Page 1 of 7 1234567 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 92

Thread: Infant Baptism a truth from the Bible

  1. #1

    Infant Baptism a truth from the Bible

    I have a background of strong belief that only adults should be baptised after they have repented. In fact my children have not yet been baptised. So I am certainly not biased towards Infant Baptism. Quite the reverse, my bias was against Infant Baptism. However as is my regular practice I began a study on this issue and disposed of my preconceived ideas and examined my beliefs. It turned out that the arguments FOR Infant baptism FAR outweigh those against it and I have listed them below.

    Argument 1 - Principle of circumsion applies to baptism
    One argument is that a Jew was able to enter into the Old Covenant relationship with God on the eighth day of his life when he was circumcised through the decision of his parents. Why should this principle not apply to the entry into the New Covenant relationship with God in infancy through the decision of his/her parents by baptism.
    The link between circumcision and baptism is shown in Col 2:11-12.

    Argument 2 - Suffer the little children to come to me
    Christ himself intervened when the disciples prevented parents from bringing the children to him. In fact he rebuked them. Are we repeating the disciples error by preventing the baptism of infants. If the little children are of the kingdom of God and receive the kingdom of God, then on what basis can baptism be refused?
    Luke 18:15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

    Argument 3 - Entire households were baptised
    Many times the apostles baptised entire households with no mention of the exclusion of infants.
    1. The household of Lydia Acts 16:14,15
    2. The household of the jailer
    Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. 32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. 34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.
    Does this mean that the household of the jailer were saved, all except the infants. And if the infants were saved, on what basis would they be excluded from the baptism of the household members. Notice in this interpretation the repentance of the parents is adequate for the salvation and baptism of the infant.
    3. The household of Crispus Acts 18:8
    4. The household of Cornelius Acts 10:24-48
    Surely at least one of these households must have had an infant or child living in it and yet there is no mention or instruction to exclude the children.

    Argument 4 - The tradition of the church is clear
    The tradition of the church even going back to the second century was to baptise infants. The Anabaptists, as far as I can tell were the first to reject infant baptism in the 16th century. If anyone believes that the early church did not baptise infants then it is beholden on them to provide evidence about when and why the practice was introduced by the universal (catholic) church.

    Argument 5 - Children of believers are holy
    This passage 1 Cor 7 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. shows that the children of believers are holy. In fact the unbelieving husband is sanctified in order that the children may be considered holy. If a child his holy then on what grounds can we refuse him or her baptism? If children are Holy is it not because they have the Holy Ghost? How else can they be Holy? If they have the Holy Ghost then the priests should command them to be baptised. Acts 10"47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

    The Spirit confirms the truth of this because of the disquiet in my soul when my children asked me about the Holy Spirit. Before I understood this I used to try and tell them that they didn't have the Holy Spirit even though they loved the Lord and the expression of his Word, and strove to obey him every bit as much as I do. My spirit warred within me when I tried to say to them that one day you will repent and turn from your life of sin and death when they have been obedient believers from the day of their birth. On which day of their lives were they rebellious and at enmity with God? None. The notion is preposterous as they were brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. On which day did they not believe in the Son of God? What does the Scripture say about those who believe?
    John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: So if a child believes and has everlasting life then the notion of refusing them baptism is preposterous

    Paul promises the believer that the whole household who believe shall be saved.
    Acts 16 30 Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. 32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. 34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

    Argument Against - Baptised Infants may rebel in their teenage years
    The main argument for not baptising is that children for a variety of reasons in their teenage years rebel and go their own way and abandon the families Christian ways. On the face of it this seems like a sensible approach, lets not baptise until we are more confident in their maturity. However this approach is NEVER mentioned in scripture. It is because we are immature that we become baptised. We even call newly baptised Christians babes in Christ. So these babes are baptised so why not the babes in Christ of believers.

    It should be noticed too that many baptised adults who are babes in Christ abandon Christianity as well and sadly even long term Christians. If we use this argument then nobody should be baptised at all.

