Infant baptism-baptism saves

What do you mean, BBob?

 

If your children are old enough to understand who Jesus is and what He did for them on Calvary and have placed their trust in Him, then they should be baptized.

If not, then baptism will only produce wet children.

 

SFIC,
I couldn't agree with you more. :thumbs:

 

What I mean is that even though we are "born again", we still commit sin and have to continually pray. The infant is without sin, for sin is not imputed where there is no law.

So, you have a sinner baptizing a non-sinner.
BBob,

 

Didn't sin pass to all because of Adam (Rom 5:12; Eph 2:3)?

 

Tell me something TC; Natural death passed unto all when Adam sin, does that mean you die as soon as you are born, or sometime in life you die?

Same with Original sin. It came from Adam unto the world of mankind the same as the natural death, but does not apply to each individual until they come to know God and glorify Him not as God.

Does that make sense??

BBob,

 

I believe that everyone is born as an object of God's wrath (Eph 2:3).

 

Sister Emily,
I first would like to say hi. You have a beautiful name (I have 2 daughters and guess what one of them is named????).

I was in your position also. Actually still am. A parent will do anything for their children, I applaud you for reaching out and find answers. When confronted with this situation, I also reached out. I found my answers in scripture and prayer, I will share with you (briefly) what was revealed to me, but scripture and prayer never fails. It prompted me to write an article (Kind of long) about it.

I must stress the importance of water baptism. It is extremely important. In studying the book of Acts, it appears at times that the apostles spent more time in the water than out - lol. They understood that there is an importance to water baptism.

Here are some of the reasons I have found for water baptism:
1. Believes with all their heart Jesus Christ is Savior
2. Receiving His (Christ) Word
3. Repentance of sins
4. Confessing their sins
5. The answer to a good conscience toward God
6. Christ did it to fulfill all righteousness

Do any of your children fall into any of these categories?

People that practice infant/child baptism usually have a reason for it. Here are some that I have been faced with and that you have mentioned.
1. It is equal to circumcision - If we try to say infant baptism is equal to cirumcission, we are making the same mistake the Pharisees made. We ignore grace and are trying to be justified by the law.
2. Removes original sin - I do not want to get into a theological debate with this here, but it doesn't work. Christ paid for it, so they are not guilty of it. Original sin came from Adam. The work of Christ did much more than the work Adam. Now, if one holds to the thought that children are guilty of original sin and/or held accountable for it, baptizing them won't remove it.

I do not want to write a book here, so I am being brief. I want you to know that I, as I am sure others, will be praying. Search it out in scripture and in prayer.

I do, however, believe that Twomontes said what I have witnessed time and time again.

This is not a decision to take lightly. Water baptism is extremely important, but Christ baptizes with fire and the Holy Ghost.
One more thing. Your friend said:

Think about that statement for a moment. It sounds as if your friend is telling you that you have the power to send your kids to heaven or condemn them to hell. This is a great opprotunity to inform your friend that no person has that power. Only Christ saves.

 

Does that really come in to play when there is no Law??

3: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Its not talking about little children here either.

Do you believe there must be a Law, for it to be sin??

BBob,

 

Sister Emily,
Again, I understand your concern. But the fact is, It is an individual case between me and God. It is the same with you, my children and yours.
But, lets look at the scriptures:

He is speaking to a group of people. He tells them to first REPENT. Then he tells THEM to be baptized.
The promise! The promise of the Holy Ghost is for their children and those who are afar off. They, who believe, will receive it. But first things first, Peter told them to repent.

Who is speaking and who is he talking to. This is Paul telling his story. This particular passage is what Ananias said to him (Paul). For clarification, read 22:11-16.

Key - (KJV) wherein ye are also risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God,
God already performed the operation. One is baptized because they have faith that God did perform the operation already.

I hope this helps!!!!

 

Mat 3:11I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire:

Before the Gentile race were brought in.

After the Gentile race were brought in.

Act 10:47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

The water baptism came first under John's baptism.

The Holy Ghost baptism comes first after the coming in of the Gentile. Also after the day of Penecost.

I will say this, I have know many and there are several that have testified on this board, that they were rebaptized after coming of age. I don't mean to offend in any way, it is just my belief. Let ever man examine himself.


BBob, IMO

 

Hmph, that funny. Only male children were circumcized. Where's that leave the girls?

Okay seriously now. Acts 2:38 is simply conveying the thought that salvation is offered to all. You, your children and those far off. Well your grandchildren and great grandchildren are far off. So are all the folks in China. Should we go over there and start baptizing Chinese citizens because "the promise is for .... all who are far off" and thats about as far away as one can get? Of course not. And here I was trying to be serious.

The other verses have nothing to do with baptizing babies and babies aren't even mentioned in the context of the passages.

Look, there is a simple way to stop all this. God is not the author of confusion. Paul says if someone comes to you offering a different gospel than Christ and Him crucified than that one is accursed. (read Galations 1). Now, since we know baptism itself does not convey salvation are you not then being offered another way by this practice of baptizing babies.

Can you see that if your parents had carried you down to the river and baptized you, but you never made the choice to "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ" that you wouldn't have been saved? How then can you believe for your children? You can't.

Now as terrifying as it is to imagine one of your children going to hell over some decision you made or didn't make, you are allowing yourself to be decieved. (so is your friend) You cannot make the choice unto salvation for your children if you had them baptized a hundred times. They must choose to believe for themselves.

Your responsibity is to raise them in the "nurture and admonition of the Lord". And there is not one example in the entirety of scripture of that including baptizing babies. Blessing babies yes, baptizing no.

And I agree, TCGreek's post is right on. It would hurt for you to print that out and read it a couple of times when the doubts start crawling in.

 

I wish I could speak with such ability to say what I do, but say it in a way that is much more humble than I know how to put in words.

Thanks,

BBob,

 

church history

Church history/tradition does not define doctrine. Keep in mind that Jesus spoke strongly against the Pharisees who taught doctrines of man.

I have ever faith that the Holy Spirit will guide you in this, Emily. Pray, ask God to give you understanding and read your Bible....He will convict you.

 

Emily, you shouldn't dismiss history, but it isn't as neat as you claim. Infant baptism did not become the dominant position among Christians until the early fifth century. The link between Christendom and infant baptism is pretty clear. That is not to say that infant baptism wasn't practiced before then, but adult baptism was still a popular practice in the first four centuries of the church.

Furthermore, the dominant view of infant baptism in Church history is that it eliminates original sin. The idea that circumcision is linked to baptism comes from Zwingli who used it as an argument against the Anabaptists. Thus, history can go both ways on this issue.

BJ

 

Circumcision was a covenant sign for those of Israel therefore ALL Jews were circumcised. BUT, not everyone circumcized (every Jew) was saved. Just look through the OT and you will see this.

Just as not everyone baptised is saved. Why? Because baptism doesn't save, nor does circumcision. It is faith and faith alone that saves. No infant can repent and place their faith in Christ therefore no infant can be baptized since it follows repentance/belief. I have heard it stated like this: Baptism is a physical expression of a spiritual truth; or this way - Baptism is an external expression of an internal truth. But both are accurate depictions of what baptism is to convey in the life of the believer.

Remember the early church did not practice infant baptism and was not something pronounced until about the 5th century or so. But just because the majority of the masses do something does not mean it is always correct and church history is replete with examples here. The issue is to be examined first in light of scripture youself, then your church, THEN look at the historical views of its position. History is only a guide and NOT the rule because along the way and at times from many centuries you will find we were wrong on issues and they were changed.

 

Great post. :applause: