Baptizing Babies

[Don]

Chemnitz, I didn't see anyone address your statement/question from page 1:

1 Pt, baptism now saves you

Are you sure it says that?

What it says is, 1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us.

But what's it referring to? V.20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Now, eight souls were saved by water; or eight souls were in something whereby they were saved by water?

In other words, does scripture contradict itself?

Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

So 1 Peter 3 actually indicates that the eight souls were inside something, and that something saved them; and Hebrews 11:7 says that it was the ark that saved Noah's house.

Either they were saved by the ark, or they were saved by the water. Scripture does not contradict itself; careful reading of 1 Peter 3:20 agrees with what we find in Hebrews 11:7, and therefore indicates a subtlely different meaning than the traditionally taught one for 1 Peter 3:21.

If we can't find the way that 1 Peter 3:20 agrees with Hebrews 11:7, then scripture contradicts itself, and now we've got a whole 'nother problem.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Colin,

Baptizing a baby in no way robs them of the opportunity of personally accepting Jesus Christ in a cognitive manner later in life.

I have personally accepted Jesus Christ literally over a thousand times by going up to the altar and receiving him in the Holy Eucharist, which is an action that entails accepting everything about him: his atonement, his Lordship, my need of salvation through the merits of his Passion and Death, etc.

We also verbally renew our baptismal promises at various times throughout the year in the Church, which entails an explicit rejection of Satan and acceptance of Jesus Christ.

God bless,

Carson

 

[Chemnitz]

Because baptism unites us in faith with the death and ressurrection of Christ it does save. I see no contradiction between saying saved by faith and baptism now saves you. Unless you want to claim that the flood only symbolically cleansed the earth of evil, I really don't see how you can claim that Peter was talking figuratively here, because it is a just as statement.

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by Sherrie:
3AngelsMom said:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Was there ever a doctrine that said that Mary was conceived of the Holy Spirit like Jesus? I could have sworn I heard that somewhere.

God Bless

What!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????????????????

What kind of doctrine are you reading???????????

That is a load of false babble!

Sherrie </font>[/QUOTE]I don't remember where I heard that. I think I may have just been assuming that the doctrine of immaculate conception meant that. I don't know why, but it made sense to me for some reason.

I thought it was a whacky idea too!

God Bless.

 

[thessalonian]

AngelMum,

Sorry, I couldn't get online for a couple of days. You answered my questions. But your answers were insufficient it seems.

1. Babies are sinless. They are not sinners until they know the law, and break it anyway. (Paul taught this)

Verse please. The Catholic Church would agree with you. I do agree that Babies do not commit sins. Romans 5:14 does cause some problems with the idea that they are completely sinless. It seems quite strongly to support original sin.

Romans 5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Another verse that are problematic for your theory are:

Psalms 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.


2. Yes, I think it is a pretty unscriptural idea. Adam and Eve sinned, so DEATH passed on all men, for all have sinned. That doesn't mean that we are responsible for their sin.


I think you are wrong with regard to the sin being passed on. We all suffer, we all die. Even babies. This is due to OS being passed on.

3. Huh? TO have a baby there must be 2 things present 'dust' + 'breath' and that makes a 'living soul'. The dust is simply the elements of the earth, and the breath, well that IS the Spirit of God.


Hmmmm. What do you mean by this. Do you understand what the Holy Spirit is or that it dwells in man? You have not answered my questoin. Can a baby recieve the Holy Spirit?


4. Can you MAKE a baby receive it by sprinkling them with water? People cannot choose salvation for other people.

You answer my questoin with biggotry, making light of our baptisms and misrepresenting them. We do not allow sprinkling in baptism no matter how many of those anti-catholic websites and books you have read. Can a baby be indwelt with the Holy Spirit? That is my question. If you want to answer it with hatred and resentment that is your choice. But stop avoiding a legitimate question. I will give you a hint. John the Baptist.


I have one for you:

Where does it say in the Bible to sprinkle babies?


Well, we don't sprinkle babies so this is a straw man, irrelevant questoin. Now a question for you, Where in the Bible does it say that everything is said in the Bible? I do not expect much of an answer. You seem to be at a loss when asked questions, outside of the answers given by your anti-catholic authors.

 

[thessalonian]

Sherrie,

You said:

"Ok so now we are giving sins different names? Sin is sin Carson. You either sinned or you didn't. The only sin that is different is blasphmy against the Holy Spirit."

Well actually that is not true Sherrie. You see in the Old Testament there was actually 3 levels of sin, as exemplified by Psalm 32.

Psalms 32:5
I acknowledged my sin to You,
And my iniquity I did not hide;
I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the LORD";
And You forgave the guilt of my sin. Selah.

The Psalmist uses three different words. Sin, iniquity, and transgression. This article says it better than I could.

The first level is the word which appears here as, simply, "sin." This is a
word that refers to individual, specific acts of wrongdoing. These are the
actual "things" we "do" or do not do, sins of commission and sins of
omission. And when we talk about "sin" or "evil" this is often the extent of
what we think of! Yet this level is actually only the external manifestation, the
outward part, of what we call our "sin nature," that part of each one of us that
tends toward the evil and the things that are wrong or harmful. This word
"sin" is really just the "tip of the iceberg," to use the terminology that we
introduced last week; if all we talk about are the "specific acts of sin" that
we've committed, there's a lot more underneath the surface that we haven't
explored!

That brings us to the next word, "transgression." This is the second level; the
word in Hebrew refers not to specific sinful or harmful actions, but to a basic
attitude of rebellion, a mindset of wickedness. It's a description, if you will, of
a mind that's already made up to sin. And as such, it's more serious and
actually more dangerous than just the individual sinful actions that you or I
might commit. Because "sins", or sinful actions, are one-time events; but
"trangression," a mind that's made up to sin, is a continuous activity. It's a
self-centered outlook on the day; it's a premeditated decision to ignore God
at least to some extent as we go about our business on this day or that.

And then the third level, the deepest level, of our "sin nature" is represented
by the word "iniquity." From the same Hebrew word we get words which
mean "twisted" or "crooked"; and "iniquity" indeed refers to a basic
"crookedness" in our nature, a crookedness which leads to the attitude or
mindset of rebellion against God--transgression--which in turn leads to
actual, specific "sins." Notice, then, how our "sin natures" are rooted deep,
and bubble up to the surface in the form of actual "sins." And more
importantly, notice how David approaches the exercise of confession in this
passage! [READ v. 5 again...] Notice that David's plea for forgiveness does
not touch just the "sin" level, nor just the "transgression" level; but rather he
goes to the very core of the problem, and says, "I did not cover up my
iniquity."


The idea that stealing a cookie is the same as murdering a mother with a child in her womb is ridiculous. That it is ridiculous is exemplified in the amount of calamity that each causes in the world.

One final not for you Sherrie. In another post you said that a baby must go to heaven. Now perhaps you could give me a Bible verse that says this. I don't neccessarily disagree with you but we have to be consistent and therefore you should provide Bible verses.

Blessings.

 

[Sherrie]

When you break one commandment, you break them all.

You show me in the Bible where it says that a baby goes to the lake of fire if it is not baptized and dies. Because there is no scripture that says that.

Sherrie

 

[Chemnitz]

Sherrie,
Show me where one baby goes to heaven. While you are at it, you can explain to us why infants had to be circumsized to be in the covenant. When according to you they didn't need to be included in the covenant.

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

The only sin that will send a person to hell is 'the unpardonable sin' and that is the sin of rejecting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Babies cannot make that decision. No one can until they reach the age of accountability. How can a child repent of sin when he doesn't even understand what sin means?

Babies have not committed that sin, neither have children who have not reached the age of accountability, (which is different for each child); why would they go to hell?

