Can infant baptism be Scriptural?

[DHK]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:

Of course I believe in Eph 2:8-9. I know where you are going with this. Baptism is not an act of man. Anything that can forgive sins is an act of God for only God can forgive sins and declare a person righteous. In the case of Baptism God is using the ordinary earthly means of water and word.

Where am I going with this? Baptism doesn't save. But you say that it is an act of God. It isn't. It is an act of man. Man does it; man receives it. If it is an act of God, when and where did God come down to this earth to baptize you or any other individual in this present age. He didn't. Man does the baptizing, and the only thing that happens to you or any other person is that you get wet; nothing else. It does not impart grace of any sort; it does not save. God cannot forgive sins through the waters of baptism. That is a pagan superstition, which even the Hindus believe.
DHK

 

[Chemnitz]

It has everything to do with salvation. Salvation is the new life in the presence of God and the only way to be in the presence of God is through Jesus Christ. God's mercy is shown only through Jesus Christ. If an infant is a born liar than how can they get into heaven with out being washed in the blood of the lamb, which as it is revealed in scripture comes only through faith.

 

[Chemnitz]

"Where am I going with this? Baptism doesn't save. But you say that it is an act of God. It isn't. It is an act of man. Man does it; man receives it. If it is an act of God, when and where did God come down to this earth to baptize you or any other individual in this present age. He didn't. Man does the baptizing, and the only thing that happens to you or any other person is that you get wet; nothing else. It does not impart grace of any sort; it does not save. God cannot forgive sins through the waters of baptism. That is a pagan superstition, which even the Hindus believe."


So you doubt the word of God? You doubt that the word of God has power to change a person? You doubt that God has the power to work through ordinary people? When God tells me that I have been baptized into the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and when I was baptized my sins were washed away, I am going to believe him.

Oh btw God baptized me on 9/19/76.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
It has everything to do with salvation. Salvation is the new life in the presence of God and the only way to be in the presence of God is through Jesus Christ. God's mercy is shown only through Jesus Christ. If an infant is a born liar than how can they get into heaven with out being washed in the blood of the lamb, which as it is revealed in scripture comes only through faith.

Isn't the mercy of God wonderful?
God can, if he chooses, work outside of faith.
How was David so sure that his infant would be in Heaven?

 

[Chemnitz]

Yes, it is wonderful, God could do so if he wishes. However, He has not revealed any such thing.

In addition, I just reread the passage in 2 Samuel 12. Not once does it ever say that God granted salvation to that child.

 

[DHK]

2 Samuel 12:22-23 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?
23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

 

[Chemnitz]

My bad, thank you for pointing out the error of my haste, but that still does not prove salvation without faith on the infant's part. While it does state that David who is shown through scripture to be accounted righteous by faith will see his child again, it is silent about the child. Because of this silence we must interpret it through the light of other scripture passages. And as you so kindly provided earlier Eph 2:8-9 points out that we are saved by grace alone through faith. Also Christ tells us flat out. Nobody comes to the Father but through Him. Christ did not say "Nobody comes to the Father but through me, except little children because the Father will have mercy on them cause its not their fault they are little liars and sinners." We must conclude through the cumulitive evidence of Scripture the child had faith.

 

[DHK]

It is impossible for a child (infant to have faith). I think you know that. Faith demands reasoning, logical thinking that arrives at a conclusion whether to receive or reject. Faith is not some indescribable force lying dormant within a person that one just somehow has to "let go." That is unbiblical.
Define faith. Faith is trust, confidence, belief, that is based on intellecual reason and the promise or word of another.
DHK

 

[webdog]

While it does state that David who is shown through scripture to be accounted righteous by faith will see his child again, it is silent about the child.

So what are you saying, that David is in hell?!? If David said he would see his child again, unless you believe the apple of God's eye went to hell, where do you think the baby is?

 

[Chemnitz]

Actually, I don't know that it is impossible for an infant to have faith. Since faith does not demand reasoning or logical thinking. Let's face it, what exactly is logical about a God who hates everything we have done, dying for us.

I did define faith earlier, but it was buried in the middle of a reply.