    All in all I believe that the support for Infant baptism is unassailable.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    257
    None of the reasoning you supplied for justifying infant baptism is correct, the false doctrine crept into the "church" in the 4th century around A.D 370 and according to church historians was not practised prior to that, but was an inevitable consequence of another error in doctrine that had entered the church, that of "Baptismal Regeneration" or salvation through water baptism. (Shackleford's Compendium of Baptist History pg. 43)

    The scriptural qualification for water baptism is *belief* in Christ as Saviour, hence why we must reject infant baptism as truth because an infant cannot believe.

    Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
    - Matt -
    .
    Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing
    of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Soj_NZ View Post
    None of the reasoning you supplied for justifying infant baptism is correct, the false doctrine crept into the "church" in the 4th century around A.D 370 and according to church historians was not practised prior to that, but was an inevitable consequence of another error in doctrine that had entered the church, that of "Baptismal Regeneration" or salvation through water baptism. (Shackleford's Compendium of Baptist History pg. 43)

    The scriptural qualification for water baptism is *belief* in Christ as Saviour, hence why we must reject infant baptism as truth because an infant cannot believe.

    Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
    Indeed you are entirely wrong on this point. Infant baptism was the predominant belief in the early church. Any church historian who says otherwise is either a very bad historian or else is biased towards his pre-chosen view. Of course a baptist will need to stack the evidence in favour of denying infant baptism as this is one of the primary distinctions of that denomination.

    Proof that Infant baptism was the predominant view of the early church is overwhelming.
    Polycarp was baptised as an infant in 69AD enabling him to say at his martyrdom "Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 9: 3).
    Justin Martyr (100 - 166) of the next generation states about the year 150, "Many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years" (Apology 1: 15). Further, in his Dialog with Trypho the Jew, Justin Martyr states that Baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament.
    Irenaeus (130 - 200), some 35 years later in 185, writes in Against Heresies II 22: 4 that Jesus "came to save all through means of Himself - all, I say, who through him are born again to God - infants and children, boys and youth, and old men."
    Council of Carthage in 254AD 66 bishops in proclaiming ""We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God..... especially infants. . . those newly born."
    Origen wrote in his Commentary on Romans 5: 9: "For this also it was that the church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants. For they to whom the divine mysteries were committed knew that there is in all persons a natural pollution of sin which must be done away by water and the Spirit." he also wrote in his Homily on Luke 14: "Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins."
    Cyprian’s wrote to Fidus regarding the Baptism of infants saying "Should we wait until the eighth day as did the Jews in circumcision? No, the child should be baptized as soon as it is born (To Fidus 1: 2).
    16th Council of Carthage in 418AD Sixteenth Council of Carthage in 418 unequivocally stated: "If any man says that newborn children need not be baptized . . . let him be anathema."
    Augustine (354 - 430), writing about this time in De Genesi Ad Literam, X: 39, declares, "The custom of our mother church in baptizing infants must not be . . . accounted needless, nor believed to be other than a tradition of the apostles."

    He further states, "If you wish to be a Christian, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin." And again, "Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without participation in His sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they cannot possibly be vivified in Christ."
    Hippolytus' (170-236 A.D.) perception of infant baptism is clear and straightforward as well: "And first baptize the little ones; and if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them."

    Tertullian 200AD
    Tertullian was the earliest church father to express a preference for not baptising. However even in this discourse he argues from the position of questioning the common practice of Infant Baptism.
    "According to circumstance and disposition and even age of the individual person, it may be better to delay Baptism; and especially so in the case of little children. Why, indeed, is it necessary -- if it be not a case of necessity -- that the sponsors to be thrust into danger, when they themselves may fail to fulfill their promises by reason of death, or when they may be disappointed by the growth of an evil disposition? Indeed the Lord says, 'Do not forbid them to come to me' [Matt 19:14; Luke 18:16].