"Jesus said, '"Suffer (permit) the little children, and forbid them not to come unto me; for of such is the kingdom of heaven."'
Matthew 19:14

This verse is repeated in three of the four gospels. Do you think God was trying to make a point???

The thief on the cross made it to Heaven without being baptized and he was surely a sinner; why wouldn't innocent children go to Heaven without being baptized???

Sue

 

[Chemnitz]

Because babies are not innocent. They are just as guilty of sin as everybody else.

You people need to stop making the argument from your feelings and actually look at the scriptures.

Christ never calls them innocent only rebukes the disciples for not allowing the children to come to him.

 

[Sherrie]

I would like to comment also; babies do not have to be circumcised now.

You are living under the old law. Everytime you make a comment you are quoting Old Testament. The new law is Jesus Christ. And He is branded in my heart, and those who repent, and believe in him.

I would highly reccomend reading Acts 15. It speaks of circumcision and believing on Jesus Christ.

Sherrie

 

[Chemnitz]

Sherrie the law never changed. Circumsion was replaced with baptism, just as the Lamb of atonment was replaced by Jesus Christ.

You still haven't offered any proof that babies go to heaven without faith. Of course the whole concept that infants don't need Jesus to go to heaven is just down right heretical, because the Scriptures are very clear that all are in need of the Redemptive Work of Christ because all have fallen short and that means everybody not everybody but poor little babies that we would like to think are so innocent.

 

[Carson Weber]

babies do not have to be circumcised now.

They have to be baptized, because baptism replaces circumcision as the means to enter the New Covenant. As the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus when he was baptized, so we receive the Holy Spirit in baptism when we are baptized. And, as the Father declared Jesus his "Son" with whom he is "well pleased" at Jesus' baptism, so the same goes with us. Why is he pleased with us? Because we have put on Christ in baptism through the Holy Spirit.

Romans 6:3 - "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?"

Acts 19 -

"Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples."

And he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"

And they said, "No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."

And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" They said, "Into John's baptism."

And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus."

On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Everytime you make a comment you are quoting Old Testament.

He refers to the Old Testament because it is the work of God, which prefigures the New Testament, which is the work of God.

The new law is Jesus Christ. And He is branded in my heart, and those who repent, and believe in him.

..and.. are baptized. "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mk 16:16).

Ex 36: "I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances."

Faith is not to be separated from baptism. Faith saves us because it is in baptism that we are given the power by which through faith is made active in our life. This power is the Holy Spirit. And, the Holy Spirit is given to all who are baptized. Those who are unable to believe, and those who believe. We do not baptize those who are able to believe and do not believe. And, we do not baptize those who are not able to believe and will not be raised in the Christian faith.

 

[Sherrie]

Quote from Timothy Boyd:

Sin is a willful act of rebellion against God on the part of the individual. (Rom.3:9-18) Clearly, an infant or a young child is not capable of a willful act. At this point one should not confuse bad behavior of children with willful actions on the part of children with sin.


They must be aware they are sinners before God and be able to repent of that rebellous life style. They must be able to understand that there life styles should be patterned after the examples of Christ. (Rom. 10:9-14) Obviouly, an infant cannot make these distinctions and cannot be responsible for making such a decision.

Even under Old Testament law, The jews recognized that children could not be held personally accountable to the law of Moses. They set an arbitrary age of twelve years when a child assumed adult status in religious matters.

A child is not born with an immediate responsiblity of sin. To say that a child is; is misinterprets scripture definition of sin, and the ordinance of baptism.


Now to answer a few of the other things said:

Please read (1John 3:18-25)


The words used to describe sin all seem to have almost the same meaning.

(Hamartia and Parabasis) means to step across the line

trespass and transgression: one who steps across Gods rightiousness

(Anomia) means lawlessness or inquity
refering to any action against God.


Sin is a lack of fellowship with God. Anything that disturbs fellowship with God is sin.(Matt.5:21-28)

We are born into sin, but not that which we are responsible for the sins of our ancestors.


Please also note that baptism is not a requirement of salvation. But of obedience. It is a first step to discipleship.


The other sin Blasphemy is unforgiveable. Matt. 12:32; Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10.


I hope I answered all on my part as it was not my wishes to ignore anyone.

Sherrie

 

[Sherrie]

Hi Carson! I see you posted while I was writing. I have to leave for awhile and then I will come back to this.

Thank you

Sherrie

 

[Chemnitz]

Sherrie you have only offered commentaries to back up your argument, you have yet to give biblical proof. I am still waiting. I am begining to wonder if all you do is read the parts of the Bible that you agree with " Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" Ps 51:5 Which is identical to the idea conveyed in 58:3 "even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies" , "Every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood" Gen 8:21.

Of course I am still waiting for somebody to respond to my question. How is denying the power of baptism to create faith not a denial of the power of God's word?

Sin is a lack of fellowship with God. Anything that disturbs fellowship with God is sin.(Matt.5:21-28)

We are born into sin, but not that which we are responsible for the sins of our ancestors.


Please also note that baptism is not a requirement of salvation. But of obedience. It is a first step to discipleship.


The other sin Blasphemy is unforgiveable. Matt. 12:32; Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10.

I can't believe the amount of blasphem in your post. Your saying flat out that children don't need Christ. I can't believe that you could so easily believe that there are people who do not need Christ.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
Show me where one baby goes to heaven. While you are at it, you can explain to us why infants had to be circumsized to be in the covenant. When according to you they didn't need to be included in the covenant.

The infant born out of wedlock through Bathseba and David went to "Heaven." David said concerning Him: He shall not come to me, but I shall go to him.
David was not thinking of going to Hell. He was a man after God's own heart. He knew that when he died he would see his infant who died before being circumcised.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
babies do not have to be circumcised now.

They have to be baptized, because baptism replaces circumcision as the means to enter the New Covenant.

This also is a false statement arising out of a false theology. There is nowhere in the Bible where an infant was baptized, absolutely nowhere. People were baptized after making a profession of faith in Christ, after believing in his sacrifice on the cross. They had to believe first. An infant is incapable of doing this.
There is no evidence that circumcision takes the place of baptism. It does not. Baptism is symbolic of the believer's death to his old life of sin (whih a baby did not have), and his rising again to a new life in Christ. It is pictured in the very fact that he is immersed.
Correct your theology and there is no need for infant baptism
A wrong theology leads to wrong practices.
DHK

 

[Chemnitz]

The infant born out of wedlock through Bathseba and David went to "Heaven." David said concerning Him: He shall not come to me, but I shall go to him.
David was not thinking of going to Hell. He was a man after God's own heart. He knew that when he died he would see his infant who died before being circumcised.
DHK

What Bible are you reading. It says nothing of the sort. The child died and David had doubts that it would be sent to heaven. 2 Sam 12:22.

A wrong theology leads to wrong practices.
DHK

Which would explain baptist theology.

 

[Carson Weber]

he would see his infant who died before being circumcised.

This is wholly irrelevant. Circumcision has never had saving power. In fact, that is one of the main theses of Paul's corpus of writings.

There is nowhere in the Bible where an infant was baptized, absolutely nowhere.

So what? Just because it isn't recorded within the confines of a narrow corpus of writings doesn't mean that it didn't happen. And, that on top of the numerous recordings of when "whole households" were baptized, of which, you must assume that babies were excluded.

People were baptized after making a profession of faith in Christ, after believing in his sacrifice on the cross.

And they still are today.

There is no evidence that circumcision takes the place of baptism.

Circumcision replacing Baptism? No one has made this assertion.

Baptism is symbolic of the believer's death to his old life of sin, and his rising again to a new life in Christ. It is pictured in the very fact that he is immersed.

No one is denying the symbolic nature of baptism.