Infant baptism-baptism saves

[Allan]

Emily, you shouldn't dismiss history, but it isn't as neat as you claim. Infant baptism did not become the dominant position among Christians until the early fifth century. The link between Christendom and infant baptism is pretty clear. That is not to say that infant baptism wasn't practiced before then, but adult baptism was still a popular practice in the first four centuries of the church.

Furthermore, the dominant view of infant baptism in Church history is that it eliminates original sin. The idea that circumcision is linked to baptism comes from Zwingli who used it as an argument against the Anabaptists. Thus, history can go both ways on this issue.

BJ

Very true, good post.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Emily, quite a few other things happened in the first fifteen hundred years of church history too, like

the Inquistion,

the Crusades,

kings who thought they were decended from God himself,
kings and bishops who believed the common people had no business reading scripture for themselves and actively sought to keep it translated only into Latin,

Christians who thought it "God's work" to burn at the stake those who held to a different theology

All these and more were carried on during the early church history. Should the Arminians on this board consider lighting fires under the Calvinists? Should we burn all our English Bibles? Should we go door to door requiring all to believe as we?

Church history counts for naught. We should be searching the scriptures to be certain what we are being told/taught is in agreement with what God says. The rest is fluff. Not necessarily wrong, simply not necessary.

 

[Aaron]

Furthermore, the dominant view of infant baptism in Church history is that it eliminates original sin. The idea that circumcision is linked to baptism comes from Zwingli who used it as an argument against the Anabaptists. Thus, history can go both ways on this issue.

BJ

Linking circumcision and baptism goes back to at least St. Paul and some of the early church fathers. A Google search will reveal that Justin Martyr said that baptism was the circumcision of the New Testament.

 

[Aaron]

Acts 2:38

38Peter said to them, "(A)Repent, and each of you be (B)baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39"For (C)the promise is for you and your children and for all who are (D)far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."

Acts 22:16

16'Now why do you delay? (A)Get up and be baptized, and (B)wash away your sins, (C)calling on His name.'

Col 2:11-12

11and in Him (AA)you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of (AB)the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;
12having been (AC)buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also (AD)raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who (AE)raised Him from the dead.

Here, her point was that since baptism replaces circumcision, and newborn babies were circumsized, then the promise of baptism is for infants as well.. not only for adults. That any faith anyone has is the gift of God.

Here's my advice, though I will refer you back to an earlier post of mine which admonishes you to seek the advice of your husband.

If you feel that you have a duty to baptize your children, then do so, but if you feel that you are somehow "saving" them through baptism, then you are listening to another gospel, which isn't the Gospel at all, and you may be setting foot on the road to apostasy.

Again, seek the advice of your husband. Why is that so hard to do? Why do you let questionable matters trouble you so much, and ignore the straightforward, non-optional, unquestionable commands of the Scriptures?

 

[Brother Bob]

Circumcism was to males only and Justin Martyr does not give an age for baptism. Some believe that he thought of the baptism of infants in some ways resembled circumcism, but I don't think Justin ever really made the statement that it was.

If that was true, all little girl infants would be left out completely.

Can anyone give scripture for baptizing infants??

The whole account of baptism in the New Testament is plain and intelligible, and the state of this ordinance, during the lives of the apostles, is to be gathered mostly from the book of Acts, written by Luke, the first ecclesiastical historian. It extends from the ascension of Christ to the residence of Paul at Rome, a space of more than thirty years. "In this book there are frequent narrations of the baptism of believers, as of Cornelius, the Ethiopian eunuch, and others, but not one infant appears in the whole history;


But it is generally supposed that Tertullian of Africa, in the third century, is the first writer who makes any mention of infant baptism, and he, (says Dr. Gill) opposed it. But his opposition is considered by Pedo-baptists as evidence in the case.

From writers of unquestionable authority, it is evident, that the primitive christians continued to baptize in rivers, pools, and baths, until about the middle of the 3rd century. Justin Martyr says, that they went with the catechumens to a place where there was water, and Tertullian adds, that the candidates for baptism made a profession of faith twice, once in the church, and then again when they came to the water, and it was quite indifferent whether it were the sea, or a pool, a lake, or a river, or a bath. Such are the accounts given by Justin Martyr in his Apology, and by Tertullian on baptism as quoted by Robinson.

I can't see infants making a confession, can you?

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/earlyhistory.htm

BBob,

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

Sorry Aaron, I should have said infant baptism instead of baptism in that post. It's certainly arguable that Paul linked circumcision with infant baptism, and I'm not so sure that he linked physical circumcision to baptism either but I'll give you that one not wanting to debate.

BJ

 

[The Scribe]

Acts 19:1-6 (KJV)
1: And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2: He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3: And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4: Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5: When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6: And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Mark 16:16 (KJV)
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

1 Peter 3:21-22 (KJV)
21: The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
22: Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

Colossians 2:12 (KJV)
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

There's no need for infants to be baptized.

I believe baptism to be necessary reread Mark 16:16.

 

[Brother Bob]

Eph 5:26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

We must rightly divide the word of truth and understand what saves us, the water baptism, or the Holy Ghost baptism.

BBob,

 

[Aaron]

Circumcism was to males only and Justin Martyr does not give an age for baptism. Some believe that he thought of the baptism of infants in some ways resembled circumcism, but I don't think Justin ever really made the statement that it was.

I didn't mean to imply that Martyr said anything about infants. My point was that the teaching that baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of the Covenant is ancient and goes back even to the Apostles.

I'm a Baptist, so naturally I didn't bring my infants to the font, but I'm open minded enough to acknowledge that the Reformers make a compelling case. If there is a Reformer who taught baptismal regeneration, then he would be an exception.

 

[Brother Bob]

I didn't mean to imply that Martyr said anything about infants. My point was that the teaching that baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of the Covenant is ancient and goes back even to the Apostles.

I'm a Baptist, so naturally I didn't bring my infants to the font, but I'm open minded enough to acknowledge that the Reformers make a compelling case. If there is a Reformer who taught baptismal regeneration, then he would be an exception.

I agree and wasn't disagreeing with you, just trying to add to what you had already posted.

BBob,

 

[lbaker]

Emily,

Here's my two cents on this thing, based on years of studying and thinking.

Faith is what saves us, no doubt, not works of any kind.

In New Testament times, it does appear that the normative chain of events was that people were immersed as a result of their faith, and understood that immersion to be the point in time when they were saved, by faith.

The bottom line is that although it appears that salvation was considered to occur at the time of baptism in the NT, it was faith that saved the believers.

Now, since faith is a prerequisite for immersion, and an infant can't have faith, there is no reason to baptize infants.

Also, since infants have no understanding of right or wrong (no understanding of Law) they can't be held accountable for wrongdoing.

So, while your friend may be somewhat correct as to the purpose of baptism, she is way off on the idea of making infants eligible for immersion.

Hope this helps to shed a little light.

 

[sj]

No one as of yet has posted a convincing reply to Emily's question regarding Acts 2:38. You can say the word for "eis" really means because of, or whatever you want, BUT, it is sure had to explain away. As is
Mark 16:16 (KJV)
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

 

[The Scribe]

No one as of yet has posted a convincing reply to Emily's question regarding Acts 2:38. You can say the word for "eis" really means because of, or whatever you want, BUT, it is sure had to explain away. As is
Mark 16:16 (KJV)
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

I posted the same verse you did. My comment was fine. :saint: