Infant "Baptism" How Do They Justify It?

[Starise]

I have a question about baptism and what is commonly called infant baptism as it is related to the protestant covenant view.

I spoke recently with a person who was explaining how they looked at this. If I understand correctly somehow through a covenant process what was once circumcision became infant baptism.

Before this, my only familiarity with baptism was the type where only adults are immersed. In that case, baptism  is seen as the outward expression and command of our savior that we were saved. An outward testament if you will of the internal work of God in us. 

This other form of baptism I have a hard time connecting the dots from circumcision to baptism. It seems like something totally different to me.

Is a huge stretch involved to get to this belief or is it plain as day and I'm missing it? So far I just don't see the scripture to make those connections.

[Bible_Gazer]

It was, as I understand it.

They baptized infant because they are born with a sin nature, so they needed to be saved.

Originated from the RCC.

[teddyv]

From my tradition and background, it is rooted in covenant theology. I can't give you a sound bite version but I'll link to a sermon that addresses it. It's posted as position of the Christian Reformed Church of North America. I hate sending someone to do a lot of reading. There is some background information to start, but I believe the apologetic starts about the third section "Children of Believers" and on. As I understand it, the CRCNA does baptism for the children of believers only (and that is my experience).

I would guess that this would be similar to other denominations like the Presbyterians. That said, it's not a uniform position held by every member of the denomination. I know several members that don't accept it, which is fine. We had our children baptized as infants and both my wife and I were as well.

[HAZARD]

 I have read many times over the years questions from people; "How can God allow innocent children burn in Hell because they were not for many and varied reasons, baptized?"

God does not send any innocent children or even adults to hell because they are not batized.


There is not one word in the entire Bible that mentions Infant baptism or any such practice. It is very clear from Scripture that baptism is only required after men have repented of their sins and have been born of the Spirit of God. There is no express command for infants to be baptized untill they become responsible agents and turn to God and have their sins, as adults, remitted. Salvation is a personal experience and children must become old enough to accept salvation before they are commanded to be baptized.

Children, untill they become responsible, even though their parents are unsaved, will be taken to Heaven if they die before accountability just as much as those of saved parents. Read Matthew 18:1-10; 19:14).

Scripture demands faith and repentance as being necessary before baptism and this no child can do untill he is old enough to understand sin and what to do to be saved.

Infant baptism became prominent when churches began teaching baptism and other sacraments to save the soul and remit sin. Such practice makes it impossible to obey Christs command later without admitting infant-baptism was of no benifit. Since there are so many Scriptural reasons why infant-baptism should not be practiced and since it has no efficay it would be best to wait untill the child turns to God by faith and repents of sins of their own free will before it becomes baptised.

Baptism is a symbol of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and it is a testimony to all the world that the individual has been saved from a life of sin and that the individual is now walking in newness of life.

It is only people who are followers of Jesus that are commanded to be baptized. (Read Matt. 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16; and Acts 2:38-39).

The repentant thief on the cross at Jesus crucifiction was never baptized yet Jesus told him that "To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43).

So the truth is Baptism alone is actually not necessary for salvation. The purpose of baptism is not to save the soul, sanctify one, or make us children of God, Jesus did that through His death and resurrection. The sole purpose of baptism is plainly taught as being figurative and not litterally a clensing from sin.

The palsied man of Matt. 9:1-7 was saved without water baptism: "Jesus seeing their faith [not their water baptism] said . . . thy sins be forgiven thee . . . the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins." Jesus did not baptize one person in all His ministry but He did remit sins of many people (John 4:2). This is sufficient proof that sins can be remitted without water baptism. There are many cases of remission of sins and healing which were done by faith without water baptism (Matt. 9:22; Mark 5:34; 10:52; Luke 7:48' 17:19; 18:42; Acts 3:16).

An unnamed woman sinner was forgiven her sins before and without water baptism. Jesus said, "Her sins, which are many are forgiven . . . thy sins be forgiven . . . thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace (Luke 7:36-50).

If Jesus allowed adults forgiveness and entry to heaven without baptizm, then why would He expect Children to be baptized to guarantee entry to heaven? Many more scriptures fill the Bible showing adults being saved without water baptism.

What about people who have never ever heard of Jesus, or the gosple? Are these many billons of people doomed to Hell?

No way at all.

Scripture shows that God does have a basis of dealing with people, even heathens, who have never heard of the Gospel.
God will deal with them on the basis of the light they have recieved, and on the basis of obeying their own conscience. Read Romans 2:12-16.

[JohnD]

9 hours ago, Starise said:

I have a question about baptism and what is commonly called infant baptism as it is related to the protestant covenant view.

I spoke recently with a person who was explaining how they looked at this. If I understand correctly somehow through a covenant process what was once circumcision became infant baptism.

