Can infant baptism be Scriptural?

Since you refuse to answer my other question, who does Christ's atonement cover? Hint: Ephesians 2:8-9

 

"I don't believe that a God of mercy, who "is not willing that any man should perish," would purposely send send infants to Heaven. That is a cruel picture of a loving God. "
LOL, I know what you meant to say but that is pretty funny.

If I recall you claim to believe in Scripture Alone, if that is so how can you come up with such an extrabiblical belief. Are you so unwilling to admit that it is possible for an infant to have faith that you are willing to ignore all of the statements that plainly say that the only ones going to heaven are those that have faith?

You are forgetting that God is also a God of Righteousness, Justice, and cannot tolerate the presence of sin. You have already admitted that infants are guilty of sin, so how can you say a sinful person is going to stand in the presence of God? When the Bible is quite clear that any person guilty of sin would be destroyed if they were to stand in God's presence. Secondly, God has manifested his mercy only through His son Jesus Christ, in who faith is required for salvation.

Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

""Like as" indicate a similie, a figure of speech, symbolism. So does the expression: "even so."
In baptism our old life to sin was buried. In rising out of the water, "even so" we walk in newness of life." We have a new life in Christ, in contrast to the old life we had before we trusted Christ. We just buried that old life (symbolically).
Grammatically, that is the only way it can be taken."

Not quite, in this case it is not a figurative comparison. It is a conjunction that connects the death and resurrection. Unless you want to claim that we only experience a figurative resurrection it would not work in a figurative sense. Besides if Paul was speaking figuratively he would have prefaced it with something to the effect of "baptism is like", or "as if", or "likened unto."

 

Yes, I suuppose it is. It is what I deserve for not proof reading my posts.

Should be:
I don't believe that a God of mercy, who is "not willing that any should perish," would purposely send infants to Hell. That is a cruel picture of a loving God.

I hope I got it right this time.

 

If all that baptism does is get you wet, why bother doing it? What would be the consequence of not doing it?

 

(It's interesting to watch two people argue, who claim to believe in sola Scriptura yet can't agree on what the "scriptura" is saying about something so fundamental as baptism. Yet each are equally convinced that his is the "biblical" position.)

And now, back to our debate.....

 

Why do it? Obedience and loyalty. Why do we wear wedding rings? Would we not be married if we didn't
Consequence of not being baptized, knowing you should, is a break in fellowship with God. You don't lose salvation if you don't. If you could, eternal life would depend on you and not Jesus.

 

Either it matters to salvation or it doesn't. If it doesn't, surely there's no point in doing it? What's the use of being obedient if it doesn't affect one's salvation?

 

Because when you are saved, you want to be obedient. If baptism mattered for salvation, Christ is limited to only part of salvation, with our works as the other part. This goes against what scripture says about grace, faith and works (Eph. 2:8-9)

 

To All,

bmerr here. something we need to consider concerning infants and the intellectually unaccountable, and whether they go to heaven or not, is the fact that the blood of Christ was shed for sinners.

Infants and the mentally infirm are not held accountable for transgressing God's law, because they lack understanding of it.

Sin is the transgression of the law. Without comprehension of the law, we are not held accountable for transgressing it.

In Rom 7:9, Paul says that he was alive once without the law, but when the law came, sin revived, and he died. He's saying that before he understood the law, spiritually, he was alive. Not that he had never done anything wrong, but his transgressions were not held against him, since he didn't understand God's law.

Babies are born pure and spotless souls. God is the Father of spirits, and He does not produce souls as black as midnight, stained with some imaginary "original sin".

David's child is in Heaven. David could look forward to going to his child, because he lived faithfully to God.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

To All,

bmerr here. Getting back to the original topic of infant baptism, we should look at what the bible says the meaning and purpose of baptism is, and whether it applies to infants or not.

Sin is the transgression of the law. Paul was spiritually alive before he understood the law (Rom 7:9). Infants are, too. Since sin revives when one understands the law, and infants do not understand the law, then infants are not sinners.

So, baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Infants have no sin to be remitted.

Baptism is to wash away sin (Acts 22:16). Infants have no sin to be washed away.

Rising from baptism, we are to walk in newness of life (Rom 6:4). Infants behave the same way after their "baptisms" as they do before.

...Baptism doth also now save us...(1 Pet 3:21). Infants do not need to be saved.

Infant baptism is not Scriptural.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

You are aware you butchered the context of these passages to fit your heresy!

 

Bmerr:
I appreciate your post. It is right on target.

 

Webdog:
The context in each scriptural reference is the forgiveness of sins for the alien sinner. By the way, the bible says in Galatians 3:26-29,  For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27  For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29  And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

It will read that way on the day of judgment, too.

 

"An alien sinner?"

There is only one kind of sinner that I know of.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

 

Greetings and salutations,

It would seem to me that the purpose of infant baptism carries with it a similar purpose, if not indentical purpose, with that of infant circumcision under the old economy. It brought the individual under 'jurisdiction' (if you will permit me to say)to the terms of the Mosaic Law. The above quote, "to ensure that the person is capable of examining themselves before recieving communion," seems to also indicate that something, in this case, confirmation, needs to be performed at an age when they are, "capable of examining themselves."

I just wonder why we have a tendency to make things more difficult by inventing and re-inventing methods that are already established in scripture. I know of people who not only have their infants baptized, but also circumcised. Let's cover ALL bases.

The scripture says that circumcision binds one to keep the whole law. At that point they are in the jurisdictional area of the law. When thy come of age and decide that they want to continue in the faith of their parents, then simply be Baptized in a public forum, testifying that you are not just attending because your parents attend, it is no longer duty bound, rather, "I am capable of examining myself, and I believe in Christ."

I have also seen these same people have a baby dedication... The only thing missing is a get out of jail free card. Where is the simple tust in the Maker of Heaven and earth to do right, justly, and mercifully to the child and the parents.

Such baby dedications and infant baptisms are more of a dedication of THE PARENTS testifying and publicly proclaiming that thy will bring their children up in the fear and admonition of the Lord. The symbolism means little without the substance backing it up. Ritual without personal righteousness is empty.

I am not advocating doing away with rituals, ceremonies, and symbolism. What I am suggesting is not to overemphasize the externals over and against the internal aspect of the law. If we overemphasize rituals, faith becomes formulaic and people entertain false assurances because of some ceremony they have gone through.

I do not love my wife because or as a result of us getting married. Rather, it is because I love her that we got married. Whether she loves me... well... I haven't the foggist idea why... but she says she loves me and her actions demonstrates it also. Why? I can't think of any good reason, but I am glad she does.

Affectionately Yours,

Kismet

 

And if you're not obedient...?

 

How do we deal with a disobedient child? Chastisement or banishment forever?

Our heavenly Father chastens His children--He does not cast them to the abyss.

For by grace we are saved through faith, not of ourselves--it is a gift--from God; not of works--we cannot boast.

Re: jurisdiction--is not germane to this topic--Gentiles are not under the Law of Moses anyway. We are under grace--not works of trying to keep a system of laws. Connecting baptism and circumcision as being analogous is extremely awkward. Circumcision never saved anyone--nor has baptism. Maybe that is the analogy.

Selah,

Bro. James