Faith is a gift of God given to us via the Holy Spirit, which trusts God's promises and recieves His grace.

I can't believe that you would want to have your assurance resting on such flimsy ground as human intellect. Personally, I would rather put the ball solely in God's court because He is much stronger than me and has a better track record of keeping promises.

 

[Chemnitz]

"So what are you saying, that David is in hell?!?"
Huh???? When did I ever say that?
I think somebody needs to read the whole post, because I never even came close to saying that.

 

[DHK]

Eternal life is the gift of God, not faith. Both saved and unsaved alike exercise faith. Faith is always based on reason. One must have knowledge, facts, a posession of facts in place and an ability to make a decision based on those facts in order to have faith.
What did the jailor say: "What must I do to be saved?"
What did Paul answer?
"Believe (have faith) on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.." He could only be saved if he had faith in the atoning work of Jesus Christ, which he had to have some comprehension of first.
Faith is not a simple blind gift given to infants.
It is confidence in the word of another. The jailor had confidence in the word of Paul, that if he listened to what Paul had to say, and believed the message that he preached, that he would be saved. This is something that an infant cannot do.
DHK

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
"So what are you saying, that David is in hell?!?"
Huh???? When did I ever say that?
I think somebody needs to read the whole post, because I never even came close to saying that.

You claim that scripture is "silent" about David's child. You also said that David was counted righteous because of his faith. The Bible says that David will "go to" where his child is. How can the Bible be silent? In another post you said you don't believe infants go to Heaven. So I ask again, where do you think David's child is then?

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by DHK:
I believe an infant would go to heaven, not by any act of baptism, but solely by the mercy of God. God is a God of mercy. David expected to see his infant, for whom he prayed and fasted for, in heaven, though his prayers were not answered that the infant would live. He was sure that God would have mercy. He said: "He shall not come to me, but I shall go to him."
Baptism has nothing to do with whether God takes an infant to heaven. I do believe in an age of accountablity, though no one but God Himself knows what that age is. It would differ from child to child, person to person. As you brought the subject up: mentally challenged. If such are not able to comprehed the gospel, then I believe God in his mercy would take them to heaven. There is an age when a person becomes intellectually responsive and therefore accountable to God. Salvation is the most important issue. One must have faith before he is baptized. Baptism is not baptism before one is saved, before he understands the gospel and puts his trust in Christ. That is why an intellectual understanding of the gospel is so necessary--that one can believe (have faith) in that message and receive if of their own free will. Baptism can only come after that.

We leave the infants, and others that fall into a similar category into God's hands. The Bible says:
"Shall not the judge of all the earth do right."
He certainly will.
DHK

Likewise with Chemnitz, I'm wondering where you are going with this. However, unlike Chemnitz, I happen to agree with your conclusion but, like Chemnitz, I'm not sure you've realised the impact that that will have on your soteriology. If we (you and I) are saying that infants, unborn children and the mentally retarded either do or at the very least can go to heaven, then that means that they are saved, because only the saved go to heaven. If we are also saying that understanding is necessary for faith, then this combined with the previous proposition means that salvation may be be effected other than by 'faith alone'. Two alternative conclusions to that line of reasoning for you and I to consider:-

1. If baptism has to be carried out after salvation - and we have concluded above that infants are saved - then it is not wrong to baptise infants.

2. Alternatively, pursuing your 'grace' argument re infants and the mentally ill/ challenged, could it not be that, as Christians have documented and asserted from very early on, that baptism is the means by which that salvific grace may be communicated?

Just some food for thought for us...

 

[Chemnitz]

"You claim that scripture is "silent" about David's child. You also said that David was counted righteous because of his faith. The Bible says that David will "go to" where his child is. How can the Bible be silent? In another post you said you don't believe infants go to Heaven. So I ask again, where do you think David's child is then?"

Webdog I think you need new glasses or to go back to first grade and learn to read again. Because I never said all infants go to Hell, only those without faith. What I meant is that specific passage is silent concerning the means that the child was brought into heaven. If you had read the entire post, I concluded that based on what other parts of the Bible said the child must have faith.

