Infant baptism

[Guest Called]

Anyway, if a baby is baptized and then gets saved when they are older, do they still need to obey God and get baptized

Baptized

Then saved

Then baptized

Sounds like a screwy doctrine to me.

I agree...

[stevehut]

In the New Testament when whole 'households' were baptized, that must have included children.

Look again.

In Acts 16, in the example of the jailer, it says that Paul and Silas preached the gospel to the members of his house. And those who believed and accepted their message were baptized.

Mind you, this was in the middle of the night. Could it be that they awoke the babies from their cribs to listen?

[Work in Progress]

Our relationships with God are personal and not resulting from my parents obedience....if you get what I'm saying.

I do, but those comments make me wonder if you get what I'm saying. I clearly stated that our relationship with God does NOT result from our parents obedience, nor is it dependant on any other person on our behalf. I simply said that God made a convenant with the father of our faith - Abraham - you can read it in Genesis- and that we continue on in that promise today and are obedient to the command of God to put the 'sign' on our children. You really haven't answered any of that, or any other points, and I wonder if you are even considering any other responses that don't line up with what you have always been taught and believed, so I don't know if it's fruitless to continue on. It's frustating and hard not to be offended when someone posts a topic for discussion, but then ignores points that don't line up with what they have decided is 'right'. The topic was clearly stated as a question up for discussion/debate, so I'm at a bit of a loss I guess. Were you wanting to discuss other avenues of belief in this area, or just stating what you think is the right belief? Not being smart, just bewildered.

I was not catching what you were saying as I said a number of times I was confused. The reason I haven't responded to any of your comments specifically is simply because I disagree with them but I am still curious to know what others believe. I have stated what I believe but I kinda just wanted to let the discussion unfold with others so I could see what others feel. So, don't be bewildered...just tryin to learn something here.

Got it.

[Work in Progress]

What purpose would Baptism serve if one has not yet accepted Christ?

Oh, that's easy.

It provides a feelgood experience for the parents, and another notch on the belt for the church.

If not for infant baptisms, most churches wouldn't have any "growth" at all.

Heavens, why must you always be so dogmatic and rude, Steve??

I know it's hard for your mind to accept, but there are actually parents out there - who are actually strong Christians - who believe God commands them to baptize their infants in the faith. And - *gasp!* - it isn't even an ego or "feelgood" thing. Like you, they sincerely believe they are following the Scripture. And the "church" i.e - Pastor might actually be sincere in the beliefs also.

A baptism without faith and repentance is not a baptism at all.

And so saith the Word of the Lor....er Steve.

Steve, just curious - have you ever heard of things like "IMO" or "The way I understand this is......." or anything like that?

[stevehut]

I know it's hard for your mind to accept, but there are actually parents out there - who are actually strong Christians - who believe God commands them to baptize their infants in the faith.

So you don't believe that faith and repentance are necessary for baptism?

In the Church of England, their own website says that over 2/3 of their baptisms are of people under 12 mos. old. They can't find anyone out there to actually believe, and join the church voluntarily? I find that striking, and tragic.

Or do you believe that anything is permissible so long as you're "sincere" about it?

I have no interest in soft-selling the Gospel. When the Bible is so clear on a subject, we shouldn't be afraid to preach it.

[Guest Serendipity]

Hello everyone,

So do I need to get baptized or not ? I was baptized as a baby in my denomination. It sounds like some say yes and others say no. I'm confused on all of this. I'm Presbyterian by the way and they won't rebaptize me.

Melody

[BobTriez]

Hello everyone,

So do I need to get baptized or not ? I was baptized as a baby in my denomination. It sounds like some say yes and others say no. I'm confused on all of this. I'm Presbyterian by the way and they won't rebaptize me.

Melody

Do as you feel led. If you feel the Spirit tugging on your heart telling you to get baptized, then do it. That's what happened with me ( I was baptized as an infant too ) and it was one of THE MOST memorable experiences in my entire life. The Lord was certainly present when I got baptized....and I'll NEVER regret being obedient to His will.

God bless,

Bob

[ted]

I was also Baptized as an infant.

It wasn't until I accepted Jesus that I understood that Baptism, by immersion, comes after that.

Personally and in my opinion, I would seek to be Baptized after you made the decision to accept Christ.

Thanks

t.

[johnP]

Hello Melody.

So do I need to get baptized or not ?

It's not for any to tell you. You are a child of God and report to Him directly. All we should do is tell you what we believe not decide for you.

He will love you regardless of your choice. Relax, the clock is not running.

I'm Presbyterian by the way and they won't rebaptize me.

That's because they come from the Reformation and hold to it's beliefs I think. They won't compromise their belief but if you get a hold of this yourself, know the subject inside out, you will be able to have years of fun arguing the point with the leadership. You might even change their mind because it should be changed.

I was baptized as a baby in my denomination.

So was I but I got baptised as an adult after I became a Christian.

My first Church was Calvinist but we did not baptise infants.

johnp.

[Leonard]

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

As I asked before: In what way is our Covenant 'better' (as Paul said it IS), if our children cannot be included, but WERE included under the old covenant?

I cannot help but notice no one has answered that question.

Why do you insist on excluding our children?

With a blessing,

Leonard, a sinner