Can infant baptism be Scriptural?

[Johnv]

Originally posted by DHK:
If it is not right doctrine it is false doctrine.

So much for "let each be convinced in his own mind". There's a big difference between telling people what we believe and telling people that they're wrong when they don't adhere to what we believe.

It is wrong to baptize infants for any reason. Our forefathers paid the price of blood because they dared to "re-baptize" those had been "baptized" as infants.

I assume you're referring to the Puritan pilgrims of 1620. You must not be aware that the Dutch Reformed colonists beat them here by a decade. And they baptized unsaved members of believers' households.

And in the big bicture, so what? Let us believe as we do and tell otherw what we believe; let them likewise believe as they do. I don't think God is going to care that much about how wet we got and when upon our entering His kingdom. He's going to care more about the conditions of our hearts.

 

[Chemnitz]

"It's not judging the hearts of infants, they cannot comprehend what you are telling them, not because there is some magic age you have to be, but because they don't understand yet."

So now comprehension is a requirement for faith?

Just because they do not respond in a comprehensible manner does not mean they cannot hear. Again,
Who are you to tell if a person has faith? Only God can see into the hearts of man.

Why is an infant incapable of having faith? Is reason a requirement for faith, is age a requirement of faith, is ability to communicate beyond cooing and crying a requirement to have faith?

 

[webdog]

So now comprehension is a requirement for faith?

Unless there is a different way to understand what you hear, yes. Can you understand the message of salvation in chinese without knowing chinese?

Just because they do not respond in a comprehensible manner does not mean they cannot hear.

"HEARING" doesn't mean the physical act of hearing sound, if it did, deaf people couldn't be saved.

Again,
Who are you to tell if a person has faith? Only God can see into the hearts of man.

I agree, I'm nobody. I was just taking from God's Word of what faith "is" and how one has faith.

Why is an infant incapable of having faith?

See my first post.

Is reason a requirement for faith,

Yes.

is age a requirement of faith,

No, but you have to be able to know what you are having faith in!

is ability to communicate beyond cooing and crying a requirement to have faith?

Communication is not a requirement, HEARING (understanding) is.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:


Why is an infant incapable of having faith? Is reason a requirement for faith, is age a requirement of faith, is ability to communicate beyond cooing and crying a requirement to have faith?

Define faith.

 

[PastorGreg]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by riverm:
With the above verses, how do we defend that there couldn’t have been infants in these households or families that were baptized?

The aforementioned verses do indeed suggest that baptizing of one's household, including unsaved children, is permissible upon one's conversion.

Hence, the issue of baptism modes is best left to a church's interpretation. By tradition, we Baptists interpret scripture as a whole to encourage a person to be baptized after he is saved. That is our way. It is supported by scripture. We need not insist that other folks are wrong just to support our interpretation.

I'm certainly not gonna judge a presbyterian. </font>[/QUOTE]These verse suggest no such thing. Mode of baptism is not left to a person's interpretation. It is decided by what is clearly taught in Scripture.

 

[Matt Black]

But it isn't clearly taught - er, otherwise we (and I think it's fair to say that all of us on this thread are Christians who believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God) wouldn't be having these disagreements...

To those who say that 'understanding' or 'comprehension' is necessary for faith, what do you say about those who are mentally or intellectually challenged: can they be saved, or did God just create them to damn them for all eternity? If they can be saved, how is that done?

Matt

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
But it isn't clearly taught - er, otherwise we (and I think it's fair to say that all of us on this thread are Christians who believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God) wouldn't be having these disagreements...

To those who say that 'understanding' or 'comprehension' is necessary for faith, what do you say about those who are mentally or intellectually challenged: can they be saved, or did God just create them to damn them for all eternity? If they can be saved, how is that done?

Matt

We are not talking of salvation. We are talking about baptism. Two separate subjects. Baptism has nothing to do with salvation. Baptism is the first step a believer, one who has already put their faith in Christ, takes after they have already been saved. Salvation is by grace through faith. That is true. It is not of works, which baptism is.
Thus the intellecutally challenged do not even come into play here. This also is the reaon an infant cannot be baptized. They do not understand the gospel, therefore cannot be saved, apart from God's mercy. It is the gospel that saves, not baptism. How then would they further understand the purpose for being baptized which takes place after salvation? This is totally ridiculous to even think that an infant can comprehend all of this. You must know some pretty smart infants. I have four children, and I wasn't able to explain the gospel to any of them while they were infants. Your whole argument is absolutely incredible, not to say foolish.
DHK

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

I grew up Baptist and am now a Presbyterian. I will do my best to answer your questions as best I can.

I will not argue my point – “e.g., I’m right and you’re wrong,” but I will simply share our basis for infant baptism. Bottom line, I hope you can understand this point of view even though you may not agree with it.

Note: while most Christian denominations practice infant baptism, not all have the same meaning. I am sure that Chemnitz, (who is Lutheran) and I may share some of the same views, but then again, we may not.

Let me start by saying that both Presbyterians and Baptists agree on several issues regarding baptism. One, we would agree that baptism in and of itself, does not save. We are saved by grace through faith in Christ alone. Two, baptism is a sign of salvation. Three, we both believe in “believer’s baptism,” but we (Presbyterians) would define this as believers and their children.

Listed below are some questions and answers from a reformed faith perspective.

1. In the NT, when nonbelievers came to saving faith and joined the fellowship of believers, what happened? They were baptized.

2. Why? Baptism is the sign of salvation in the NT.

3. In the OT, when nonbelievers came to saving faith and joined the fellowship of believers, what happened? They were circumcised.

