• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Can infant baptism be Scriptural?

webdog

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

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by Chemnitz:

[qb]
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.
And why not. My argument all along has been two-fold: One, I have used the example of David's infant. Is David's infant in Heaven? Is David in Heaven? David was sure that he would be with his infant.
Secondly, we depend on the mercy of God, "which endures forever." 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.

"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.
On the contrary, that is all that you can get out of that passage. It is speaking purely symbolically. I was not physically baptized with Christ. I was not there 2,000 years ago when Christ lived on this earth. How could it be literal? There is obvious symbolism here. Paul states the symbolism himself:

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.
DHK
 

Chemnitz

New Member
"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.
laugh.gif


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."
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by Chemnitz:
"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.
laugh.gif
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.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by Chemnitz:

[qb]
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?
Yes I believe in sola scriptura, but you are the one going outside of the Scriptures.
"Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God." The word "hearing" implies listening and understanding, that which an infant cannot do. You have not correctly defined faith, but have an unbiblical definition of faith. An infant cannot have faith. Faith requires knowledge, and an understanding of knowledge that leads one to make a choice based on the understanding he has. What kind of knowledge must one have in order to put his faith in the gospel? The answer should be fairly simple. But an infant cannot have that faith. You have redefined faith.
Therefore, yes I am unwilling to admit that an infant can have faith. It is impossible. I have had four children. I know what infants are like. It is impossible for children to 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.
How many times must I answer this question.
I base my answer on the Bible.
I base my answer on the Biblical precedent of David's infant who died and went to a place where David was absolutely sure that he would see him. There are only two choices (unless you believe in the Catholic concept of Limbo), and that is Heaven or Hell. If the child went to Hell, as you suggest, then so did David. Is that what you suggest? Webdog thinks so. Otherwise babies, such as David's go to Heaven, as David did. That is the only rationale conclustion from that passage.
Secondly I believe that God in his mercy simply takes them to Heaven. One of the greatest attributes of God is His mercy.
Secondly, God has manifested his mercy only through His son Jesus Christ, in who faith is required for salvation.
We are going in circles here. There are some that are incapable of having faith because they have not reached an age where they understand or reason things things out. Is God so cruel to condemn these ones to Hell. No, I believe in his mercy that he takes them to Heaven. They have no faith. It is impossible for them to have faith. Therefore they don't fit the paradigm that you have set up.

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."
I pointed out to you the words "like as" and "even so". These are words that indicate a similie, not a literal statement. The resurrection is symbolic. We may physically be resurrected from the water, but that is not what Paul is referrng to. Like as we are physically raised from the water, even so, we walk in newness of life. It is a picture of our walking in newness of life with Christ. There is no "sacrament" here. There is no imparting of grace. It simply gets you wet. It is a symbolic action of our burial to our old life of sin, and our resurrection to our new life in Christ. The baptism itself is physical; the symbolic meaning is given by Paul. There is nothing complicated there to see.
DHK
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
If all that baptism does is get you wet, why bother doing it? What would be the consequence of not doing it?
 

Doubting Thomas

Active Member
Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Chemnitz:
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?
Yes I believe in sola scriptura, but you are the one going outside of the Scriptures.
</font>
(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.....
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Matt Black:
If all that baptism does is get you wet, why bother doing it? What would be the consequence of not doing it?
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.
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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?
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
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)
 

bmerr

New Member
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
 

bmerr

New Member
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
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
So, baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).

Baptism is to wash away sin (Acts 22:16).

Rising from baptism, we are to walk in newness of life (Rom 6:4). I

...Baptism doth also now save us...(1 Pet 3:21).
You are aware you butchered the context of these passages to fit your heresy!

tear.gif
 

Frank

New Member
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.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by Frank:

The context in each scriptural reference is the forgiveness of sins for the alien sinner.
"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;
 

Kismet

New Member
Greetings and salutations,

Oh I almost forgot, Confirmation in the Lutheran church is not a sacrament while it is in the RCC. Confirmation is something that is done for the good order of the church and to ensure that the person is capable of examining themselves before recieving communion in accordance to 1 Cor 11. Depending on the Lutheran Congregation there is variation of age when children are confirmed. I have seen everything from 5th -8th grade.
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
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by webdog:
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)
And if you're not obedient...?
 

Bro. James

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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
 
Top