|
Author
|
Topic: Thinking cap required..
|
Eduardo Grequi
Advanced Member
Member # 3984
|
posted
Infant Baptism:
In extra-biblical traditioninfant baptism/purification was as common as circumsion. It is a tradition of purification. In the Old Testament and in the Jewish traditions infants were purified because it is a sign of coming out from the mother and the coming in to the fold.
Are all non-biblical traditions evil?
I would suppose not; however, today in the lot of denominations especially in Catholicism it is a sign welcoming into the church.
However, since I believe the Bible should be interprate within the context Jesus' words. I find baptism to be detrimental to the position of salvation. Jesus said and I quote, "He that believes and is baptised shall be saved snd he that believeth not is condemned" point blank. Remember Nicodemus came to Jesus and asked what must I do to be born again and Jesus said He that is born of water and of the Spirit shall be saved. John 3. There is not one believer in the new testament that wasn't baptized after believing that the Messiah is God made in the flesh. The thief on the cross was still under the old testament, therefor his action was counted toward him as righteousness in the same way as the Patriachial fathers actions were acounted as righteousness.
Is infant baptism evil? No not really by itself. Infant baptism is a dedication of the child by the parents or sometimes by the parent to God. Even Jesus said allow the children to come unto me and prevent them not.
I have been reading intently about this subject. Please I urge you to check out the following web site.
www.bjnewlife.org
I won't condem anyone for infant baptism but I tell people who I counsel, that is okay but not uniquely scriptural for infants to be baptized as total faith statement. It is parents faith statement that they agree to raise their children under the Christian Doctrine.
Posts: 771 | From: Belvidere, IL | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
ahar
Advanced Member
Member # 5810
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caretaker:
The birth of a new baby is announced by the pastor in Bible believing congregations.
Interesting. Baptism in the Church of England is kind of like a welcoming into the church in a structured way as part of a regular church service, or as an occasion on its own. A good synopsis of the view of the church on baptism is found here http://www.cofe.anglican.org/lifeevents/baptismconfirm/sectiona.html, but the reasons (taken from the link above) the CoE still undertakes baptism of infants are:
First, infant baptism is a practice that goes back to the very earliest days of the Church and is therefore something that the Church of England does not feel free to discard (we like traditions - my edit).
Secondly, the Church of England believes that God’s merciful love, what Christians call God’s ‘grace’, always precedes our human response and enables it. Personal confession of faith following on from and responding to the grace of God received in infant baptism is consistent with this fact.
Thirdly, we read in the gospels that Christ welcomed and blessed those infants that were brought to Him (Mark 10:13-15) and the Church of England believes that infant baptism is a way He continues to do this today.
Fourthly, the Bible as a whole tells us that the children of believers are themselves part of God’s family and therefore The Church of England feels that it is right that they should have the sign of belonging to the family just as Jewish children in the Old Testament had the sign of circumcision (Genesis 17:9-14, Acts 2:39, 16:31, 1 Corinthians 7:14).
If you're interested in the actual service, it can be found here http://www.cofe.anglican.org/worship/liturgy/commonworship/texts/initiation/baptism.html
--------------------
Cheers
Andy
Posts: 290 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Caretaker
Advanced Member
Member # 36
|
posted
The birth of a new baby is announced by the pastor in Bible believing congregations.
The Roman Catholic tradition of Baptism as the sacrament of salvation is the tradition in those congregations with roots in the RCC, such as Anglican, Lutheran, etc.
Those who have stood against the RCC apostasy for centuries were often called re-baptisers do to their Biblical belief in Believers Baptism as the outward symbol of the inward faith.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a115.htm
Baptism: Infants
Question: In the Bible we read that entire households were baptized at once. It is likely that there were infants in these households. Is this, therefore, good evidence for infant baptism?
Answer: There are five instances of household baptisms recorded in the Bible (see Appendix 1). None of them demonstrate infant baptism; at best they show the possibility thereof. It is possible that one or more of those households included infants, but it is also possible that they did not - we are not told. So it is presumptuous and speculative to positively infer infant baptism since these scriptures are silent on this matter.
Moreover, there is good evidence that the members of four of these families were all mature individuals, or at least that all those who were baptized had believed the Gospel message, as in the case of Cornelius household. Paul and Silas preached the Gospel to the jailer and “all who were in his house” - suggesting that all members were capable of understanding. Afterwards “he and all his family” were baptized, and “he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.” The “all” who were baptized included no infants because “all” believed in God. In the case of the household of Stephanas, Paul tells us that “they have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints” and in the case of Crispus, it is explicitly stated that he “believed on the Lord with all his house.”