4. Why? Circumcism is the sign of salvation in the OT.

5. Who was circumcised? They and their household.

6. Did household include children? Yes.

7. In the OT, when believers had children, what happened? They were circumcised.

8. When were they circumcised - after they reached an “age of decision”? No, they were circumcised as infants.

9. Who came up with this idea? God commanded Abraham to do this.

Going back to question one, in the NT, when nonbelievers came to saving faith and joined the fellowship of believers, what happened? They and their whole household were baptized – given the sign of salvation, consistent with OT practices.

While the NT does not specifically mention the inclusion of infants in these households, the NT does not specifically exclude them either. Since the practice for the past 4000 years was to include infants and children, we would fully expect to see some statement in the NT that specifically excluded them -- if there was to be a difference in practice going forward. Instead, we find no such directive.

In our church, when nonbelievers come forward with a public profession of their faith and join our local fellowship, what happens? They and their whole household are baptized. When believers are blessed with a child, what happens? The infant is baptized. We believe both are in agreement with the Scriptures.

Again, I hope you can understand this point of view, though I am sure you will not necessarily agree.

 

[billwald]

Baptism is the NT equivalent to circumcism. Itwelcoms the person into the covenant community. It has nothing to do with salvation except that the saved are a sub set of the covenant and always were. All came out of Egypt and crossed the sea but only two entered the land. Did every other person who came out including Moses and Aaron end up in Hell? They were all in the covenant community.

 

[billwald]

When Peter baptized the Centurian's household it only consisted of adults?

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by billwald:
When Peter baptized the Centurian's household it only consisted of adults?

Based on baptism throughout the Bible, yes.

 

[DHK]

If baptism of the NT is equivalent to circumcision of the OT, then it is impossible for any female to be saved, or obedient to Christ (depending on your viewpoint).

 

[mioque]

Well there is clithorodectomy a. k. a female circumcision....


What?

 

[mioque]

(no this wasn't a serious response, I'm just shoring up my candidacy for the most tasteless member of the BB 2005 award)

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
But it isn't clearly taught - er, otherwise we (and I think it's fair to say that all of us on this thread are Christians who believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God) wouldn't be having these disagreements...

To those who say that 'understanding' or 'comprehension' is necessary for faith, what do you say about those who are mentally or intellectually challenged: can they be saved, or did God just create them to damn them for all eternity? If they can be saved, how is that done?

Matt

We are not talking of salvation. We are talking about baptism. Two separate subjects. Baptism has nothing to do with salvation. Baptism is the first step a believer, one who has already put their faith in Christ, takes after they have already been saved. Salvation is by grace through faith. That is true. It is not of works, which baptism is.
Thus the intellecutally challenged do not even come into play here. This also is the reaon an infant cannot be baptized. They do not understand the gospel, therefore cannot be saved, apart from God's mercy. It is the gospel that saves, not baptism. How then would they further understand the purpose for being baptized which takes place after salvation? This is totally ridiculous to even think that an infant can comprehend all of this. You must know some pretty smart infants. I have four children, and I wasn't able to explain the gospel to any of them while they were infants. Your whole argument is absolutely incredible, not to say foolish.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, baptism and salvation are different issues, but they are connected: you yourself state that one must be saved before he is baptised, therefore they are connected. Most BB posters would assert that one is only saved through faith alone. My question is how are those who lack a sufficient understanding to have that faith (infants, the mentally/ intellectually challenged) therefore saved? Let me put it a different way - if a 7-day old baby dies, do you think he goes to Heaven or Hell?

 

[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

 

[Chemnitz]

"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.""

But then how can you say you believe in salvation by faith alone.

If the Bible is to be believed when it claims that Baptism is a washing of sins and a joining to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ then salvation and baptism are indeed related.

Faith is the gift which God gives via the Holy Spirit which trusts and recieves the benefits of God's fulfilled promise in Jesus Christ. Faith has nothing to do with human intellect or reason.

There is only one way to heaven and that is only through faith in Christ Jesus. Not two ways one for people who can supposedly understand and make a decision and another for those too incapacitated by age or mental defect.

 

[DHK]

Chemnitz:
Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Do You believe this verse: that salvation is by grace; that you are saved through faith and that not of yourselves?

Do you believe aborted babies in China will go to Heaven?

Why or why not?

 

[Chemnitz]

I believe that unfortunately they will not be going to heaven because they like so many others have not yet heard the Gospel. I am not heartless and it brings me great pain that so many people are condemned before they had a chance. I think you should be ashamed of yourself for taking such a cheap shot. Just because you want to believe that there is a seperate means of salvation for people under the so called age of accountability because it is comforting to you does not make it true.

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.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
I believe that unfortunately they will not be going to heaven because they like so many others have not yet heard the Gospel. I am not heartless and it brings me great pain that so many people are condemned before they had a chance. I think you should be ashamed of yourself for taking such a cheap shot. Just because you want to believe that there is a seperate means of salvation for people under the so called age of accountability because it is comforting to you does not make it true.

The issue is not another way of salvation. There isn't. The issue is God's mercy. We serve a loving and merciful God, who in his mercy would see fit to take an infant to Heaven just as he saw fit to take David's infant to Heaven. I believe that sets a Biblical precedent.
I also believe that no infant (including David's) is more righteous than another. Psalm 58:3 points out their degenerate nature at birth--that they are all (regardless of background) born liars. This includes Muslims and Buddhists. I cannot see any reason why God in his mercy would not take an infant to Heaven. It has nothing to do with another way of salvation; it has everything to do with God's mercy.
DHK