    There are also countless inscriptions from the catacombs and on gravestones which demonstrate that infants have been baptised as a standard practice

    REFERENCES
    http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/journals/kastens.htm
    http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a110.htm


    I also utterly reject that infants cannot believe in Jesus. I have children and they have believed since they were two or three in Jesus. So by your own definition a three year old can be baptised. And if a three year old can be baptised then why not a two year old? And by which authority can you allow baptism of a two year old and not a one year old or a baby?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    941
    [quote=excubitor;1290328]

    Argument 1 - Principle of circumsion applies to baptism
    One argument is that a Jew was able to enter into the Old Covenant relationship with God on the eighth day of his life when he was circumcised through the decision of his parents. Why should this principle not apply to the entry into the New Covenant relationship with God in infancy through the decision of his/her parents by baptism.
    The link between circumcision and baptism is shown in Col 2:11-12.
    quote]

    This is such a weak argument! Only BOYS are circumcized....what was the mark of the covenant for GIRLS????

  5. #5
    Excubitor,

    Your arguments are solidly biblically based and accurate. The one thing I would caution against is alluded to by sold out, as follows.

    [quote=Sold Out;1290445]
    Quote Originally Posted by excubitor View Post

    Argument 1 - Principle of circumsion applies to baptism
    One argument is that a Jew was able to enter into the Old Covenant relationship with God on the eighth day of his life when he was circumcised through the decision of his parents. Why should this principle not apply to the entry into the New Covenant relationship with God in infancy through the decision of his/her parents by baptism.
    The link between circumcision and baptism is shown in Col 2:11-12.
    quote]

    This is such a weak argument! Only BOYS are circumcized....what was the mark of the covenant for GIRLS????
    This, I believe is where we lack understanding for water baptism. You are absolutely correct in that even a new born baby can be saved, because salvation is of the Lord, and whomsoever He wills to be saved will be saved. So are we right to link water baptism, (which is a work we must perform, or a work we administer to our infants and children) with the true baptism of the Holy Spirit that only the Lord can give, to salvation? I would say no, and I don't believe that Scripture does either.

    Why is it necessary for us (professing believers), as well as our infants and children to receive the sign of water baptism if it is not a sign of coming into the eternal covenant of salvation? Just as sold out has stated only boys received the sign under the old covenant. The sign was administered to those who would become the heads of the household, and all women, and Gentiles who came under their authority were included into the covenant body under his headship. Granted if a Gentile male wanted to be included in the covenant family he too, being male must also receive the covenant sign of circumcision.

    What sold out fails to understand it that we are no longer under the old covenant which limited covenant inclusion to only the Jews. We are now under the covenant of grace through Christ, and all people, no matter the sex or nationality are included into the covenant body.

    But under the old covenant even unbelievers received the sign. Even Ishmael, and Esau at eight days old received the sign of inclusion through circumcision. But Scripture plainly shows us they were not eternally saved, so why would God command the sign that pointed to salvation be given to reprobates? Because the sign of circumcision was not given as evidence of salvation. It was given to show covenant inclusion. God gave the sign to Abraham and his seed to show they were set apart unto God. The sign separated them from the unbelieving world; the sign of circumcision set them apart as God's covenant people.

    Now under the new covenant Christ has given us the sign of water baptism, which replaces the sign of circumcision. Water baptism is the sign given to the NT church or the universal church. It is the sign of covenant inclusion, but just as reprobates were included in the old covenant through the outward sign of circumcision, so too we find reprobates under the new covenant who receive the sign.

    Christ gave His church the sign of water baptism to set the church apart from the unbelieving world around us. All who make a profession of faith receive the sign, and all of their children also receive the sign. The sign of water baptism does not automatically include those who receive the sign into the eternal covenant, but the promise is unto the church. Christ gave the church the means, i.e. His Written Word, the message of the cross, as the way of bringing His elect to salvation.

    So, of course we must bring our covenant children into the church through the administration of the sign. We raise them as they are covenant children, never for one day persuming they are not among the elect of God, and eternally saved. We claim God's promise that salvation is unto us and our children and all the Lord shall call. It is our prayer that through living under the covenant umbrella, and being taught the Word, and hearing the gospel of salvation that our infants and children will one day demonstrate through their lives and actions that they are indeed eternally saved through Christ.

    RW

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Rhode Island!!!
    Posts
    4,901
    Blog Entries
    10
    over 20 years ago I was given a tract..which I still have in a frame. It said, "where in the Bible does it speak of infant baptism"..when you open it, it reads"nowhere"...this brought me on a search to find it. I read through the entire Bible because I wanted to go back to the person who gave me this tract and tell them next time..read your Bible first..

    well I never did find in the Bible where infants are baptized...but I did find Jesus Christ! And "then" I was baptized again..only this time Scriptually..after I believed...
    Mark 16:16-"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." kjv
    .................The message of the cross divides the human race." ~MW~

    ........ ... " LORD, I beseech thee, let now thine ear be attentive to the prayer of thy servant..."
    .................................................. .................................................. ...Nehemiah 1:11a




  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Modern Day Corinth
    Posts
    1,387
    Quote Originally Posted by excubitor View Post

    Argument 2 - Suffer the little children to come to me
    Christ himself intervened when the disciples prevented parents from bringing the children to him. In fact he rebuked them. Are we repeating the disciples error by preventing the baptism of infants. If the little children are of the kingdom of God and receive the kingdom of God, then on what basis can baptism be refused?
    Luke 18:15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.
    This is what i usually hear from Catholics when i enter these discussions. Somehow a verse where Jesus is laying hands and blessing the Children is turned into infants being baptized.

    What we do see in this verse is the laying of hands.
    What we dont see is an infant being baptized.

    Thats just taking the word at face value.


    Argument 3 - Entire households were baptised
    Many times the apostles baptised entire households with no mention of the exclusion of infants.
    1. The household of Lydia Acts 16:14,15
    2. The household of the jailer
    Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. 32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. 34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.
    Does this mean that the household of the jailer were saved, all except the infants. And if the infants were saved, on what basis would they be excluded from the baptism of the household members. Notice in this interpretation the repentance of the parents is adequate for the salvation and baptism of the infant.
    3. The household of Crispus Acts 18:8
    4. The household of Cornelius Acts 10:24-48
    Surely at least one of these households must have had an infant or child living in it and yet there is no mention or instruction to exclude the children.
    This argument doesnt work because it is based on sheer assumption. One would have to read into what isnt there.

    For a quick example let me pick myself and three friends that live in different areas.

    On my neighborhood you could baptize every household and not one infant would be baptized. Same with my two other friends. You would find one house on my block with a child around 8-10.

    Is that old enough? Well that depends on the understanding of the child. Do they understand God's message in His Word? Perhaps but then again we are talking about children and not infants/babies.

    Argument 4 - The tradition of the church is clear
    The tradition of the church even going back to the second century was to baptise infants. The Anabaptists, as far as I can tell were the first to reject infant baptism in the 16th century. If anyone believes that the early church did not baptise infants then it is beholden on them to provide evidence about when and why the practice was introduced by the universal (catholic) church.
    I have to be honest... when i see the bolded title here of argument 4 i come up with something else not pertaining to baptism as an answer. The church has many traditions and alot of those arent exactly biblical.

    Basing something off tradition is a bit dangerous in my opinion because an individual might rely on something based off tradition as opposed to what scripture actually says

    Argument 5 - Children of believers are holy
    This passage 1 Cor 7 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. shows that the children of believers are holy. In fact the unbelieving husband is sanctified in order that the children may be considered holy. If a child his holy then on what grounds can we refuse him or her baptism? If children are Holy is it not because they have the Holy Ghost? How else can they be Holy? If they have the Holy Ghost then the priests should command them to be baptised. Acts 10"47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.
    So could we just baptize every single infant in hopes that they all go to heaven?

    I think this practice started with people worrying about the salvation of their children and continues today for this same reason. No person wants to think that an infant or child that died may not be with God. So perhaps for that very reason this practice began.

    But what does scripture actually show us in regards to baptism? Well we know that Jesus himself was baptized in the gospels. So we could turn there and see Christ (Not an infant) being baptized.... but lets look at the biblical church after Christ and see what is being shown there.

    Its important to note that i am going straight to scripture on this matter and no other man. Only God's Word is infallible.

    Starting in Acts 2:14 we see peter standing up and speaking. He speaks of Christ (22), the cross (23) and the resurrection (24) amongst other things. This is typical of what we actually see throughout Acts.