The household baptisms are at best a weak and inconclusive argument for infant baptism. Household baptism is appropriate when there is household conversion to Christ.
The main reasons why many Christians practice “believers’ baptism” are as follows:
1. Christ commanded that “disciples” and those who “believe” should be baptized (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15, 16).
2. All recorded baptisms in the Bible follow personal conversion to Christ as evidenced by such words as believe, repent and calling on His name. (Acts 2:38; Acts 2:41; Acts 8:12,13; Acts 8:36, 37; Acts 10:47,48; Acts 16:14,15; Acts 16:32-34; Acts 18:8; Acts 19:4,5; Acts 22:16). (See Appendix 2)
3. The apostles link the significance of baptism in salvation to personal faith and an appeal to God for a good conscience. Clearly infants are incapable of such personal response to God. (See Colossians 2:11, 12; 1 Peter 3:21).
4. The Old Testament sign of circumcision is replaced by the New Testament sign of baptism. A change in the sign was required because of a change in the covenant. God’s people in the Old Covenant were Abraham’s physical descendants and this was signified by the circumcision of male infants soon after birth (Genesis 17:7-13). God’s New Covenant people, the church, are made up of Abraham’s spiritual children, the believers. “Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are the sons of Abraham” (Galatians 3:7). Since baptism denotes the union of the believer with Christ, it is inappropriate to apply this sign to infants who are not “of faith.”
The Christian parents’ responsibility is to bring up their children in the training and admonition of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4). Children should be baptized only when they profess faith in Christ.
Who knows how many lost unbelievers consider themselves Christians simply because they were baptized in infancy? Having the external sign does not necessarily mean that you have what baptism signifies.
Appendix 1: Household baptisms
1. [The angel said to Cornelius] “Call for Simon whose surname is Peter, who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved”…[Peter said] Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days (Acts 11:13,14; 10:47,48).
2. Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us (Acts 16:14, 15).
3. Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household (Acts 16:32-34).
4. Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized (Acts 18:8).
5. Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other...I urge you, brethren- you know the household of Stephanas, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints (1 Corinthians 1:16; 16:15).
[back to text]]
Appendix 2: Baptism follows conversion
1. Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
2. Acts 2:41 Then those who gladly[a] received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.
3. Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.
4. Acts 8:13 Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done.
5. Acts 8:36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?”
6. Acts 8:37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”
7. And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
8. Acts 10:47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
9. Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.
10. Acts 16:14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.
11. Acts 16:15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.
12. Acts 16:32-34 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.
13. Acts 18:8 Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.
14. Acts 19:4 Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.”
15. Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
[back to text]
Copyright Dr Joe Mizzi. Permission to copy and distribute this article without textual changes.
--------------------
A Servant of Christ,
Drew
1 Tim. 3:
16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..
Posts: 3978 | From: Council Grove, KS USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
ahar
Advanced Member
Member # 5810
|
posted
I'm interested David - how is a new baby introduced to the church that you attend? UK Anglican churches use the baptism ceremony for this - is there a set service or does the vicar (or whatever the term you use) simply announce it?
--------------------
Cheers
Andy
Posts: 290 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
KnowHim
Admin
Member # 1
|
posted
There is much confusion about baptism in the various Christian denominations. However, this is not a result of the Bible presenting a confusing message on baptism. The Bible is abundantly clear of what baptism is, who it is for, and what it accomplishes. In the Bible, only believers who had placed their faith in Christ were baptized - as a public testimony of their faith and identification with Him (Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3-4). Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience after faith in Christ. It is a proclamation of faith in Christ, a statement of submission to Him, and an identification with His death, burial, and resurrection.
With this in view, infant baptism is not a Biblical practice. An infant cannot place his or her faith in Christ. An infant cannot make a conscious decision to obey Christ. An infant cannot understand what water baptism symbolizes. The Bible does not record any infants being baptized. Infant baptism is the origin of the sprinkling and pouring methods of baptism - as it is unwise and unsafe to immerse an infant under water. Even the method of infant baptism fails to agree with the Bible. How does pouring or sprinkling illustrate the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ?
Many Christians who practice infant baptism do so because they understand infant baptism as the new covenant equivalent of circumcision. In this view, just as circumcision joined a Hebrew to the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, so baptism joined a person to the New Covenant of salvation through Jesus Christ. This view is unbiblical. The New Testament nowhere connects baptism and circumcision. The New Testament nowhere describes baptism as a sign of the New Covenant. It is faith in Jesus Christ that enables a person to enjoy to blessings of the New Covenant (1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 9:15).
