Should Babies' Be Baptized?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Should Babies' Be Baptized?

    My cousin just baptized her youngest at three months. And while the pictures and videos are heartwarming because this adorable child is being given to God, I wonder if we should really baptize babies'? I'm only talking about healthy ones, if your child is dying and you want to baptize the child just in case the worse happens, I'm okay with that. But a healthy baby can't give themselves to God. Your relationship between God and you is personal and must be done though free will and not because a third party decides for you. I had to go to a class at eight before my pastor would Baptize me and my little brother had to answer three questions. A baby can't do that. So what do you think? Baptize the baby and plan on doing it later? Just baptize the baby? Or wait until they are a bit older? Thoughts anyone?

  • #2
    Not all Christians agree, even among the Protestant denominations, but I would consider infant baptism to be more of a dedication on the part of the parents, who are promising to bring their child up in the ways of the Lord. I was raised in a Bethel Covenant church, a small denomination that later merged with the Evangelical Covenant denomination. I was baptized as an infant, as that was the practice of the church. Later, when I became an adult, studying the Bible for myself, I became convinced that I needed to be baptized, since the New Testament model was that a person believed, and then was baptized, not the other way around. Because of this, I was baptized through the Grace Brethren Church, several years after I had become a Christian. Had I died during this period, would I have had salvation? I can't really say that I know, although I expect that I would because I didn't know any better. But I don't know for sure. If I am wrong, then that is the only harm that I see in infant baptism. Otherwise, if it is viewed as the dedication of a child by his or her parents, no harm is done. The order of baptism is that a person believes, then he or she is baptized. In the reverse order, I don't think it is truly a baptism.
    Comment>

    • #3
      I don't see why not. It's a sacrament that washes away the original sin, and it gives the child a roof over his head, with a church, religion, and God above him watching him as he faces the world. It also gives some sort of relief for parents, as parenthood is sometimes the catalyst for a renewed faith in God. They are afraid of the uncertainty of the situations ahead, and they turn to a higher being to protect their children as they move forward in the world. It is the main appeal of religion during parenthood, as when troubles are seen in the horizon, parents would call for help on someone who might actually listen, and that's why they put their children through events like Baptism and Communions.
      Comment>

      • #4
        Baptism was symbolic. Immersion in the water symbolized death to sin and the beginning of a new life [in Christ]. As children are too young to understand what baptism really means, there's no reason why they should be baptized. There's some doctrine though which claims that one can only be saved if they are baptized while they are still very young. This would explain why some denominations baptize babies. To be honest it does't really matter if babies are baptized or not. When they grow up, they could get baptized a second time.
        Comment>

        • #5
          In the Presbyterian church we practice infant Baptism as a covenant between the parents, the church and God to raise the child to be a Christian. The church members promise to be a part of the child's guidance with the parents. When the child is of age there is a confirmation ceremony where the child professes his/her faith in God and accepts Jesus as his/her savior.
          Comment>

          • #6
            Originally posted by OursIsTheFury View Post
            It's a sacrament that washes away the original sin
            Where does the Bible say that baptism washes away original sin?
            Clyde Herrin's Blog
            Comment>

            • #7
              Take a look through the New Testament, especially among the gospels for insight on this issue. You will see that whenever someone would be converted it not just they that are baptized after accepting Christ, but everyone in their family. Now, to clarify there are two reasons to be baptized. One is for the person who is newly converted where baptism is a symbol of how Christ has washed away their sins. When it comes to baptizing other family members, including infants, it is identify that they are now under the same covenant as the new believer. It is important to note that baptism does not effectuate, or facilitate salvation, but it is something that occurs after the fact for the new believer. For those who are baptized prior to being saved it, again, is just a symbol to say that they are under covenant, and those who are in authority over them are tasked with raising with biblical principals so they are able to, once they are old enough, to profess their faith, meaning they have, on their own accepted Christ as their savior. It is also important to note that no matter when you were baptized it is only required once. There is no need for any more than that.
              Comment>

              • #8
                Originally posted by theophilus View Post
                Where does the Bible say that baptism washes away original sin?
                Rom 5
                “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man [Adam] and death through sin…” (vs 12)
                “For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation…” (vs 16)
                “Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men…” (Vs 18)

                We are born “in Adam” and in condemnation.

                For eternal life we need to be “in Christ” and taken out of condemnation.
                “For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1Cor 15:21-22)

                This is what Jesus does for us in baptism.
                "You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. And even when you were dead (in) transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he brought you to life along with him, having forgiven us all our transgressions" (Col 2:11-13)

                This is being “born again” or “born anew”

                'Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God." …….Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.' (Jn 3:3&5)

                “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (Jn 3:6)
                What is born of the flesh is referring to our un-regenerated state, our natural earthly state before baptism (in Adam). What is born of the spirit is spirit refers to our regenerated state, our transformed state by the power of the Holy Spirit in baptism ("in Christ").
                “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal 3:27)

                Through baptism our sins are forgiven and we receive the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38)
                This was prophesied by Ezekial:
                "I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts. I will put my spirit within you…." (Ez 36:25-27)

                Through baptism we become members of the Church (1Cor 12:13)