    Then in when those heard it they were pierced to the heart (37) asking "what now shall we do".

    It was responded that they Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. (38)

    So what we have is a reasoning mind that heard and understood the message. They were pierced to the heart/quickened. and then they were baptized (41) and then devoted themselves to the apostiles teachings (42) as a believer today would by then turning to scripture.

    The second time this occurs

    Is in Acts 8. I will give a brief synopsis.

    (5) Phillip goes into the city and preaches Christ
    (6) The Crowds were of one accord and paid attention to the signs. Many unclean spirits came out and lame were healed (7)
    (12) The crown then believed what Phillip had to say regarding those things and both men and women were baptized.
    Then in 15-17 they recieve the Holy Spirit.

    What i am trying to show you here is that anytime it occurs in the scriptures itself.. it is a believing, reasoning and understanding mind that is quickened by God. After which they are baptized.

    I notice that later on you quote early church fathers. But when i see that i would just rather go back even further and see what Scriptures show us. If those men's words were infallible or inspired by God then perhaps they would be in this book. But instead our book shows that people willl not endure sound doctrine (which we get from Gods word)

    A man might say many things and line up with God's word often but may err in certain things though it not be many. When you have God's Holy Word there need not be a reason to turn anywhere else but his word.
    Quote Originally Posted by Job 34:19
    God is not partial to princes and does not favor the rich over the poor, for they are all the work of His hands.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    78
    God has no grandchildren and offers no grandfather clause to His plan for man:

    Belief first, then baptism.

    “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.” (Acts 8:9)
    Blessings in Christ!

    PS: My avatar is a pic of me before I met Jesus!

    “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” - Jesus Christ (Matthew 11:28-30)

    All Scripture posted by me is from the New King James Version, unless otherwise noted.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by ElBob View Post
    God has no grandchildren and offers no grandfather clause to His plan for man:

    Belief first, then baptism.

    “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.” (Acts 8:9)
    Does that then mean that since no infant is capable of believing that no infant can be saved? If dying in infancy, even though they may be the elect of God, since they were never able to profess belief then they do not go to heaven to be with the Lord?

    Now of course the alternative is to deny total depravity, and say that every child dying prior to the age of accountability is automatically saved. But we have to remember that if this is true, and God saves every child dying before ability to profess belief and become saved, then every human who does not profess belief and receive the sign would have lost their salvation. If salvation is automatic because of some perceived innocense in infants, then if that infant grows up to be reprobate, then their so-called guarantee of salvation was lost. That of course means that Christ does not eternally save us, because at birth we were guaranteed salvation, but when we committed iniquity we fell away, lost our salvation? Hmmm...this affects not only the doctrine of total depravity, but the doctrine of eternal security. How many doctrines must we deny in our argument against paedo baptism?

    RW

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    York, Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    6,080
    Blog Entries
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by RogerW View Post
    Does that then mean that since no infant is capable of believing that no infant can be saved? If dying in infancy, even though they may be the elect of God, since they were never able to profess belief then they do not go to heaven to be with the Lord?

    Now of course the alternative is to deny total depravity, and say that every child dying prior to the age of accountability is automatically saved. But we have to remember that if this is true, and God saves every child dying before ability to profess belief and become saved, then every human who does not profess belief and receive the sign would have lost their salvation. If salvation is automatic because of some perceived innocense in infants, then if that infant grows up to be reprobate, then their so-called guarantee of salvation was lost. That of course means that Christ does not eternally save us, because at birth we were guaranteed salvation, but when we committed iniquity we fell away, lost our salvation? Hmmm...this affects not only the doctrine of total depravity, but the doctrine of eternal security. How many doctrines must we deny in our argument against paedo baptism?