Baptism does not save a person. It does not matter if you were baptized by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling - if you have not first trusted in Christ for salvation, baptism (no matter the method) is meaningless and useless. Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience to be done after salvation as a public profession of faith in Christ and identification with Him. Infant baptism does not fit the Biblical definition of baptism or the Biblical method of baptism. If Christian parents wish to dedicate their child to Christ, then a baby dedication service is entirely appropriate. However, even if infants are dedicated to the Lord, when they grow up they will still have to make a personal decision to believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved.
http://www.gotquestions.org/infant-baptism.html
--------------------
Video Tracts
Christian Media
LiveTracts
Friend Me On Facebook
Evangelism TackleBox
Posts: 3276 | From: Charlestown, IN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
ahar
Advanced Member
Member # 5810
|
posted
I've always seen baptism of infants as a tradition within the church, much the same as the way that Anglican chruches hold christmas celebrations on the 25th December - the celebration has the same effect but there's no scripture telling you exactly when to do it ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Cheers
Andy
Posts: 290 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Miguel
Advanced Member
Member # 47
|
posted
I find this article worthy of your time, so may God bless thee on is this day while reading..
... and quote;
Infant Baptism ![[angel3]](graemlins/angel3.gif)
Occasionally Christians will discuss baptism and confidently proclaim that infant baptism isn't a biblically valid concept. This may or may not be the case, but what concerns me most about the topic is not so much whether a person believes or disbelieves in infant baptism. The concern is that those who condemn it often do so in such a way as to show little grace and in their condemnation they inadvertently aid in bringing division in the body of Christ by encouraging a subliminal or even deliberate negative reaction against infant baptism and those Christians who hold to it.
Those who say that they know infant baptism is not true because it is not recorded in the Bible, have made a potentially fundamental error in biblical examination. The doctrine of the Trinity, as an example, is not explicitly laid out in the Scriptures, yet Christians believe in it. Why? because it is systematically arrived at. Now, let's look at the possibility of infant baptism.
But first understand that I am not trying to convince anyone in this paper that infant baptism is a biblical truth. What I'm trying to do is convince you, if you don't believe in it, that there is a sound reason for accepting infant baptism (not for salvation but as a covenant sign). I am concerned more with a person understanding the argument, and if they disagree, fine. But, they should outright reject it without first hearing a defense of it. This is important because it helps bring unity in the body of Christ when we see that others we disagree with have rational reasons for their beliefs. Furthermore, this opens us up to the possibility of being wrong ourselves on a position and encourages us to be more gracious with those who disagree with us.
I have produced an outline laying out an argument for infant baptism. If you want to understand the argument quickly, than just read the points in bold.
1. God works covenantally.
1. A covenant is a pact or agreement between two or more parties. God undoubtedly works covenantal. A quick computer Bible search in the NASB shows that there are 300 verses that have the word covenant in them. By contrast, dispensation(al, ism, s) occurs a total of one time in Zech. 7:9. obviously, God works covenantally.
2. God's covenants have covenant signs.
1. The covenant with Adam had the covenant sign of the tree.: "And the LORD God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die,’" (Gen. 2:16-17).
2. The covenant with Noah had the sign of the rainbow, (Gen. 9:9-17).
3. The Covenant with Abraham had the sign of circumcision: "And I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed,” (Gen. 12:7).
4. There are other covenants and covenant signs..
3. The Abrahamic Covenant included infants and the sign of their entrance into that covenant was circumcision.
1. The fact is that infant males were included in the Abrahamic covenant via the sign of circumcision.
2. Females were included in the covenant via federal headship, the doctrine that the male head of the family represents his descendents. Heb. 7:7-10 is a good example of this.
1. "The federal headship view considers Adam, the first man, as the representative of the human race that generated from him. As the representative of all humans, Adam’s act of sin was considered by God to be the act of all people and his penalty of death was judicially made the penalty of everybody."1
4. The Abrahamic Covenant is called the gospel in Gal. 3:8
1. "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations shall be blessed in you.”
5. Therefore, the Abrahamic Covenant is still in effect.
1. Since the covenant is that in Abraham all the nations shall be blessed and that is called the gospel by Paul, then the Abrahamic covenant is still in effect.
2. To say the Abrahamic covenant is not in effect now, is to contradict what Paul said when he called it the gospel. Remember, God's covenant promise was to bless all nations in Abraham. This is a reference to the coming Messiah in whom we have redemption.
6. Infants were included in the Abrahamic Covenant which is still in effect.
1. Whether or not infants understood what was occurring in their participation of the covenant sign is immaterial since it was God who ordered that the infants be included in the Abrahamic covenant.
2. Since the Abrahamic covenant is still in effect -- by being equated with the gospel - infants should still be included in that same covenant.
7. Where is the biblical admonition to exclude infants from the same Abrahamic covenant that is still in effect?
1. There is no command at all to exclude infants from the same covenant that is still in effect.
8. Baptism is the New Testament covenant sign and is to be applied to infants.
1. Since the normal biblical pattern is to include infants in the Abrahamic covenant, doesn't it make sense to continue to include them in that same covenant? Yes. The new covenant sign is now baptism which is why Paul equates baptism and circumcision.
2. "and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead," (Col. 2:11-12).
9. Questions answered
A. Then why are then no accounts of infants being baptized in the New Testament?
1. Actually, there are.
2. Acts 16:15, "and when she and her household had been baptized,"
3. Acts 16:31, "he was baptized, he and all his household."
B. The term household does not necessary mean infants are included.
1. If this is so, do you think that in all the households that were being baptized in Israel that none of them had infants? (Remember, covenant Jews were commanded to have children - see Gen. 2-3).
2. What is the natural thinking of a Jew regarding infants and God's covenant? The natural thinking is that they were included in God's covenant system. Would you have us now believe that the Jew who became a Christian would then say something to the effect of, "Now that the promised Messiah has come and God's covenant of promise in Abraham has been realized, I now understand that I am to exclude my infants from God's covenant work and promise." Of course not. This is why it says in Acts 2:38-39, "And Peter said to them, “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 “For the promise is for you and your children..." Notice that Peter includes children in that fulfilled promise of God...and baptism is part of the subject.
Where is the command in scripture to exclude infants from the very same covenant that is still in effect; namely, the Abrahamic Covenant which is called the gospel by Paul in Gal. 3:8? If you cannot find a command to restrict them, then don't do it.
C. Infants are not circumcised now. Why?
1. Because the covenant sign is now baptism, Col. 2:11-12. "and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." Since the blood of Christ was shed, the blood-sign-of-circumcision has been fulfilled in the Federal Head known as Christ. This means that Christ represented us on the cross. Covenant blood-shed is no longer necessary. Now, the covenant sign is baptism which is why Paul equates the two in Col. 2:11-12
D. In Acts we only see people get baptized who have first believed.
1. This is true only if you assume that of all the households in Israel that were baptized, none included infants. This is an assumption that is without substance especially since we know that good Jews were to obey God's command to multiply and replenish the earth.
2. Also, remember that the context in Acts is mass conversions and of course you'd see the great majority of accounts of baptism after belief. But this does not mean that God's covenant system of including infants is negated.
3. Finally, many epistles were written to correct error. Why do none of the epistles include a restriction of infants being included in God's covenant via baptism? Why? Because theologically, infants were included in the covenant of God and since the Abrahamic covenant is equated with the gospel,
E. Doesn't this then mean that infants were saved if they are baptized?
1. No. Infants in the Abrahamic covenant in Old Testament times were not guaranteed salvation anymore than infants baptized into the same covenant today are promised salvation.
2. It is the error of the Roman Catholic church and some cults that teaches that baptism saves.
Conclusion
The primary reason for writing this article is not convince anyone that covenant infant baptism is biblical. The primary reason I wrote it is to try and convince people to be more gracious in their opposition to this doctrine. It is perfectly fair for someone to examine the argument and not accept it. But it would be better if once the argument is rejected, that the person who does so sees that there is a reason that people have for believing this teaching and that when disagreeing with the position, that graciousness and humility would be combined with a disagreement of it.
Finally, I would suggest anyone who disagrees with the argument to provide an answer as to why we should now exclude infants from the same Abrahamic covenant, that is still in effect per Gal. 3:8. Remember, God commanded that infants be included in this covenant. What justifies anyone from changing God's command on this?
--------------------
Romans 9:11-24
Our Eschatology may vary even our Ecclesiology may be disputed among us but our Soteriology most assume a singularity and exclusivity which in biblical term is known as Quote; "The Narrow Way" and Quote!
Posts: 2792 | From: Stockton,Ca | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