"Eternal life is the gift of God, not faith. Both saved and unsaved alike exercise faith. Faith is always based on reason. One must have knowledge, facts, a posession of facts in place and an ability to make a decision based on those facts in order to have faith. "

So you are saying that faith is a human work. When you equate faith with human reason then you are making it work. I can't believe people who have argued so often against works righteousness are trying to turn faith into works.

 

[webdog]

Chemitz, I don't wear glasses and I know how to read, thanks for your concern. Obviously you have a hard time answering simple questions as you evade mine. I'll make it simple for you:
1. Do you believe David is in Heaven?
2. David said he would go to where his child is. Where is that?

 

[Chemnitz]

webdog, I have already answered that question. It appears that you have willfully ignored the answer in the interest of being argumentative. If you are unwilling to spend the time to actually read my posts, then I will have no choice but to ignore yours.

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
webdog, I have already answered that question. It appears that you have willfully ignored the answer in the interest of being argumentative. If you are unwilling to spend the time to actually read my posts, then I will have no choice but to ignore yours.

Willfully ignored? I just went back 3 pages. Unless I just happened to pass it by, can you please copy and paste your answer? Why do you refuse to answer a simple question? I even put it in "first grade" format! I DID take the time to read your posts, that's why I asked the question!! Refusal to answer only strengthens my point.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Likewise with Chemnitz, I'm wondering where you are going with this. However, unlike Chemnitz, I happen to agree with your conclusion but, like Chemnitz, I'm not sure you've realised the impact that that will have on your soteriology. If we (you and I) are saying that infants, unborn children and the mentally retarded either do or at the very least can go to heaven, then that means that they are saved, because only the saved go to heaven.

Yes they are "saved," but not for the same reason others are. They will go to heaven simply because of the mercy of God, not because of faith in a risen Saviour. God is a merciful God, and can do as He pleases in reference to the unborn (aborted) and to the infants who are unable to make decisions for themselves. We are not God and cannot impose our decisions upon Him. "The Lord is not willing that any should perish."

If we are also saying that understanding is necessary for faith, then this combined with the previous proposition means that salvation may be be effected other than by 'faith alone'. Two alternative conclusions to that line of reasoning for you and I to consider:-

1. If baptism has to be carried out after salvation - and we have concluded above that infants are saved - then it is not wrong to baptise infants.

It is wrong to carry out baptism to infants. Baptism always follows "faith in Christ." Infants do not have faith in Christ. They will go to heaven by the mercy of God, not by faith in Christ. A person alwasys makes a decision to be baptized. It is a step of obedience, which a person makes, and an infant cannot make. Thus baptism for an infant is totally needless.

2. Alternatively, pursuing your 'grace' argument re infants and the mentally ill/ challenged, could it not be that, as Christians have documented and asserted from very early on, that baptism is the means by which that salvific grace may be communicated?

Just some food for thought for us...

The only thing communicated through baptism is H2O. It doesn't do anything but get a person wet. It is a simple step of obediece taken on the part of the believer who understands what he is doing. It is symbolic of what the believer has already done. What has he done. He has believed on Christ, thus putting his old life to death, and rises again with a new life in Jesus Christ. How can an infant comprehend all of this? Grace is not imparted in baptism of anykind. Baptism simply gets you wet. It is a picture, a symbol, and nothing more.
DHK

 

[Chemnitz]

"Yes they are "saved," but not for the same reason others are. They will go to heaven simply because of the mercy of God, not because of faith in a risen Saviour. God is a merciful God, and can do as He pleases in reference to the unborn (aborted) and to the infants who are unable to make decisions for themselves. We are not God and cannot impose our decisions upon Him. "The Lord is not willing that any should perish." "

But you simply can't ignore that God plainly said "John 14:6 6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. " Not to mention the fact that some are going to perish. DHK, you have gone beyond what God has revealed to us concerning Salvation. You are truly treading dangerous ground because your argument is only one step away from all paths lead to heaven.

"Baptism simply gets you wet. It is a picture, a symbol, and nothing more."

There is no way you can back this argument grammatically, because there are no clues in the grammar that Paul refers to the burial and resurrection in a symbolic sense in Rms 6.