Problems denying infant baptism

And this is where in the Bible?

Maybe the reason they never bring up admission to baptism for children/infants is because they knew from the OT children were to be included in the covenant by means of circumcision and with baptism replacing and surpassing circumcision they knew Children also could share in the fulfilled covenant through Baptism

Not once in the Bible is a succession of events necessitatied, all of the events describing conversion are linked by kai which can denote simultaneous events. Repent and be baptized, be baptized and repent, it makes no difference in the Greek since the Greek is case and word form based rather than word order based like english.

 

HP: How were children included in the covenant by means of circumcision? How is baptism a replacement of circumcision? The only replacement I know of for circumcision in Scripture is ‘circumcision of the heart’, not baptism.

 

I wonder, then, what you make of Col 2:11-12?

 

This is the passage that some use to try to argue that baptism replaces circumcision, and therefore should be done to infants.
Colossians 2
11 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:
12 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.
Notice two things about this passage.

1. Circumcision as a non-literal metaphor is used in the Old Testament, which speaks of the heart being circumcised. Paul also speaks of the heart being circumcised in Romans. This kind of circumcision is not something done to infants. This kind of circumcision comes through repentance.
2. In first 12, we see that we are risen with Christ in baptism THROUGH FAITH.

This is the main point here. Baptism is effective if it is mixed with proper faith on the part of the baptized. Peter said repent and be baptized. Paul tells us that baptism works through faith. Does the infant who is baptized believe? Does he repent? We have no reason to think that he does. If someone is old enough to understand the Gospel, then we can have evidence that he has faith and that he wants to be baptized.

 

IN what way then can baptism be said to be 'effective', if all that is required for salvation is faith?

 

So you condemn those who cannot give you a sign of repentence.
You may proceed with your concept of grace limited by human frailty but I will continue to follow the God whose grace can overcome all human limitations.
Based in the promises of God, Baptism as the expression of the Gospel can create faith.

 

To those who demand understanding before faith, you do realise that you are also condemning those with learning difficulties, don't you?

 

Salvation is by faith. It always has been. The Bible teaches this again and again.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
--Is this true; or is Paul telling lies here?

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
--Another lie perhaps?

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
--Perhaps Peter was totally ignorant of the way of salvation?

1 John 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
--If you believe not, then you make God a liar. Says nothing about baptism here. I could post a hundred more. Is this not sufficient? Salvation is by faith, and faith alone. It comes by believing on Christ, not by baptism Baptism is purely symbolic of what is done after a person believes in Christ.

Those who bring in the subject of infants and the mentally incapacitated are simply bringing in a red herring which needs not to be discussed in this thread. If you wish to discuss that topic start another thread. That's not the topic of this thread. There is such a thing as God's mercy. That is the short answer to your question. Start another thread. Keep to this topic. Salvation is by faith not by baptism. It is entirely fruitless to baptize an infant. All that baptism does for an infant (or anyone else) is: it gets them wet. It is impossible for the waters of baptism to impart any grace. The chemicals of hydrogen and oxygen are not magical. We do not believe in such ridiculous superstitions.
DHK

 

I think it is rather on target considering the title of the thread.
Besides the mentally handicaped is at issue now since somebody brought up the requirement of understanding in order to be saved.
God does indeed have mercy but only through Christ, as Jesus and His apostle's made abundantly clear. To claim that mentally handicaped and infants can not have faith but still be saved is to deny the basic tenet of the faith that salvation comes through Christ alone. This is not to mention the fact that requiring understanding makes salvation dependant on man rather than God.

DHK, you are right there is nothing special about 2 atoms of hydrogen combined with one oxygen atom. However, Baptism is not water alone. It is water united with the Word of God and its power rests not in the water but in the promise of God. God's word has power and he has promised it can bring about faith. To deny God's promises in baptism is to deny God's word and cast doubt on His ability to carry out His promise.

 

Those who bring in the subject of infants and the mentally incapacitated are simply bringing in a red herring which needs not to be discussed in this thread. If you wish to discuss that topic start another thread. That's not the topic of this thread. There is such a thing as God's mercy. That is the short answer to your question. Start another thread. Keep to this topic. Salvation is by faith not by baptism. It is entirely fruitless to baptize an infant. All that baptism does for an infant (or anyone else) is: it gets them wet.

You are entirely incorrect DHK. You are not taking into context the people who were baptized.

 

Circumsicision is biblical and here the following is where I will start to show why...

From a book by John P. Sartelle....


We begin with the Old Testament character Abraham. You may be thinking "what does ancient history have to do with me? I am a NT Christian." The answer is that every NT teaching has its roots in the OT. Every Gospel doctrine has its roots in the OT. If you want to understand the doctrine of sin, you must begin with Genesis. Or if you would grap the awesome beauty of the cross, you must read the Pentateuch and the Prophets. Likewise if you are wondering what the bible teaches about the baptism of infants, you must begin in the OT.

So here we go... God saved Abraham. In Romans 4, Paul explains that Abraham's salvation was by God's grace through faith. We read in the Old and New Testaments, "Abraham believed(had faith in) God, and He reckoned it to him as rightousness"(Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:9) Thus Abraham is our OT counterpart. Just as we are sinners saved by grace through believing, he was a sinner saved by grace through believing.


In Genesis 17:7 God calls this saving relationship an "everlasting covenant"- a covenant of salvationfrom generation to generation. The mighty God stooped down to make a covenantwith a sinful creature. He gave Abraham a sign or symbol to mark that covenant relationship. He said that Abraham was to be circumcised, and this circumcision was to be a sign of the covenant of salvation: "And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you" ( Gen. 17:11).

Now, this is not hard to understand. When a young man and woman are married they, make a covenant and give each other a ring as a sign. When i look at the ring on my finger, I am reminded of my covenant to her. The ring is more than a piece of jewlery; it is a symbol of the greates pledge i will make to another human being.

In the same way, circumscision was a sign of God's salvation to Abraham. Why did God choose circumsicsion? We must admit this is an unusual choice for a sign. We cannot answer the question comepletly, we can say that circumcision probable represented cleanliness. In Isaiah 52:1, the words "uncircumcised" and "unclean" are synonomous. Thus, we can safely say that God used an outward sign of cleanliness to denote inward, spiritual cleansing (Deut. 30:6)

When an adult from outside Israel became a believer, he was to be circumsised. If you lived in North Africa and you were not born into a Jewish family, when you believed in the God of Abraham you would have been circumcised (Exod. 12:48)

Passages in the OT so closely identify the sign with the real event that God actually uses the word circumcision instead of salvation. The saved person or community is called "circumcised"; the unsaved person or community is called "uncircumcised" (Isa. 52:1; Ezek. 44:9; I Sam. 14:6).

That is done so often that we are compelled to ask if circumcision saves the individual. The answer is a loud NO! The thesis of Romans 4 is that Abraham was saved by faith, not circumcision. Yet we must emphasize that God commanded circumcision as a sign of salvation: "... and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the rightousness of the faith" (Rom. 4:11).

So you may be thinking, "So what! So circumcsion was the sign of salvation in the OT. What does that mean to me?"

If you read Genesis 17, you will see an extraordianry command. God tells Abraham to apply this sign of salvation to infants born into his house. This is astounding to our twentieth century evangelical ears. How could the sign of salvation be applied to an infant who had not yet believed? But right there it is:"... and every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised througout your generations"(Gen. 17:12)

Later we will consider why God gave this command. But for now, let see unmistakably that 1) Abraham was a sinner saved by grace through faith. 2) God made circumcsiona sign of salvation. 3) The sigh of salvation was to be given to infants of BELIEVING parents.

 

God made circumcision the sign of the covenant he made with Abraham, though Abraham was made righteous by faith when he was still uncircumcised.

But you are overlooking an important point. Physcial circumcision points toward something spiritual, something Paul calls circumcision of the heart. The OT refers to circumcision of the heart as well. Circumcision of the heart involves faith and repentance.

The verse in Colossians that connects baptism to circumcision makes it clear that we are raised through baptism by FAITH. The circumcision of Christ is something that occurs by faith. Faith must be had on the part of the person being baptized. Your parents can't repent and believe for you. It's not the same as you repenting and believing. If I could repent and believe for others, maybe I could just save this whole city. I suppose I could get baptized by proxy to represent this city. Would people stop going to the mosque the same day if I did that, and go to church instead? Would the robberies stop? I don't think so.

 

HP: Thanks for the explanation you gave me a few posts ago.

There are numerous baptisms mentioned in Scripture. My question is, does there have to be water to be baptized into Christ?

 

BD -- Excellent post. That is why in our church we have both believer's baptism (a new believer) and covenant baptism (infant of believers). Sometimes we will have both -- where the parents come to faith and are baptized along with their household (just like in the NT).

 

Nope. It is entirely germane to the subject matter of this thread: those who are insisting on believers' baptism are also insisting that understanding precedes baptism; it is a plank of their argument that since an infant cannot understand, that infant does not have faith and cannot be baptised. Thus, in that argument, faith and baptism are inextricably linked to understanding and hence mental capacity. I was simply highlighting the fact that this view also writes the mentally handicapped out of the Kingdom of God.

DHK, I agree that God does show mercy and indeed grace to those who lack the necessary mental capacity to have the understanding you and others demand of them, whether they be infants or adults with learning difficulties. The difference between you and I is that I recognise and ratify that sovereign grace by not witholding baptism from them.

 

Baptism a new Sign.

Here is more from Sartelle...


Some men command with such authority that their words are heeded for ages to come. But the commands of few remain compelling two thousand years later. Jesus, however, spoke with such authority that time has not diminished the force of His orders.

When a man is baptized today, he is obeying a command made alost two thousand years ago. Jesus told His disciples to make other disciples and to baptize them (Matt. 28:19). they took their master at His word. So when Peter preached his first sermon and three thousand people believed, immediately the apostles started baptizing them. Why? Because that is what Jesus said to do. If a man was converted in the middle of the night, he was baptized (Acts 16:33). If in the desert, he was baptized right there (acts 8:26-40). Had we lived in that day, what strange baptisms we could have observed!

How is a person baptized? Water is applied to the individual. We shall not debate whether the water should be sprinkled or poured on the subject, or whether he should be dipped into the water. We can say that water in some way is applied to the person. But there is more to it. The application of water in baptism is not a Saturday night bath or washing your hands after working on the car. Baptism has to do with a man's relationship to God. you may have water applied to your body everyday of your life and still not be baptized. In biblical baptism, water is applied to the individual "in the name of the Father, and the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19). Thus, God uses an outward symbol to denote an inward spritual reality. Like circumcision, baptism too is a sign.

We can easily understand why God chose water. It is a universal cleansing agent. One would not have expected dust, leaves, or fruit juices to signify cleansing. they are not used for making our bodies clean. But water is used daily and worldwide as a cleansing agent. God, therefore, chose this universal cleanser to be a sign of spritual cleansing.

Baptism indicates that the stains of sin have been removed from the heart: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name" (Acts 22:16).

Baptism is also a sign of cleansing wrought by being born again: (He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in rightousness, but according to His mercy by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit"(Titus 3:5). when we are born again, we die to sin, and as we grow in our new life, we put to death sinful ways and live more and more in rightousness-our lives are cleaned up!! Baptism is a sign of this.

Baptism means being set apart to a holy life. Just as utensils and people were anointed with water or oil in the OT and swet apart for holy use, so in baptism the person is anointed and set apart for holiness.

The sign of baptism is so closely identified with salvation in the NT that we are forced to ask if a person is not saved by baptism. Read just two passages::

For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ (Gal. 3:27).

Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name (Acts 22:16).​

If we had just these two verses, we would think that baptism saves. There are denominations that teach that today. But water baptism is a sign of an event, not the reality itself. ephesians 2:8-9 tells us we are saved by grace, not by any works of righteousness. And in Romans 4, we have already seen Paul refute those who would say the sign saves. We must say firmly, our sins are cleansed by the blood of Christ, and our lives are made holy by being born again. Baptism is an outward sign of this inward work.

In the light of that fact, the following verses may seem surprising. AS people were converted, not only were they baptized but their families were also. Lydia, a business woman from Thyatira, believed the gospel, and Paul baptized both her and her household. The writer goes out of his way to call attention to her householf (Acts 16:15). Likewise, an unnamed Philipian jailer believed, and he and his household were baptized(Acts 16:33-34). And in 1 Cor., Paul is speaking of baptizing certain individuals in Corinth; but he also mentions baptizing the houshold of Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16)

Some have said (DHK :smilewinkgrin: ) that we cannot prove there were children in those housholds. However, to assume that these homes, along with the other households baptized in the entire Mediterranean area, had no children is a presumption bordering on prejudice. Can we say that the household baptisms mentioned were the only ones and that in every case the converts were childless and that there servants were childless?

As the gospel of the NT began to pervade the world, with Paul and Peter leading the charge, its message was no less gracious and encompassing than the message of salvation to Abraham in Genesis 17. There was a new sign, but believing parents had the same responsibility and blessing as Abraham and baptized their children, who had a great heritage like Issac.

 

Some have said that we can prove that aliens exist on Mars and Jupiter. All we have to do is to assume these planets along with every other planet have aliens also. That in all the solar system there are no aliens is a presumption bordering on prejudice. Can we say that planets not housing aliens are the only ones in existence, and can we prove beyond any doubt that aliens exist not only on Jupiter and Mars, but on other planets as well.

Your arguments from silence make so much sense.
Can you prove that little green men live on the rings of Satrun?
Can you prove that infants were baptized in the Scripture?
DHK

 

If, for centuries and centuries - indeed thousands and thousands of years since Abraham, the sign of salvation had been applied to believers and their households (which included infants and children), would not there be specific instructions that this was NOT to continue?

Instead, there is no such admonition. Instead, the Scriptures clearly teach that the when people came to Christ, they and their households were baptized - except for the Ethopian eunuch (of course).

That is why we have both in our church -- believer's baptism and covenant baptism. And when adults come to Christ, they and their households are baptized -- just like the OT and the NT.

 

There were very specific instructions concerning Old Testament children.
They had to be circumcised on the eight day. On what day must one be baptized??
There are other instructions concerning children in the Old Testament.
The instruction concerning baptism is not "on what day," but rather, at what time in a persons life. In other words, the person must have enough intelligence to understand the gospel and believe that Jesus Christ died for their sins. He must be able to make a choice whether to believe or reject Christ on the basis of the shed blood of Jesus Christ. It doesn't matter if there are a hundred infants in the household. If they cannot understand the gospel baptism is not baptism, it is simply taking a bath. The definition of baptism is applicable only to those who have believed. Baptism is not baptism according to Biblical definition if the person has not believed first. Thus infant baptism doesn't even exist as a Biblical entity. Beleive and be baptized. In every case belief must precede baptism.
There are no green men on the rings of Saturn.
There are no infants baptized in Scripture.
DHK