Pedo baptism & Baby Dedication

Am I to understand from this post that faith is not necessary for salvation? If it is not necessary in one case, how can we be sure that it is necessary in another? Is God free to ignore what the Bible says about salvation by faith and extend his mercy to whomsoever he may choose and spare them from eternal damnation even if they have no faith in Christ?

 

I agree with you here, Larry, but please don't ask me to defend this view from the Bible!

 

This is the question I don't have a full answer for and must leave in the hands of God. I would argue a couple of points in support of my position.

1. God is God ... He can do what he wants to do. He is bound by nothing but his own will. (I assume we agree on that.) If he, for reasons of his own, chooses to take infants to heaven without their faith while elsewhere saying faith is necesssary, we must accept that. Nor can we presume that because he did it for infants he will do it for others.

2. The clearest teaching on the matter in Scripture is 2 Sam and I don't see how we can draw another conclusion other than that the baby went to heaven. To argue that "go to be with him" is "death" makes little sense to me. David's response to the death of Absalom is so vastly different that it supports my view ... David rejoiced in the death of a baby; he mourned the death of Absalom.

I had to deal with this a while back when my wife and I lost our unborn baby. It brought this issue to the front of my mind. I enjoyed Ron Nash's book and John MacArthur's book though I can't remember the title of either. Mac's was a little more emotional in nature, but I enjoyed it nonetheless. I don't think there is a clear answer on it, but I believe the Scripture does point in the direction I believe (which is why I believe it), I will allow God to be just in all that he does.

 

BTW, I don't think infant baptism has any scriptural support apart from the presupposition that it existed. The "household" references are as close as you get, but it is entirely possible for households to have no infants, or for "household" to mean the majority of people without including infants. If we aren't predisposed to see infant baptism in Scripture, then we won't find it there.

I think the overwhelming evidence of baptism in Scripture is that it follows belief, therefore ruling out infants. Plus, it would be dangerous to baptize an infant anyway since they do not control their breathing well.

 

Larry,

I am sorry to hear of your loss. Thank you for your well thought-out replies and for the spirit in which they were written.

 

Just a note from my OT studies in school and also from my own personal reading, but we have NO Biblical warrant to assume that the baby went to heaven because in the OT, everyone went to the same place when they died, Sheol, the place of the dead. So David WOULD see Absalom again because Absalom would be in Sheol, which is where he would go when he died.

 

It seems to me that in reading the context of both stories, there is a distinctly different emotion in both passages and I can't help but think that it means something. Furthemore, if one believes that all went to the same place, there was at least a "great gulf" fixed between the two. I don't think it is as simple as you seem to indicate.

 

It is probaly, and most likely deffinitely, not as simple as I make it seem. I was just stating my understanding of the Scriptures, and I may be wrong.

Here is just my opinion though: I don't think it is correct by any stretch of the imagination for us to say that the paedobaptism people don't have a strng arguement cuz neither do the age of accountability people. There is VERY little on both sides Scripturally. I think ultimately that where you fall in the arguement depends on how deep you think original sin goes and what God does to fix that.

If one believes that sin goes all the way back to the time of conception, than they gotta say their babies are born in sin and therefore there is no hope apart from the grace of God for them just like everyone else. But if one believes that children are born innocent and remain that way until a certain age...there is a whole other can of worms.

Based on Scripture, we really don't know what God does with infants when they die, whether baptised or dedicated or not. God does what is right all the time. We should trust Him instead of the traditions passed down from those before us, whether those traditions be infant baptism or baby dedications.

 

It is probaly, and most likely deffinitely, not as simple as I make it seem. I was just stating my understanding of the Scriptures, and I may be wrong.

Here is just my opinion though: I don't think it is correct by any stretch of the imagination for us to say that the paedobaptism people don't have a strng arguement cuz neither do the age of accountability people. There is VERY little on both sides Scripturally. I think ultimately that where you fall in the arguement depends on how deep you think original sin goes and what God does to fix that.

If one believes that sin goes all the way back to the time of conception, than they gotta say their babies are born in sin and therefore there is no hope apart from the grace of God for them just like everyone else. But if one believes that children are born innocent and remain that way until a certain age...there is a whole other can of worms.

Based on Scripture, we really don't know what God does with infants when they die, whether baptised or dedicated or not. God does what is right all the time. We should trust Him instead of the traditions passed down from those before us, whether those traditions be infant baptism or baby dedications.

 

oops...sorry about the double post

 

He spent the time in prision offically for preaching without a license.

Bryan
SDG

 

Actually the warrant itself does not mention a "license" but is generalized:

I should have said that it was one of his beliefs/practices which got him in trouble with the crown.

I do know that his disputes about baptism were at least during and after his stay in prison, after which he even went as far as tolerating pado-baptist fellowship (incuding the Lord's Supper) in the local non-establishment churches where he ministered though he himself an immersionist probably as a concession to Puritans but not the CofE.

HankD