Age of Accountability

Baptists do not baptize children (paedobaptism). Baptists baptize believers only upon a credible profession of faith. The so-called "age of accountability" has nothing to do with baptism. Baptism does not save. If your "Baptist" church is considering paedobaptism, it should consider becoming Presbyterian.

 

doulous;

I was shocked to find Baptist on here that do baptize infants and say that Salvation is in the water. I thought that was "Church of Christ doctrine." It is not me for sure.

 

I would agree.

The 8th chapter of Acts plainly shows that an infant is not proper material for baptism.

The eunuch said, 'See, here is water. What doth hinder me from being baptized?' And Philip answered, 'If thou believest, thou mayest.'

One must be a believer before being a proper subject for baptism.

Simple as that... infants are not to be baptized.

 

How young, Mojola?

I was baptized at 7 AFTER accepting Christ as Lord. That's pretty young, but I can't see making a child wait to be baptized because someone else thinks they aren't old enough. I knew full well what I was accepting and what the act of baptism signified.

Infant baptism now is a whole different subject. If one isn't old enough to understand the difference between right and wrong, then they are necessarily not going to understand the need for a Savior. No need, no salvation(as defined by the accepting of Christ as Savior), no need to show obedience by the act of baptism. A child who has no say in the act of baptism can't be considered as being obedient to God, just his parents. All baptism does for a baby is get him wet!

 

mojoala wrote: I am of a Independent Baptist Church that is considering baptizing it's young.
-----------------------------------

Why?

 

I read your profile. It said your were considering leaving your church. I implore you to do so. Your position is not Baptist. You need to change or move on.

 

I would agree.

The 8th chapter of Acts plainly shows that an infant is not proper material for baptism.

The eunuch said, 'See, here is water. What doth hinder me from being baptized?' And Philip answered, 'If thou believest, thou mayest.'

One must be a believer before being a proper subject for baptism.

Simple as that... infants are not to be baptized. </font>[/QUOTE]Standing, I have friends who are Presbyterian and practice paedobaptism. The are wonderful, godly individuals but they are not Baptists. We share much in common but our baptismal view is not one of them. But that is okay. While I am convinced (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that believers baptism (credobaptism) is the biblical model, I am willing to extend grace on the issue. Just not in my church!

 

SFIC, although you and I would agree on the major point being discussed, I would not use this argument for it. Not to make this a textual discussion, but if you look up this passage in any version other than the KJV or NKJV, you will find that the statement by Philip that you reference is not there. It is listed in a footnote as not being in the oldest texts.

I looked it up in the Greek and it is a classic Critical Text verses Majority Text issue. But, this verse is not even in most of the majority text. It is is a few of them and was put into the Textus Receptus because it is in Jerome's Latin Vulgate. This is weak evidence indeed.

 

There is not an age of accountability in the bible, and don't let Brother Bob try to tell you otherwise.

 

There's a world of differences between "Parents" dedicating a "child to God",

and a "Child" dedicating "it's self" to God.

Infant baptizing/salvation eliminated the need for the child to hear/believe the Gospel, or personal trust/faith in Jesus, and that's a choice each individual must make, not Mommy, Not Daddy, Not God, but "YOU".

 

There is not an age of accountability in the bible, and don't let Brother Bob try to tell you otherwise. </font>[/QUOTE]There aren't a lot of things in the Bible...so what's your point?

 

My point is that people will try to argue for an age of accountability, when there is not one. You are accountable from birth. You are not given a sin-for-free card that expires at a certain age.

 

How is the baby sinning could someone tell me that. It was posted on here when it cried it was sinning could someone give me a better explanation than that for I consider that foolishness.

The Grace of God which bringeth Salvation hath appeared unto all men, teaching them to deny ungodliness and wordly lust.

Sure would be hard to teach an infant to do that now wouldn't it. So are all infants lost or are they among those "where there is no law there is no transgression". I choose the latter.

Maybe there is something I don't know about infants are they evil or what?

 

We're all born into a "body of flesh" (sin) that is appointed to die, but no souls are "appointed" to a "second death" (Spiritual/soul), until they sin, some folks can't separate the "two".

 

Evil no. Sinners yes. You should be careful Bob what you catagorize as equal. Being a sinner does not = evil. Also as I have stated before sin is a condition. Babies have a sin nature, just becasue they have not comitted the sin (action) does not mean that they are not sinful(condition).

I once knew a two year old who had a shake, and when daddy asked to have a sip the little girl threw a tantrum and told her daddy no that it was her shake and he could not have any. Sound sweet and innocent to you? Sounds selfish, self-centered to me. Does her not knowing her act was selfish and rude make it not so? No it does not. Why did she react this way, because she is sinful by nature.

 

That's a very good answer, Timothy27. No one has to teach a child or even a baby to be self-centered; it is part of our nature. That nature still has to be covered by Christ's righteousness. All babies and children that are in heaven are not there becasue they are innocent, but they are there solely by the righteousness of Christ alone.

 

Sin is transgrssion of law (1 John 3:4). If that baby did not know what selfishness was, is she accused of it? The Bible tells us no.
How do these following verses line up when comparing them to infants / children:

2Kings 14:6 However, he did not put the children of the murderers to death, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses where the LORD commanded, "Fathers must not be put to death because of children, and children must not be put to death because of fathers; instead, each one will be put to death for his own sin."

Romans 3:20 For no flesh will be justified in His sight by the works of the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.

Romans 5:13 In fact, sin was in the world before the law, but sin is not charged to one's account when there is no law.

Romans 7:7 What should we say then? Is the law sin? Absolutely not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin if it were not for the law. For example, I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, You shall not covet.

Romans 7:9 Once I was alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life

 

Or how about these verses:

Romans 2:12-16

12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.