    RW
    The issue of what to do with children, however, is no reason to go against what the Bible teaches concerning baptism. One cannot deny a certain pattern found in the New Testament by pointing to a perceived problem with salvation of infants.
    Who have I in heaven but You oh God? Besides You, I desire nothing here on earth. My heart and my flesh may fail me, but God will be the strength of my heart and my portion forever...as for me, the nearness of God is my good - Psalm 73:25-26, 28a

    Check out my new blog at pilgrimtozion.blogspot.com

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Pilgrimtozion View Post
    The issue of what to do with children, however, is no reason to go against what the Bible teaches concerning baptism. One cannot deny a certain pattern found in the New Testament by pointing to a perceived problem with salvation of infants.
    The Bible teaches covenantal inclusion, do you deny that? Since the Bible does teach covenantal inclusion, what is the sign Christ has given us to show we are keeping covenant with Him? If the sign is water baptism, do you believe that every member in the covenant body (universal church) having received the sign is saved?

    RW

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    941
    Quote Originally Posted by RogerW View Post
    Excubitor,


    What sold out fails to understand it that we are no longer under the old covenant which limited covenant inclusion to only the Jews. We are now under the covenant of grace through Christ, and all people, no matter the sex or nationality are included into the covenant body.


    RW
    I did not 'fail to understand' anything. I completely understand the old and new covenants. The point I was making is that OT circumcision is a weak point to support infant baptism in the NT.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    York, Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    6,080
    Blog Entries
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by RogerW View Post
    The Bible teaches covenantal inclusion, do you deny that? Since the Bible does teach covenantal inclusion, what is the sign Christ has given us to show we are keeping covenant with Him? If the sign is water baptism, do you believe that every member in the covenant body (universal church) having received the sign is saved?

    RW
    Let's work with Scripture here. Can you lay out the Scriptures you distill these statements from and explain the conclusions you reach concerning covenantal inclusion?
    Who have I in heaven but You oh God? Besides You, I desire nothing here on earth. My heart and my flesh may fail me, but God will be the strength of my heart and my portion forever...as for me, the nearness of God is my good - Psalm 73:25-26, 28a

    Check out my new blog at pilgrimtozion.blogspot.com

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Pilgrimtozion View Post
    Let's work with Scripture here. Can you lay out the Scriptures you distill these statements from and explain the conclusions you reach concerning covenantal inclusion?
    Why repeat what the OP has already shown through Scripture? Excubitor has answered the questions I posed to you with Scripture, with the exception of the last one, which is a personal question directed to you. Do you believe that every baptized member in the covenant body is saved? The only thing I view differently then Excubitor is the apparent assumption that water baptism is linked to salvation. I do not see this in Scripture, but I do see water baptism as a sign of inclusion in the covenant body (the church) just as circumcision was the covenant sign to the Jew in the old, that points to salvation.

    If we stop trying to find exact language i.e. "baptize infants" and instead search the Bible to find how God covenants with mankind, then you can see that water baptism is not a sign of salvation, but a sign of covenant inclusion, just as circumcision was in the old. When we baptize our infants it is not a guarantee they have been saved, but God's promise that they have indeed been set apart from the unbelieving world. The baptized children of believing or covenantal parents are called "holy" not in the sense they are automatically saved because they have received the sign, but that they have been "set apart" being made ceremonially clean, and no longer considered "unclean" through the believing parent who obeys the Lord's commandment. The same is true of the unbelieving spouse, and why the believing spouse should remain in the marriage with the unbeliever. To be sanctified means to be made "holy" or ceremonially clean through the believer.

    1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

    RW

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    York, Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    6,080
    Blog Entries
    17
    This mode of thinking has one essential mistake: in the OT, the sign of being set apart was done by parents with their children through circumcision. This covenant was made with a people-group that later became a nation. The New Covenant, however, is not made with a people-group or with several generations within the same family. No, the covenant is made with individuals through Christ. The comparison of 'setting apart' as you desire to point out, is therefore non-existant. My parents cannot give me any kind of sign of being set apart, because faith is not passed on as such from father on son or from mother on daughter. As a poster has said before: God has no grandchildren.

    The verse from 1 Corinthians 7 has nothing to do with infant baptism, my friend, and can in no way be applied to it.
    Who have I in heaven but You oh God? Besides You, I desire nothing here on earth. My heart and my flesh may fail me, but God will be the strength of my heart and my portion forever...as for me, the nearness of God is my good - Psalm 73:25-26, 28a

    Check out my new blog at pilgrimtozion.blogspot.com

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •