May i suggest that you and your wife prayerfully read through the baptism service together.
Godly Gospel preachers have practiced infant baptism and suffered persecution. Isaac Watts father was in prison when his son was born.
-
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!
child baptism right or wrong ?
- Thread starter Cavell
- Start date
Godly Gospel preachers have practiced infant baptism and suffered persecution. Isaac Watts father was in prison when his son was born.
I know I am saved because I put my faith in Jesus and repented of my sins and had a baptism. When I was a teenager I was exposed to a lot of false doctrine and it did make me have doubts about my salvation. For a long time now though I have had a feeling of assurance that I am saved and will return to be with Jesus.
She doesn't believe it will guarantee that he will go to heaven. My wife believes the baptism will assist his feeling and knowledge of the holy ghost. My wife believes the benefits to him are that he can have the holy ghost for a companion immediately once he accepts Christ.
What do YOU believe?
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
I believe that the baptism won't help our son. He will need to repent and believe in Christ on his own when he is able to or he won't be saved.
I don't know if I believe that baptising him now is harmful or wrong. All I know is that it will upset my wife and her family if I don't allow our son to be baptised.
I do know that I am saved
Since she is asking you for Scripture prohibiting infant baptism, perhaps you could ask her for Scripture saying that infants know or feel anything about the Holy Spirit.
Baptists usually believe in the "age of accountability." That is when a child realized he or she is lost and needs a Savior; in other words, when the knowledge of sin and recognition that one is a sinner occurs. I remember clearly when this happened to me. This teaching is based on the belief, true I think, that God does not send babies to Hell, because they cannot understand spiritual things.
No one can understand spiritual things until they are saved (1 Cor. 2:14): "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." Therefore, your precious baby cannot feel or understand anything about the Holy Spirit until he or she is old enough and gets saved.
Please be encouraged. This is a wonderful time for spiritual growth for you and your wife as you talk through these things--hopefully gently and humbly.
My wife is very convinced that a baptism is what is best for the baby. In truth I think a dedication is ceremonial and more about my wife and I committing to raise our son in the faith and that is something we have already done.
We aren't members of a church at the moment so it would be weird to have a dedication.
Your thread title is "Child baptism right or wrong" But you seem to not really care what the Scriptures teach. You are concerned about how your wife will react. This is the greater issue, brother. I would start asking how you can become the Spiritual Leader of your home and help your wife mature in her walk as she learns to understand and obey the Scriptures. I say this in love, although it's hard for me to express that in text.
I do care about the scripture I have been looking to scripture for an answer. My wife asked me if I will make a decision on it and I went to scripture first and didn't find a conclusive answer. I can tell her no or yes but I have to really consider it first.
Acts 2:38--Repent and then be baptized.
Mark 16:16-Believe and then be baptized.
Eunuch--Believed and was Baptized.
Philippian Jailer--believed and was Baptized.
"And their Whole House"--i'd imagine he was saying--Who came to faith in the Lord Jesus.
Many paedo-baptizers did so because it was an initiation into the Church-State. They were not a part of the State unless the child was baptized. In my studies, this is how it came about...then it morphed into so weird OT/NT covenant switch from circumcision to baptism.
My In Laws are Russian Orthodox, and they were really upset with us not havinbg our 2 sons baptize as infants, as they were4 afraid if they were to die before that, would be ending up into Hell.
Baptists would not see an infant baptism as being a valid one, so you would just be ending up getting any children water Baptized when they had received Jesus thru faith!
Dear Cavell,
I love your honest seeking of wisdom and knowledge. Just as an aside, an argument from silence is no argument at all. I remember a quote from when I studied with the Church(es) of Christ. When the Scriptures speak we speak, when they are silent we are silent. This is a very good interpretive point.
No where in the Bible/NT is there a clear case of where an infant is baptized.
Other brethren will come along and help you to understand better the historical Baptist position.
Blessings on you as you search the Scripture.
sdg!
rd
37818
Well-Known Member
Baptism [which is only immersion] not being a matter of salvation, will make a child wet. And make some parents feel good. Is it wrong, that is, not Biblical, yeah. But not being a matter of salvation.
You say, "I think a dedication is ceremonial." But that is exactly what a baptism is: a ceremony. I was a missionary to Japan, and the Japanese word for baptism by immersion is "immersion ceremony" (浸礼), and baptism by pouring or sprinkling is "washing ceremony" (洗礼). To give any more meaning to baptism than "ceremony" and "testimony" is wrong. It's not in the Bible.
You need to become members of a good church at the first possible time. I can't imagine following Christ with all of my heart, yet not being a member of the church for which He died.
A Dedication is about the same thing as a "Christening" without the water.
This teaching is based on the belief, true I think, that God does not send babies to Hell, because they cannot understand spiritual things.
In 2 Samuel 12:23, after the death of his infant son, David says, "I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me." Since David was called "a man after God's heart" (and thus is now with the Lord), this seems clearly to indicate that the baby also is with the Lord.
"And their Whole House"--i'd imagine he was saying--Who came to faith in the Lord Jesus.
One might argue that this is an argument from silence. I would disagree, pointing out that where scripture is specific about an individual being baptized, that always follows the person's being saved. Thus where scripture is less individually specific (the "household" baptism passages), it's logical to assume that all those being baptized also were first saved.
In 2 Samuel 12:23, after the death of his infant son, David says, "I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me." Since David was called "a man after God's heart" (and thus is now with the Lord), this seems clearly to indicate that the baby also is with the Lord.
"And their Whole House"--i'd imagine he was saying--Who came to faith in the Lord Jesus.
One might argue that this is an argument from silence. I would disagree, pointing out that where scripture is specific about an individual being baptized, that always follows the person's being saved. Thus where scripture is less individually specific (the "household" baptism passages), it's logical to assume that all those being baptized also were first saved.
Believers baptism is plainly stated in the scriptures, but infant version would have to be implied or else assumed to be there!