Should we baptize babies? Is Baptism the circumcision of the new covenant?

[tim_from_pa]

On 2/9/2023 at 1:30 PM, portlie said:

I am wondering if baptism for children is what God wants, many say it is the new covenant and, like circumcision should be done to dedicate a child to God

thank you to whoever can help 

No. Don't "baptize" them.  My wife and I said that we understood that this "baptism" ceremony was a dedication of our children to the Lord. That said, many ministers want to "baptize" them anyway.  Then later on in life they will want to be baptized when they believe.  That should through the baby baptizers into a spin. If the minister argues they already were baptized, then the kids can say no they were not! I think these infant ceremonies are to pacify certain beliefs that people have "what if..." i.e. the baby dies before they had faith?  Where a baby goes is the same as where a person goes who never heard the gospel - they will be raised in the general resurrection to be judged at the Great White Thone judgment (after the millennium).  The books will be opened and they will have the first and same opportunity at salvation as we did in this life where we know better.  Some will obey and be saved, others will perish in the lake of fire.

[Tristen]

7 minutes ago, farouk said:

Well, I would look at such examples as being for our learning; clearly they consciously believed when they were baptized.

I think that's fine up to a point. However, you are reading something into the verse that the verse doesn't state. Yes, this group "believed" before they were baptized. But that it quite a long way from suggesting that there is a Christian law prohibiting Christians from baptizing their children.

Acts 16:14-15 and 1 Corinthians 1:16 speak of whole households being baptized. One could reasonably assume they had children in their households. We have to be careful to recognize where the scripture ends, and our ideas/presuppositions begin. 

Even in Acts 2, Peter was speaking to a crowd of thousands. One could reasonably assume there were children present. There is no statement that only adults were permitted to be baptized. It would therefore be somewhat presumptuous to make such a doctrine on the basis of this evidence.

 

 

[farouk]

6 minutes ago, Tristen said:

I think that's fine up to a point. However, you are reading something into the verse that the verse doesn't state. Yes, this group "believed" before they were baptized. But that it quite a long way from suggesting that there is a Christian law prohibiting Christians from baptizing their children.

Acts 16:14-15 and 1 Corinthians 1:16 speak of whole households being baptized. One could reasonably assume they had children in their households. We have to be careful to recognize where the scripture ends, and our ideas/presuppositions begin. 

Even in Acts 2, Peter was speaking to a crowd of thousands. One could reasonably assume there were children present. There is no statement that only adults were permitted to be baptized. It would therefore be somewhat presumptuous to make such a doctrine on the basis of this evidence.

 

 

In Acts 16 the jailer was baptized, 'believing with all his house'.

Seems like we are not going to agree, anyway.

[teddyv]

4 hours ago, farouk said:

Hi @Tristen Acts 2.41 shows that baptism follows personal faith; it does not bring it into effect, supposedly.

I don't think those households that became Christians were based on personal faith of every individual in that household. The patriarchal society of the time meant that if the patriarch decided they were to become Christian, everyone in the household became Christian. 

The idea of personal faith, personal relationship, is deeply rooted in our highly individualistic society. I think there is a matter of personal accountability, even in those days, but our concept is pretty new and quite foreign to that time.

[farouk]

2 minutes ago, teddyv said:

I don't think those households that became Christians were based on personal faith of every individual in that household. The patriarchal society of the time meant that if the patriarch decided they were to become Christian, everyone in the household became Christian. 

The idea of personal faith, personal relationship, is deeply rooted in our highly individualistic society. I think there is a matter of personal accountability, even in those days, but our concept is pretty new and quite foreign to that time.

Acts 16 does say, "believing with all his house"; i.e., all the household believed.

[Jayne]

Let the Bible speak:

Acts 16:30-32 = "Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house."

The gospel was preached to the Philippian jailer.  The gospel was preached to his household.

They believed.  Each of his own accord.

 

[teddyv]

2 hours ago, Jayne said:

Let the Bible speak:

Acts 16:30-32 = "Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house."

The gospel was preached to the Philippian jailer.  The gospel was preached to his household.

They believed.  Each of his own accord.

 

I know what you are saying and I can't dispute the words. But I do believe you are reading our modern sensibilities into the text. The same thing happened with Cornelius. We cannot ignore the prevailing family and social organization of the Roman world - and that meant that what the patriarch says, goes for the family. If those in the family believed, great.

I have heard more modern stories of Indonesian villages where the chief decides that everyone in the village is now a Christian (or Muslim, or whatever). It's not a choice - it simply is.

 

[Tristen]

On 2/17/2023 at 3:29 AM, farouk said:

In Acts 16 the jailer was baptized, 'believing with all his house'.

 It seems, with this comment, that you are acting on an instinct to correct me - i.e. to show me wrong about something. And if I'm wrong about one thing, well, what might that suggest about the rest of my argument?

My (actual) provided scripture references were "Acts 16:14-15 and 1 Corinthians 1:16".

Acts 16:14-15
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.

1 Corinthians 1:16
Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other.

 

On 2/17/2023 at 3:29 AM, farouk said:

Seems like we are not going to agree, anyway.

Agreement is not necessarily the point of such discussions. The goal for each of us should be the pursuit of truth through examination of each other's arguments according to logic and hermeneutics.

I find your argument against child baptisms to be weak for the following reasons:

- The logic of your argument is as follows: 'Since there is one example of something occurring in a particular order, therefore, that particular order is the only legitimate way to accomplish that thing'. That is, 'Since we have one example of baptism occurring after attaining personal faith, there is a law in Christianity that baptism is only legitimate if it follows personal faith - therefore excluding the legitimacy of child baptisms'. The type of logic fallacy being applied here is known as Composition Fallacy - i.e. generating a whole behavioral dogma/doctrine on the basis of a single behavioral example.

- There is no direct scriptural support of your position. Nowhere does scripture directly state that child baptisms are illegitimate - or that only adult baptisms are legitimate. Even the example you use to support your position (Acts 2:41) does not explicitly exclude children as being part of the group that was baptized.

- Your conclusion is based on several unverified assumptions; including the assumption that a single example is sufficient to establish doctrinal dogma. The Bible says, “By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.” (2 Corinthians 13:1). Doctrines which are important to God are stated, repeated and reaffirmed throughout scripture. Those which are not-so-important (less fundament, less essential) remain open for the possibility of respectful disagreement.

- Christianity is not a legalistic covenant, and baptism is a ritual, not a moral, imperative. There is no law in Christianity either for, or against, Christians baptizing their children.

- Historically speaking, baptism is cultural, and not exclusive to Christianity. The cultural precedent of baptism did not prohibit child baptisms. Child baptisms were common practice in ancient cultures.

- There is scriptural evidence of whole households being baptized into Christ; including those provide by me above.

Therefore, in conclusion (since it seems you are happy to move on), I don't find your argument compelling from the perspective of either logic, nor hermeneutical best-practice.

 

 

[JohnD]

On 2/9/2023 at 12:30 PM, portlie said:

I am wondering if baptism for children is what God wants, many say it is the new covenant and, like circumcision should be done to dedicate a child to God

thank you to whoever can help 

Water baptism is at best an outward expression of an inward transformation. 

It is not required for salvation. John the water baptizer made this clear (Matthew 3:11).

The Holy Spirit baptism John speaks of there is required for salvation. Otherwise the baptism

by fire (judgment) is the doom / destiny of all who do not believe in Jesus (John 3:18).

Water baptism stems from the washing of the priests before performing temple rituals.

John the Baptist was the pre-royal herald to the coming King and to his New Covenant: 

preaching the repentance not only from sin but also from the Old Covenant (prophesied by

Jeremiah 31:31-34).

Galatians 3:24-25 essentially states that Torah was to educate humanity but Grace is the graduation

purpose for the education. Rather than being stuck in school forever, the symbolic baptism was to 

prepare the Jewish people for graduation from Torah to Brit Hadasha (New Covenant Grace).

Far too many adult Christians are unaware of this. And babies certainly have no idea about all of this.

It is a bit superstitious to baptize a baby (for luck or in hopes they will believe someday) but salvation in Christ

is sheer choice. You can't impose it on anyone.

That being said, my Beloved Bride and I were moved to tears once while attending a Methodist Church years ago where a

baby was ceremonially baptized, wrapped in a blanket made by the women of the church and carried by the minister who sang the 

baby's name "Jaden Jaden God claims you, God helps you, protects you, and loves you too."

We should all pray like this, and come together as a congregation devoted to protecting and watching over our youth. But Jaden has to choose

to believe  in Jesus Christ to be saved same as anyone. So to ceremonially commit as a body of believers to this in this manner is fine and good and

moving to me to this very day.

 

[farouk]

On 2/16/2023 at 1:04 PM, Jayne said:

Let the Bible speak:

Acts 16:30-32 = "Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house."

The gospel was preached to the Philippian jailer.  The gospel was preached to his household.

They believed.  Each of his own accord.

 

@Jayne, Indeed, and it says that the jailer was baptized, 'believing with all his house'. They all believed.