Infant baptism

[Orr v'emet]

In attempts not to hijack another thread I am starting a new topic at the request of my Bro. Leonard. In another thread I commented that the only purpose that infant baptism served was to get a baby wet. Harsh words? Perhaps. I will admit my ignorance on the subject. I'm wondering what the purpose of infant baptism is and what scriptural support there is on the subject, if any.

[ServingHim]

Link and remarks removed as they are in violation of Worthy Boards Terms of Service

[Orr v'emet]

Welcome back!

I appreciate the link but I suspect this will be a charitable and hospitable exploration of the topic. Worthy has been under construction as of late and we are all making huge attempts to support the body of believers in love and unity. How 'bout you hang around and join us!

[Leonard]

Jesus Christ Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Greetings KMB:

One reason for supporting infant baptism is that as early as we can go in Christian documents, the Churches baptized infants. In the New Testament when whole 'households' were baptized, that must have included children.

Several times the New Testament likens Christian baptism to circumcision. Circumcision said: "This one is now under the covenant," and that's just what baptism does. The infant had no choice in the matter at all, the parents decided whether the boy was going to be circumcised or not..... Of course believing parents would automatically want their children to be under God's covenant.

In the New Testament we are told 'we have a better covenant.' If our children are to be excluded from that covenant, how is it 'better' than the old covenant, where God included them?

Thirdly, all Christians of the past until VERY recent times, baptized babies. Rejection of infant baptism is a novelty. All indications are that the practice harks back to the Apostles themselves.

With a blessing,

Leonard, a sinner

[Orr v'emet]

I'm slow tonight so forgive me. The purpose of baptism is stated well in the following verses:

Colossians 2:11-12 In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature,not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

Baptism is an outward sign of obedience. It symbolizes the death of the old nature and resurrection of a new life in Christ. Baptism follows salvation...it doesn't proceed it. One has to repent of their sins and turn from them, thus accepting Christ in their heart. Baptism follows as an outward expression of this change. Obviously, we are all born with a sinful nature however, infants obviously do not comprehend sin, repentance etc, so therefore baptism isn't necessary for infants.

[Guest Called]

I'm slow tonight so forgive me. The purpose of baptism is stated well in the following verses:

Colossians 2:11-12 In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature,not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

Baptism is an outward sign of obedience. It symbolizes the death of the old nature and resurrection of a new life in Christ. Baptism follows salvation...it doesn't proceed it. One has to repent of their sins and turn from them, thus accepting Christ in their heart. Baptism follows as an outward expression of this change. Obviously, we are all born with a sinful nature however, infants obviously do not comprehend sin, repentance etc, so therefore baptism isn't necessary for infants.

[apothanein kerdos]

Jesus Christ Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Greetings KMB:

One reason for supporting infant baptism is that as early as we can go in Christian documents, the Churches baptized infants. In the New Testament when whole 'households' were baptized, that must have included children.

Several times the New Testament likens Christian baptism to circumcision. Circumcision said: "This one is now under the covenant," and that's just what baptism does. The infant had no choice in the matter at all, the parents decided whether the boy was going to be circumcised or not..... Of course believing parents would automatically want their children to be under God's covenant.

In the New Testament we are told 'we have a better covenant.' If our children are to be excluded from that covenant, how is it 'better' than the old covenant, where God included them?

Thirdly, all Christians of the past until VERY recent times, baptized babies. Rejection of infant baptism is a novelty. All indications are that the practice harks back to the Apostles themselves.

With a blessing,

Leonard, a sinner

My question to you is this:

Is it possible (seeing as how others were baptized after they accepted Christ) that infant baptism served as a symbolic offering to God whereas baptism as an adult served as an example of what God had done in their lives, thus making both viewpoints valid?

[Work in Progress]

Hi KMB.

In Genesis, God made a covenant with Abraham - that if Abraham and his decendants (us) would put the 'sign' on their children, then He (God) would always be our God. Not only a covenant, but a commandment to be taken very seriously.

In the OT, the 'sign' was circumcision. In the NT, the sign is baptism.

The reason the new believers were being baptized as adults (in the NT) is because they were not raised in the Lord and so the sign had not been applied to them as children. Many were Gentiles, and not circumcized. Much like today - I, as a believer, believed and received God's covenant and baptized my children - but for someone who is an adult, but never heard the Gospel and then becomes a Christian, they can't go back, so they must be baptized as an adult. Of course, it is no less real or no less of an obedience. But I hold dear that Covenant that God made with His people back with Abraham and took it very seriously. Praise God for His everlasting promises! It is one of my favorite passages in Scripture, and one I turn to often when troubled. He will ALWAYS be my God and my children's God...and on and on through the generations......never leaving us - He has promised!

Please note that baptizing an infant does not save them, or "make them a Christian". Only the individual can choose Christ, no one can intervene on their behalf. Baptizing one's infant is merely a Christian obeying God's commandment, and embracing the Covenant God made with them. I baptized my children.........and then trusted God and His promise. I raised them up to love the Lord, and all four of them do. They each had to make their own profession of faith, and walk their walk. My baptizing them had nothing to do with their salvation. I simply obeyed God and trusted Him.

Baptism is an outward sign of obedience. It symbolizes the death of the old nature and resurrection of a new life in Christ. Baptism follows salvation...it doesn't proceed it. One has to repent of their sins and turn from them, thus accepting Christ in their heart. Baptism follows as an outward expression of this change. Obviously, we are all born with a sinful nature however, infants obviously do not comprehend sin, repentance etc, so therefore baptism isn't necessary for infants.

Please keep in mind that that is what you have been taught, but not necessarily what Scripture says. I, too, was raised in the Arminian school of thinking - and heard what I just quoted you saying a million times from the pulpit. But, as we are talking about in another discussion - that is just one interpration or "doctrine" about it.

[Leonard]

Jesus Christ Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

A very insightful question, Super Jew. Perhaps, but this too would be a view only propounded in very recent times. Until the Reformation era, the WHOLE CHURCH believed that the Holy Ghost was imparted at baptism whether infant or adult.

I think that having our children under the covenant is really a very important thing.

KMB: I'm just giving my opinion. Of course it was the opinion of the WHOLE CHURCH until very, very recently........... Something to consider before you too freely accept the pronouncements of modernity.

With a blessing,

Leonard, a sinner

[Orr v'emet]

My question to you is this:

Is it possible (seeing as how others were baptized after they accepted Christ) that infant baptism served as a symbolic offering to God whereas baptism as an adult served as an example of what God had done in their lives, thus making both viewpoints valid?

Much like "infant dedications" that go on in many baptist churches?