Before this, my only familiarity with baptism was the type where only adults are immersed. In that case, baptism  is seen as the outward expression and command of our savior that we were saved. An outward testament if you will of the internal work of God in us. 

This other form of baptism I have a hard time connecting the dots from circumcision to baptism. It seems like something totally different to me.

Is a huge stretch involved to get to this belief or is it plain as day and I'm missing it? So far I just don't see the scripture to make those connections.

The idiom of baptism is more or less the depiction of deliverance / passing from one orientation to another.

Repent and believe (the Gospel) is to repent of unbelief to belief. Water baptism was the symbol of deliverance (depicted as the parting of the reed sea by Moses, the Jordan under the leadership of Joshua... Jesus used the idiom to refer to his trials, crucifixion, and, resurrection in Luke 12:50).

Hear the words of John the WATER Baptist:

Matthew 3:11 (AV)
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

John contrasted his water baptism with the Lord Jesus' baptism of the Holy Spirit and the baptism with fire. ← a better understanding is Jesus baptism with the Holy Spirit

~ OR ~

with fire. Meaning

With the Holy Spirit = saved

With fire = under eternal judgment / condemnation

It is true that a tradition of water baptism continues to this day which some have aligned with salvation itself grabbing a scripture here and there. ← which only goes to show that even apostles can have difficulties breaking with traditions. Paul the Apostle called the Apostle out for mistakes he made (specifically being cliquish with Jewish believers). Not to besmirch anyone. The Bible  clearly divulges the humanness of the prophets and apostles. 

Paul specifically stated that the water baptism of John was only unto repentance. Here's a fact most believers are unaware of because their teachers are unaware of it (or they do not realize the significance of the passage):

Hebrews 9:16–17 (AV)
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

This means the Old Testament record goes beyond Malachi 4 to Matthew 27:50, Mark 15:37, Luke 23:46, John 19:30. ← when the New Testament actually began at the death of Jesus on the cross.

The Old Testament / Old Covenant was lived and taught up to that point. Meaning everything up to that point was Old Testament Law (like forgiving others lest the Father not forgive you... plucking out an eye that causes you to sin... etc. which are all obvious works).

Ephesians 2:8–10 (AV)
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

All that is required from us is belief in the genuine Jesus Christ. Truly his yoke is easy his burden is light.

It's hard for the Jews and even the Gentiles to accept that there is nothing else to salvation than that. A stumbling block to Jews and absurdity to Greeks (Gentiles).

If water baptism is so dad burned important why on Earth was the Apostle Paul glad he did not baptize many?

1 Corinthians 1:14 (AV)
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

Huh???

Gee thanks, Paul... right?

Even before I was led to understand what is meant by one baptism:

Ephesians 4:5 (AV)
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

1 Corinthians 12:13 (AV)
13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

... I taught that water baptism at the most is only the outward testimony of an inward transformation.

There are water baptisms many, idiomatically speaking.  This reminds me, I really need to wash my car... {wink}

[Who me]

"Is a huge stretch involved to get to this belief or is it plain as day and I'm missing it? So far I just don't see the scripture to make those connections."

 

it depends what you believe. If you believe we are saved solely vthrough faith in Jesus, then infant baptism or christening is just superstition and you can ignore it

it is only if you believe it is vital for the salvation of anybody that you need to know what it's supporters believe the Bible says about it.

[johnthebaptist]

18 hours ago, Starise said:

I have a question about baptism and what is commonly called infant baptism as it is related to the protestant covenant view.

I spoke recently with a person who was explaining how they looked at this. If I understand correctly somehow through a covenant process what was once circumcision became infant baptism.

Before this, my only familiarity with baptism was the type where only adults are immersed. In that case, baptism  is seen as the outward expression and command of our savior that we were saved. An outward testament if you will of the internal work of God in us. 

This other form of baptism I have a hard time connecting the dots from circumcision to baptism. It seems like something totally different to me.

Is a huge stretch involved to get to this belief or is it plain as day and I'm missing it? So far I just don't see the scripture to make those connections.

I will tell you how they justify infant baptism: They believe you will go to hell if you don't get baptized, so they baptize you as soon as you are born.

[enoob57]

what a voodoo type of spirituality...

[teddyv]

45 minutes ago, johnthebaptist said:

I will tell you how they justify infant baptism: They believe you will go to hell if you don't get baptized, so they baptize you as soon as you are born.

This is more in reference to RCC doctrine. Completely untrue for Protestant denominations that practice it.

[johnthebaptist]

24 minutes ago, teddyv said:

This is more in reference to RCC doctrine. Completely untrue for Protestant denominations that practice it.

You can read the minds of people who baptise their infants?