Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Welcome to Christforums the Protestant Community. You'll need to register in order to post your comments on your favorite topics and subjects. You'll also enjoy sharing media across multiple platforms. We hope you enjoy your fellowship here! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christforums

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy. God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now
Sign in to follow this  
LeapOfFaith89

Should Babies' Be Baptized?

Recommended Posts

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?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a sacrament that washes away the original sin

Where does the Bible say that baptism washes away original sin?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

Might I also point out that your opinion, and it is an opinion rests on personal choice and rebellion, not to mention the rejection of original sin.

 

Personal choice doesn't equal rebellion. God gave us freewill, he didn't design us as robots to blindly follow whatever breezes our way. That's why so many people have believed that they have received a message from God, but it wasn't God. And the many religions things like that have spawned are seen everywhere.

 

Anyway, God is merciful, and I think that the babies are innocent. Yeah... We may be tainted with the sin of Adam and Eve. But the babies have done nothing wrong, and God is a god of love and mercy. Despite this, the babies shouldn't have to be bound to a church that they may end up not agreeing with.

 

Maybe the babies will grow up and say "I don't like being a Presbytarian, I don't agree with it." So, they will become an independent type of deal, just go to a mainstream church.

 

Who knows? Stuff happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Personal choice doesn't equal rebellion. God gave us freewill, he didn't design us as robots to blindly follow whatever breezes our way. That's why so many people have believed that they have received a message from God, but it wasn't God. And the many religions things like that have spawned are seen everywhere.

 

Anyway, God is merciful, and I think that the babies are innocent. Yeah... We may be tainted with the sin of Adam and Eve. But the babies have done nothing wrong, and God is a god of love and mercy. Despite this, the babies shouldn't have to be bound to a church that they may end up not agreeing with.

 

Maybe the babies will grow up and say "I don't like being a Presbytarian, I don't agree with it." So, they will become an independent type of deal, just go to a mainstream church.

 

Who knows? Stuff happens.

 

Your response is clear, I no doubt acknowledge that yours is a non denominational/baptistic answer.

 

@Stratcat Listen up and learn!

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Your response is clear, I no doubt acknowledge that yours is a non denominational/baptistic answer.

 

@Stratcat Listen up and learn!

 

God bless,

William

 

I only wonder where the biblical evidence of original sin is. Argubly, were Adam and Eve not forgiven when God threw the animal skins over them? Or were they?

 

I'm pretty sure they were. And also, original sin doesn't make logical sense. Though, I think there could be a form of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that it is good thing to do, helping a small little creature to find the good path in life.

Of course it all depends on if they decide to follow up their christian upbringing or not, but yes, thy should be,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I only wonder where the biblical evidence of original sin is. Argubly, were Adam and Eve not forgiven when God threw the animal skins over them? Or were they?

 

I'm pretty sure they were. And also, original sin doesn't make logical sense. Though, I think there could be a form of it.

 

Please clarify what you mean by "doesn't make logical sense." We are all condemned because of the sin of our first parents, which is why we have the human nature we do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romans 9:11 "(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)"

Isaiah 48:8 "Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; Yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: For I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, And wast called a transgressor from the womb."

 

Babies who die prematurely do not go to heaven automatically. That is a false spinoff Arminian free will doctrine as an answer to them not being able to "decide to be saved of their free will." It wouldn't go down right if they all went to hell because they failed to decide. For this reason, they came up with the "all babies go to heaven" doctrine and the "age of accountability" doctrine, neither of which is in the Bible. We are saved by God's election from the foundation of the world---Revelation 17:8 KJV.

 

Water baptism. Let's be specific of what kind of baptism we speak of. There is always the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and then water baptism which has passed. Paul said he was sent not to baptize: 1 Corinthians 1:17 "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect." Water baptism is man's works.

 

Go easy on this old man. I don't have the church background some of you think I should have. I only have the Bible to go to. I go to a Baptist church and don't believe in water baptism! I used to, but not anymore. It came and went. Baptism of repentance, baptism of salvation, believer's baptism, all gone now. OT and NT have one baptism: by the Holy Ghost, with or without water. The thief on the cross was not baptized, and don't say, "well he was an exception" because that doesn't wash. Paul is the apostle of the Gentiles, says there is no Jew nor Greek, but all are one in the body of Christ. He says to preach the Gospel, not to baptize. The Holy Spirit baptizes and saves whosoever He will: John 3:8 “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.”

 

Babies are just as subject to election as the rest of us. Remember: there are no babies in heaven or hell, but all are full grown people when they receive new bodies. Babies are sinners as we are all born sinners, even in the womb. Election. That's what the Bible teaches. The dispensation of times. A progression of God's plan, starting from the beginning to eternity: One must understand what dispensation is so we don't get confused on what the Bible says is for who and when it is to be.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babies are just as subject to election as the rest of us.

Have you ever considered the possibility that allowing babies to die before they commit sin is the way God chooses to elect them for salvation?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I consider what the Bible actually says. Besides, we are all sinners even from the womb because we are descendants of Adam and Eve -plus Isaiah 48:8 KJV. That cannot be ignored.

 

God may very well elect that all babies go to heaven, then again, maybe not; the Bible doesn't say. It says "...that the purpose of God according to election might stand." Allowing feelings and emotions to interfere with Scriptural truth gums up the works on learning the truth.

 

We must approach Jesus as a little child, not full of pride and preconceived notions, as Jesus taught: “2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 3 And said, ‘Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.’” - Matthew 18:2-5 KJV. What happens if one were to do it another way? Out of pride, one would twist the teachings of the Bible into convenient, private interpretations rather than taking the word of God for what He teaches, and believing in it. Jesus blessed the children who were there as an example of how we are all to approach God and receive eternal life according to election. First we are converted, then we become as a little child. Then we are able to humble ourselves as a little child. That is the sequence given.

 

Children grow up. Do they lose their salvation when they reach a certain age, whatever age that might be? Then they have to be re-saved as older children or adults? Where is all this in the Bible? Age of accountability? That all children automatically go to Heaven doesn't make sense and isn't Scriptural. It is free will doctrine run amok. Read Matthew 13, the parable of the wheat and the tares and Jesus' interpretation of it. "Who hath ears to hear, let him hear."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them

 

I reject Theo's suggestion as the basis for Election. But I acknowledge and believe God recognizes the sign seal and mark of the NT Covenant, setting children apart (1 Corinthians 7:14) to receive His blessings among his people of the NT Covenant.

 

Jesus blessed the children who were there as an example of how we are all to approach God and receive eternal life according to election. First we are converted, then we become as a little child. Then we are able to humble ourselves as a little child. That is the sequence given.

 

Jesus did bless these children, and also warned those that may harm them or cause them to stumble (Luke 17:2) and said to not hinder them (Matthew 19:14). Children's faith are being praised in Scripture, but yet it is a wonder why you reject children from the sign seal and mark of baptism while claiming children are without faith? As adults there's nothing wrong with what you're suggesting, and that is baptism accompanied by a faithful profession during conversion. Reformed practice the same, that is, Covenant Theologians, when admitting adults into the church. Also, many Covenant children haven't a Conversion story when they grow up, they believe as far back as they can remember, having honored their parents which is a commandment (John MacArthur even claims this about himself).

 

Furthermore, I do think your baptistic view is colored by a Baptist understanding of the church. Baptist believe only the regenerated are members of the church, rather than a visible church (made up of believers and unbelievers) and an invisible church (made up of all saints throughout time, that only God knows). The truth is, the promise of a new heart of regeneration is not made to the visible Church, which is only visible: but to the Elect & invisible Church.

 

Children grow up. Do they lose their salvation when they reach a certain age, whatever age that might be?

 

Covenant theologians do not claim that baptism saves (your statement clearly suggest that Baptism saves). But Covenant theologians do claim it is the sign seal and mark of the NT Covenant. You have established a false premise. When a child has grown up, he is no longer a child but an adult.

 

It is free will doctrine run amok.

 

Ever wonder why all Covenant Theologians are Calvinistic, but dispensationalist rarely are Calvinist, but mainly comprised of Arminians? Also note, since you mentioned him before, John MacArthur is known as a "Leaky Dispensationalist". You can look up the term on the internet, and understand what he opposes about dispensationalism. I bring this up because dispensationalism opposes Covenant theology, and it just so happens to be comprised mainly of Arminians.

 

Out of pride, one would twist the teachings of the Bible into convenient, private interpretations rather than taking the word of God for what He teaches, and believing in it.

I consider what the Bible actually says.

 

I'll go with my first instinct and not respond any further to your posts that accompany these kinds of statements, but I'll leave you to consider why those blasted Arminians mainly take your position.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William: So then at what point in life are the children unholy and apparently need to come to Christ of their own volition and be holy? If one is an unbeliever, just marrying a believer saves them if they stay together? That is what Paul seems to say, but as he says, not the Lord. You still don't address my references and what they might mean. I contend they stand on how they read. As for my Baptist church, I don't believe all they believe in. You also still do not know what dispensation is. At one point, the Bible says that baptism saves, then one receives the Holy Ghost; but that came and went, followed by "believer's baptism." You still have a nasty habit of trying to group me in with certain people, those not to your liking. Why can't we just stick to edifying and understanding the Scriptures? Yes, I like MacArthur, but don't know everything about him, nor do I care to get to know everything about anyone, but to try to get to know Christ as best I can in what time He grants me. Dispensation is mentioned four times in the Bible, yet you don't believe in it. You claim I don't believe in the Covenant; that is not true. You're trying to analyze my spirituality, which is dangerous ground to walk on for you judge me according to your standards. The Lord will judge us all by His standards and includes how we judge others. ".Judge not by the appearance but judge righteous judgement." As for my last statement in the previous post, I stand by it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×