (ethnos, not the corporate political entity, but the people of it), baptizing [present active participle, while in the process of going] them (antecedent is those made disciples of all nations, not all nations)in the name of...teaching (another present active participle, while in the process of going; Gk. didasko) them (antecedent is those made disciples and baptized) to (not 'how to', but 'to') observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you..."

No, the word 'then' is not there, but if you baptize those who have been made disciples, you will be baptizing AFTER they have been made disciples - just as Jesus did (He made AND baptized more disciples than John, a two-fold process).

A second problem is that to define the relation of discipling and baptism as you have to uphold your doctrine, creates a contradiction in your practice in the last part of the commission - teaching them to observe. In fact, infant sprinkling churches do not teach their children to observe ALL things Christ commanded (for example, communion), but rather teach them to refrain until they are, how do you say it? - confirmed.

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Ed,

If it doesn't assure salvation, then why do catholics baptize infants?

Joseph

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Is it because the Catholic faith beleives in baptismal regeneration?

Joseph

[Joseph_Botwinick]

The Council of Trent (1545-63) stated that while Christ "merited for us justification by His most holy passion...the instrumental cause [of justification/regeneration] is the sacrament of baptism....If anyone says that baptism is...not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema."1 Vatican II (1962-65) reconfirms all of Trent2 and reiterates the necessity of baptism for salvation,3 as does the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church released by the Vatican in 1993: "Baptism is necessary for salvation...the Church does not know of any [other] means...that assures entry into eternal beatitude...." 4

[Sir Ed]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> them (antecedent is those made disciples of all nations, not all nations) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is an assumption on your part. However, it would be interesting to get a Greek linguist to talk with us about this.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> A second problem is that to define the relation of discipling and baptism as you have to uphold your doctrine, creates a contradiction in your practice in the last part of the commission - teaching them to observe. In fact, infant sprinkling churches do not teach their children to observe ALL things Christ commanded (for example, communion), but rather teach them to refrain until they are, how do you say it? - confirmed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Vaughn, you are wrong about this, but I am short on time at the moment so I will have to get back to you. This may be a good topic to start a new thread on though.

J, I'm not Catholic, so I really can't say.

[ June 30, 2001: Message edited by: Sir Ed ]

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Ed,

Well then, what do you beleive is the purpose of infant baptism? Is it something to do to make the parents feel all tingly inside or is it as the Catholics say for salvation regeneration?

Joseph

[ June 30, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Ed,

Is salvation through Christ alone? Or is it through Christ and baptism and good works for the adult and baptism and good works for the infant?

Joseph

[CatholicConvert]

Brother Joseph -- To sum it up, yes, Christ ALONE is the only Savior because only He, the perfect and righteous "Last Adam" could redeem the broken covenant with God which Adam destroyed by his sin. Anyone who refuses to acknowledge this and attempts to make his own covenant is denying the work of Christ and trying to cut his own covenant. It won't work.

A picture of this would be the Indian who every year goes to Ganges River and "baptizes" himself for the remission of his sins. That is trying to make one's own covenant with God. That is doomed to failure.

But to be "saved" from the condemnation we have by being in Adam an in the condemnation of unity with him in the curse of that broken first covenant, we must enter into the New Covenant of Christ, made between Christ and God for all mankind. Baptism accomplishes this, so yes, baptizm saves. But as I explained above, being saved from that wrath only makes us family members, not eternal beings. That will be done at the Great Judgement when the faithful receive the inheritance.

Not all Catholics fully understand this, but that does not take away from its truth.

Hope this has given you a different perspective to consider. Everything I look at, I do so through the lens of the covenant of God and the covenantal family to see if it fits.

Brother Ed

[ July 01, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]

[Joseph_Botwinick]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JBotwinick:
Ed,

If it doesn't assure salvation, then why do catholics baptize infants?

Joseph<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

CatholicConvert,

So the answer to this question is because Catholics do believe in Baptismal regeneration, correct? Please just yes or no.

Joseph

[Joseph_Botwinick]

CatholicConvert,

Your mistake is by saying that it takes more than faith alone in Christ to save a person. Baptists believe that salvation is through Christ alone and that salvation regenerates the person's life and bears spiritual fruit therefore leading to good works (James 2:14-18, 1 John 1:5-7, 1 John 2:3-6, 1 John 2:15-17, 1 John 4:1-6, 1 John 5:1-5).

Joseph

[Joseph_Botwinick]

One last question:

Do Catholics not believe in free will to chose or not to chose salvation?

Joseph

[CatholicConvert]

Brother Joseph --

I must say I find it rather unsporting to take my post and delete it down to a smaller size. In doing so, much of my point was simply lost.

Yes, the Church has always understood baptism as regenerative. Read the Early Fathers. We baptize infants because it "saves" them from the condemnation of being found in Adam (Rom. 5:12). As I answered in my longer post, it does not guarentee eternal life. That is a non-Catholic concept.

Our salvation does not come from "knowing about Christ" (having "right doctrine") but by being "in Christ." It is our union with Christ which saves us, and, if we continue faithful in that relationship, leads us to eternal life. Right doctrine is merely a result of our submission to the mind of Christ. The closer we come to Him, the more Catholic we become. :D

Brother Ed

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Ed,

Thank you for that answer. Now, do Catholics believe in free will? Yes or no.

Joseph

[CatholicConvert]

Brother Joseph --

Regarding freewill, the short answer is yes, however, there is a proviso to this:

The Catholic Catechism recognizes that the Fall so damaged the image of God in man that unless God calls to man, man will not seek God of his own initiative (John 6: 65). I was quite surprised to find this in the catechism.

The proviso is that unlike the double predestination idea of Calvinism, we believe that the Father, in deepest love for all his sons and daughters, calls to them repeatedly and through many various ways, such as the call of the witness of God's handiwork in creation as found in Romans 1. Unlike the monster god of Calvinism, our Father has sent Christ to redeem the whole world to Himself, placing mankind in the position which it would have been had there been no Fall, i.e., each man responsible to seek the Father, obey Him, and grow in the righteousness of faith in God. In order to do this, man's will must be unshackled.

The Calvinist idea of man having no free will makes the call of God to men to repent look quite foolish:

De 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live

Why would God to make such a command and call men to choose if none of these people were the "elect" and were therefore unable to respond to God at all because of lacking free will.

My brother Joseph, I think we will find that God's mercy is more amazing than we can even begin to imagine.

Brother Ed

[ July 02, 2001: Message edited by: CatholicConvert ]

[Sir Ed]

The official ELCA position is that infants and children may be communed for the first time during the service at which they are baptized. They may begin to commune regularly at a time determined by conversations including the child, parents, pastor and sponsors. Ordinarily this will occur only when children can eat and drink. The only ground we have for communion admission is baptism into Christ. The Lutheran position is to emphasize, on one side, that the sacrament is always offered to faith, and on the other, that the sacrament is total gift.

However, I am a bit unsure of this myself and am still studying the issue. It appears that there is a clear requirement of self-examination and remembrance of Christ required for admission to the Lord's Table.

11:28

But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

Still, I can think of no time when a child should be forced to wait until confirmation to share in the Lord's Supper.

[rlvaughn]

Sir Ed: "This is an assumption on your part. However, it would be interesting to get a Greek linguist to talk with us about this."
I surrender! I give up! I raise the white flag! Your accusation of my assuming and your threat to get a Greek linguist so utterly terrifies me that I repent in sackcloth and ashes! tongue.gif NOT!

Seriously, I suspect we could find Greek scholars who would give opposite opinions on this just as we have. But I think you will probably agree that there are only two possible antecedents for 'them' - either all nations or those discipled of all nations. Now with the next subject, communion, we will see that only one antecedent is not contradictory.

Sir Ed: "The official ELCA position is that infants and children may be communed for the first time during the service at which they are baptized. They may begin to commune regularly at a time determined by conversations including the child, parents, pastor and sponsors. Ordinarily this will occur only when children can eat and drink. The only ground we have for communion admission is baptism into Christ...However, I am a bit unsure of this myself and am still studying the issue. It appears that there is a clear requirement of self-examination and remembrance of Christ required for admission to the Lord's Table." This is, as you state, the position of the ELCA. Unless I am seriously mistaken, many paedobaptist churches do not give communion until confirmation. Be that as it may, it is still a fact that neither you nor they can teach infants TO OBSERVE (not about, but to observe) all things that Christ has commanded, including communion. I see no way that paedobaptists can accomplish a consistent infant communion practice - they will either break Matthew 28:20 (not teach them to observe) or I Corinthians 11:28 (ignore self-examination).

[CatholicConvert]

Sir Ed --

Paedocommunion is the position of the Orthodox Church also, and until about 100 years ago, was also the Roman rite position. Only recently did they start with holding Christ from the children, which seems odd in that Jesus said to suffer the children to come unto Him.

When I left the PCA three years ago there was a raging controversy over this very thing. A group of pastors were making considerable noise in favor of communing the children, but the General Assembly was not budging, stating that it "is not our tradition".

Very humorous, coming from those who accuse the Catholics of putting tradition over Scripture.

[Sir Ed]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Seriously, I suspect we could find Greek scholars who would give opposite opinions on this just as we have. But I think you will probably agree that there are only two possible antecedents for 'them' - either all nations or those discipled of all nations. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No doubt, those are the only two possible.

As for observing all things that Christ has commanded, my children will be taught that from day one. I find it frightening that you wouldn't teach your children to observe all things Christ has commanded.

[rlvaughn]

"I find it frightening that you wouldn't teach your children to observe all things Christ has commanded."

Ed, you either misunderstand or misrepresent what I say. As you know, Baptists begin as early as possible teaching their children about God and the Bible. But we do not teach them, for example, TO OBSERVE the Lord's supper. They can be taught about it, the meaning of it, etc. Matthew's record says to teach the discipled and baptized ones 'TO OBSERVE all things whatsoever I have commanded you'. This means to actually DO them, not just be taught about them. In fact, you cannot teach a nursing infant (day one) TO OBSERVE ALL THINGS that Jesus has commanded. They have to grow up a few years in order that we may even begin to teach them about those things. To argue otherwise would indicate a blindness brought on by your views on the covenant and infant baptism. Even the ECLA's attempt to soften this objection to infant baptism by modifying infant communion still says, "They may begin to commune regularly at a time determined by conversations including the child, PARENTS, PASTOR and SPONSORS (Caps mine)." And what is this - "infants...may be communed for the first time during the service at which they are baptized." What do you do, put the wine in a nippled bottle and shove the wafer down their throat? :confused:

[Sir Ed]

Traditionally, a dab of wine may be placed on the child's tongue. I believe it would be physically impossible for an infant to partake of the bread.

There are many things that Scripture tells us to do that may be physically or mentally impossible due to age, mental capacity, or health.

God does not withhold his Grace from us because we can't do works evidenced by examples from the Bible. Don't you agree?

As for your argument that <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In fact, you cannot teach a nursing infant (day one) TO OBSERVE ALL THINGS that Jesus has commanded. They have to grow up a few years in order that we may even begin to teach them about those things, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> we disagree.

I just bought a CD that contains hymns for children, my child will be taken for Baptism as soon as possible,he will be brought to the Lord's house regularly, and he will be brought to the Lord's table regularly too. I will begin teaching my child to observe all things that Christ has commanded immediately, for in my house we shall worship the Lord.

[rlvaughn]

Ed: "God does not withhold his Grace from us because we can't do works evidenced by examples from the Bible." Obviously, he does not, but your arguments for infant baptism seems to assume that in some way He does withhold grace from those who are not baptized, even those to young to know that they need to be. If a infant's parents do not have him baptized, does God withhold His grace?
As for your argument that

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, you cannot teach a nursing infant (day one) TO OBSERVE ALL THINGS that Jesus has commanded. They have to grow up a few years in order that we may even begin to teach them about those things,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

we disagree.
"I just bought a CD that contains hymns for children,..." So is he/she singing them yet? "...my child will be taken for Baptism as soon as possible,..." Yes, but you are observing it for him/her, not teaching him/her to observe it. "...he will be brought to the Lord's house regularly, and he will be brought to the Lord's table regularly too..." Yes, and again you are doing it for them.

[Sir Ed]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Obviously, he does not, but your arguments for infant baptism seems to assume that in some way He does withhold grace from those who are not baptized, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have never said that. In fact, your assumption is incorrect. Yes, baptism is a means of recieving God's Grace, but it is clearly not the only way.

As for this ridiculous argument on "teaching to observe," I give up. I will continue to teach by example and you can can continue to not.

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Therefore, are you saying that there are many ways to God?

Joseph

[Sir Ed]

No. smile.gif

[Joseph_Botwinick]

The what are you saying when you say that "baptism is a means of receiving God's grace"?

Joseph

[CorpseNoMore]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JBotwinick:
The what are you saying when you say that "baptism is a means of receiving God's grace"? Joseph<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whether Sir ED says it or not, Baptism to most theologies is a means of grace. The question is what is the nature of the grace conferred?

Roman, E.O., Lutheran, Anglican teach in one form or another that water baptism causes regeneration, thus making the infant capable of receiving and/or exercising saving faith.

Presbyterian & [Dutch] Reformed believe it is a sanctifying grace of some sort, a sign and seal of the covenant promise, thus is appropriate for infants, as was circumcision.

Many Baptists(and near-Baptists) believe that it is a public testimony of what the Holy Spirit hath wrought, thus similar to the memorial view regarding communion.

Additionally, some Baptists(myself included) have a view that is a little closer to the Presbyterian view meaning that Baptism is what the other Baptists say... plus... a sanctifying grace that brings a spiritual blessing, to the one who is already born again.

cordially,

CNM

[Sir Ed]

CNM, I was being sarcastic in response to JB's question. We all know Jesus is the only way to God the Father. BTW: The Lutheran view would actually encompass both of the first two "views" you listed.

The last view seems incompatible with Protestant doctrine in that Baptism is just a human work in that regard.

[CorpseNoMore]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sir Ed:
The last view seems incompatible with Protestant doctrine in that Baptism is just a human work in that regard.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Baptism like: praise, prayer, communion, Bible reading, witnessing, taking care of widows & orphans is an obedience to the command of Christ and thusly is an act of Holy worship unto the Lord. Like all those other things, it is of no benefit to the natural man.

cordially,

CNM

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Hello everyone,

I would like to thank everyone for their contributions on this thread. However, it is getting rather long and I think has pretty well run its course. Therefore, I am closing it tonight. If you would like to start a new thread in which you discuss some of the specific points made here in this thread, please feel free to do so. I will probably move this to the Best Threads forum because I am proud to say that this has been a great discussion.

Thank You,

Joseph
Moderator

[ July 12, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]