                Why would we not include babies in this?
                Comment>

                • #9
                  In answer to the question in the title, no.
                  Comment>

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Stratcat View Post
                    In answer to the question in the title, no.
                    Please provide Scripture excusing you from the great commission, and provide it as the basis for exempting children from baptism, discipleship and even the NT Covenant. Also please provide any differentiation in respect of meaning, intent, and obligation between adult baptism and infant baptism.
                    Comment>

                    • #11
                      A pastor friend of mine is continually emphasizing to me how God doesn't just deal with us as individuals, he also deals with us as communities. These communities have various levels, including our family, our local worshipping body, and also our nation. Some facets of spiritual interaction can only be achieved at one of these levels. In the Christian life, you can't go it alone. In Acts 16, we see the jailer being baptized. He didn't just get baptized himself. He took his whole family and got them all baptized.
                      Comment>

                      • #12
                        To answer William, what does infant baptism have to do with the Great Commission? Also, where in Scripture are we told to baptize the li'l tykes?
                        Comment>

                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Stratcat View Post
                          To answer William, what does infant baptism have to do with the Great Commission? Also, where in Scripture are we told to baptize the li'l tykes?
                          That is no answer at all, but it is quite revealing about your doctrine concerning the NT Covenant and the nature of the church and its membership. Quick question, do you read prior responses up until yours?

                          To answer your question directly Strat, Scripture references baptizing households without any prejudice, including the great commission which is comprised of people (lest you're going to argue that infants are not people). Lest you are going to argue that the visible church only is comprised of adults professing faith while guaranteeing they are not only regenerate but genuine in profession? You really need to answer those questions. Children are included as those being set apart, they receive the sign seal and mark of Baptism, this does not suggest that they are saved, but it does suggest that they are Covenant children and receive certain blessings only known to Covenant people. Clearly, by your doctrine, children are lost in the transition from the OT and NT Covenants, unless you're going to argue that children were never part of the previous Covenant?

                          Acts 2:39 to whom is the promise of the Covenant belong, and who these are that should be baptized: " 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

                          Calvin shows:

                          Acts 2:39 that the Anabaptists in his time, said, the promise was made to Believers only, but the Text saith, it is made to you and to your children, to infants, to the children of the Prophets and of the Covenant made with the fathers, Acts 3:25 You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’

                          Now what ground do Anabaptists give that all infants believe, or that some believe, since to them, their children were as Pagans without Christ, without the Covenant? if to the children when they come to age and shall believe? but what need to add, and to your believing Children? for these are not children but men of age, their fathers and they both being believers. Now Peter sets down two ranks, the aged who heard the word with gladness, and were pricked in heart, v. 37. 41. and the children, and to both the promise is made, and what ground is there to exclude sucking children? for the word, Acts 2:39. is Math. 2:18. 1 Cor. 7:14. where sure the word is taken for sucking children of whose actual faith the Scripture speaks not.
                          God bless,
                          William
                          Comment>

                          • #14
                            Originally posted by LeapOfFaith89 View Post
                            My cousin just baptized her youngest at three months. And while the pictures and videos are heartwarming because this adorable child is being given to God, I wonder if we should really baptize babies'? I'm only talking about healthy ones, if your child is dying and you want to baptize the child just in case the worse happens, I'm okay with that. But a healthy baby can't give themselves to God. Your relationship between God and you is personal and must be done though free will and not because a third party decides for you. I had to go to a class at eight before my pastor would Baptize me and my little brother had to answer three questions. A baby can't do that. So what do you think? Baptize the baby and plan on doing it later? Just baptize the baby? Or wait until they are a bit older? Thoughts anyone?

                            First off, babies are innocent, and therefore they all go up with God if they die prematurely or something.

                            I don't agree with baptism of a baby, because firstly: The baby doesn't know what's going on, nor does it really care, he/she is too young to care about what is happening to them, and they won't remember it, therefore making it pointless. Also, the baby needs to follow Christ on it's own, and not be forced into Christianity, that's why so many people choose not to become Christians, because sometimes there are certain people who can be more forceful of it. That's not what Jesus would do though.
                            Comment>

                            • #15
                              Originally posted by AGustOfWind View Post


                              First off, babies are innocent, and therefore they all go up with God if they die prematurely or something.

                              I don't agree with baptism of a baby, because firstly: The baby doesn't know what's going on, nor does it really care, he/she is too young to care about what is happening to them, and they won't remember it, therefore making it pointless. Also, the baby needs to follow Christ on it's own, and not be forced into Christianity, that's why so many people choose not to become Christians, because sometimes there are certain people who can be more forceful of it. That's not what Jesus would do though.
                              By your logic babies are good enough to go to heaven but not receive the sign seal and mark of the NT Covenant. They are good enough to go to heaven, but they are not good enough to be included in the visible church. You also suggest that babies don't know what is going on, do you also hold your position when it comes to mentally challenged people whether by birth defect or even accidents?

                              Might I also point out that your opinion, and it is an opinion which rests on personal choice, rebellion, and is derived from rejecting original sin.
                              Comment>
                              Working...
                              X
                              Articles - News - SiteMap