Infant baptism...is it right?

[stephen_can_man]

I have to put this out there because it has bothered me for some time. Our church practices infant baptism and also accepts it as a substitute for adult baptism when it comes to membership at our church. I am sorry but, I see no scriptural basis for infant baptism, and quite frankly, if it is more like a baby dedication, why use the loaded word of baptism when there are spiritual implications associated with that word? Any thoughts?

[fmckinnon]

Stephen,
I definitely wouldn't use it as a substitute - I'm OK with "dedicating" an infant to the Lord ... but baptism is a public response to salvation, and clearly, an infant is unable to confess Christ as Savior and understand/walk in that.

We dedicate infants, and we always point out during the ceremony that this is a sign of consecration and dedication, and that we charge the parents and congregation to bring up the child in the ways of the Lord and Scripture, and trust that the child will confess Christ at a time when they are able to do so on their own accord, and receive true baptism.

We do NOT call it infant baptism.

[jpc101]

This is what I've been taught as a born, bred and 'dunked' Baptist from the UK!

I also agree that there's no Biblical basis for infant Baptism (or 'Christening' as it's often called here in the UK) and certainly no basis for 'substitution' either. As I understand it, infant Baptism became widely practised in the middle ages (or before) when there was a very high infant mortatily rate and it was seen as a way of 'getting the baby into heaven' - and of course if you wanted to donate to the church for the service...

And we still have it because of 'tradition'. In fact the local Anglican priest in my town wrote an article along these lines. He'll do it as a 'form of dedication' and way of the parents commiting to bring the child up with a knowledge of God; but it doesn't 'make you a Christian' or 'get you into Heaven'. I think he took some flack from some of his parishoners about it...

We 'dedicate' in my (Baptist) Church and then do adult baptism when you're able to make the desicion for yourself.

In doing some study and research and I've found Matt 18:10 implies that all children 'below the age of accountability' (when you had your Bar or Bat Mitzvah and became 'an adult') belong to God and that's certainy very old Jewish thinking. For more on that you can go to: http://www.whyangels.com/what_do_angels_do.html#guardian_angels (a site I've researched/written/designed and created!) Look at the bible quote 29 and below it.

I'm certainly no theologian (I'm a web designer!) but from talking to knowledgeable Christians and researching Christian and Jewish books that's what I've found. That's my 2p!

[LoriBiddle]

I agree, I have never studied anywhere in the Bible that seems to support infant baptism. (Not that I know every passage of scripture perfectly!)

Baptism seems to always be used in the Bible associated with adults or people old enough to dedicate themselves to following Jesus.

Our baby dedication is more about the parents in front of the congregation promising to raise the child in a Godly home to the best of their ability...

I would struggle with this practice also..

[SamIAm]

A lot of what you're talking about has to do with one's definition of baptism. (I mentioned this on a tweet response, but there's only 140 characters there, and I think I've just now used that up.) For example: some denominations state that baptism is "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace." That means that infants would be allowed to be baptized, because God's grace was there for them even in their infancy. You mentioned it yourself, jpc101, about the belief that those before the age of accountability belong to God. There's nothing really scriptural about that, but it does definitely require grace for that kind of thinking. Those who believe in infant baptism do so because in such a baptism they are celebrating the fact that God has already offered us grace even before we ask for it. It's a symbol of something God has already done - a baptism of God's Holy Spirit with grace.

Those who follow a "believer's baptism" do so because, to them baptism is a public confession and celebration of one's salvation. That would, of course, require one to be old enough to claim one's salvation.

Neither is "wrong" per se, unless you DON'T believe in God's grace being there for a child or unless you are an adult who hasn't accepted Christ but you go through the motions of a believer's baptism anyway.

As far as scripture: there's not much that tells us scripturally how the act of baptism should be done in the church. Where would you find it? The early church, however, did begin using infant baptism in the first century (and, no, it wasn't because they thouht it would be a way to "get a baby into heaven" - I thought that, too, when I first started asking questions about this).

There are those who also believe that a water baptism is necessary to enter into heaven - that no matter what God has done through the cross and through the Holy Spirit, if a pastor doesn't say the right words or dunk or sprinkle or...whatever...in the right way then that person is lost. As you can see, I have trouble with that line of thinking since it's God's act of love which allows us the grace of salvation.

[milepost13]

I'm not going to enter this discussion any more than to say, I agree with all of the above except for Sam's post...I do believe that there are very obvious Biblical guidelines for baptism. It doesn't really matter what our personal opinions about the matter when the Bible is clear.

Nate

[stephen_can_man]

I had a baptist preacher explain the biblical context for baptism before and he mentioned how the greek used the word "baptiso" or something like that, and that the direct translation is to be "submerged" in water. Long story short, I'm really not for sprinkling either, but I guess denominations have their quirks.

A little off topic but, I agree with the baptists take on baptism but not salvation, the A.G.'s Armenian view of salvation but not their view of the the holy spirit, and the Methodists view of provenial grace but not the infant baptism. What is one to do?

By the way, I'm at a UMC church after having served at an Assemblies of God church and a Southern Baptist church.

[jpc101]

My Minister has preached a couple of sermons on the subject at a couple of adult 'Believer's Baptism' services we've had if anyone's interested!
http://is.gd/fjPi
http://is.gd/fjPm

And for the 'definition' of baptism, I think you have to go back to the Jewish roots. Certainly John the 'Baptist' was 'Baptising' in the Jewish tradition before Jesus started his ministry!

The wikipedia entry on Baptism is worth a read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism

The Jewish form of Baptism (what John was doing) was the mikvah or ritual immersion, practised by those wanted to be made ritual clean, repent or be prepared for a special ministry or kind of service (as Jesus was Baptised). Converts to Judaism today normally still have to go through the mikvah ceremony (depending on the synagogue).

My belief is salvation by grace and that Baptism is an outward commitment and sign/witness/demonstraion of this.

Also John said that Jesus (and those following him) would Baptise to do more than 'clean':

11 "I baptise you with (Or in) water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptise you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."
Matthew 3:11

And with infant Baptism, yes the early Church did do it - possibly as a replacement for the Jewish naming and dedication ceremony (circumcision) - as many of the early Church weren't Jewish...

But as wikipedia says: "(In the Middle Ages) Infant baptism became common, alongside the developing theology of original sin, displacing the earlier common practice of delaying baptism until the deathbed."

So (because of original sin) it was seen by some (if not most) as a way of 'getting the baby into heaven'! (The baby not being able to go to confession and receive absolution...)

As for Baptism by the Holy Spirit, have a listen to the sermons (especially the top link) because Andy explains it better than I ever could!

I don't mean to go on, just to say where I'm coming from on this!

[Worsh-er]

In general I do agree with a lot of what has been said. I was brought up in a Methodist church but my parents still decided to have me dedicated so that I could make the decision to be baptised as an adult for myself.

However, at the start of the thread someone mentioned:
"Our church practices infant baptism and also accepts it as a substitute for adult baptism when it comes to membership at our church."

This is where it gets tricky. I personaly, in general agree that baptism such be reserved for adults who can make their own desision however I have a good friend who was baptised as a child (methodist church) and moved churches when they relocated for work...they found a church and wanted to become a member but the church said to become a member they had to have adult baptism...My friend decided that she could not be baptised AGAIN because to do so would invalidate what her parents had done in their decision to baptise her as an infant....It would also be saying that anything spiritual which God did during infant baptism was invalid....and who are we to say whether God "accepts" infant baptism. As a result the Church refused to allow her to become a member and she left the church feeling rejected by her "church family".

Ultimately even if God intended baptism to be for adults only I doubt that God will turn his back on child baptism, I believe he appreciates the motives behind it and works through it. To force someone to be baptised again for membership is basically deeming the work God did through the infant baptism as worthless and of no value.

Do remember that when Paul and Silas were freed from prison it says this about the jailor:
Acts 16:33
"At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized."

It says all his family were baptised...there is no mention about it being according to age, or mental ability to make a decision. So I would be carefull before categorising all infant baptism's as being worthless, even if we dont consider them to be ideal.

[Wrapped in Jesus Love!]

I was baptized as an infant and have been thinking for a while now that I might want to be baptized as an adult. So if you are a music director at a church that uses infant baptism and you want to be baptized as an adult, do you think there are any church's that will baptize you as an adult even if you cannot attend services due to employment with another church???

[fmckinnon]

Hey, you don't have to go to a church - find a Believer, and tell them you want to be baptized - they can do it in a pool, for that matter ... doesn't have to be a priest, pastor, or "professional" clergy, IMHO.

[TruePraise]

I agree. We are all "priest" in the holy priesthood. Though I feel sure, if you wanted a minister to baptis you, you could find one...

[mikeymo1741]

Hey, you don't have to go to a church - find a Believer, and tell them you want to be baptized - they can do it in a pool, for that matter ... doesn't have to be a priest, pastor, or "professional" clergy, IMHO.

Not just your's, Fred.

It has always been the position of the "Church" (which by now means the Catholic church) that the minister of baptism need not be clergy. In fact, I can remember growing up being taught to baptize those in danger of dying - just in case.

While Catholics do practice infant baptism, they also practice Confirmation, which is equivalent to "believer's baptism" in that it is a personal descision made at an age where it can be reasonably made.

Of course, scripturally, infant baptism has no salvific value. In fact, there is no real scriptural basis for the idea that children are "automatically" granted access to heaven. Paul specifically said in 1 Corinthians 7:

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

So it seems it is the grace put upon the parents extending to the children that provides salvation. Still, the act of dedicating or even baptizing an infant should not be declared wrong as long as it is understood what it is really accomplishing. We are not saved by baptism either as adults or children, but by grace through faith.

[SamIAm]

Well said, Mikeymo. Thanks.

[Sacredise]

Just a word of caution, here, folks. While I see from this thread that most of the posters on this forum are firm believers in believer's baptism, I would ask for some pause and respect for others before saying that there is no biblical basis for infant baptism. There are many church groups and denominations that have a proud and distinguished history of both biblical interpretation and scholarship and worshipful, Christ-centred, and Christ-honouring practice in infant baptism.

I could go into a long biblical exposition on infant baptism, but I would prefer not to do that and get into a huge debate here. One small nod in this direction is simply this - when in the book of Acts we are told that someone was baptised "with their whole household" (eg. Acts 16:33) it would seem to indicate that the baptism of some in the household was on the basis of the faith of the specific individual mentioned. The idea of the baptism was to express the grace of God that had come to the whole people.

It seems to me that there are two approaches to baptism - when we focus on the individual's respone to Christ's work, then we practice and preach believer's baptism. When we focus on the Body of Christ, the community of faith and our journey together in faith and in receiving God's grace, we tend to practice and preach infant baptism. Both forms have been present in the church from the earliest times in Church history, and both have strong theological and biblical foundations. It's simply a question of emphasis.

Perhaps both groups are right, but simply choose differnt places to focus. Perhaps we can make space for one another, and love as Christ loved, without judging each other because we fail to agree on an issue like this? Perhaps we can be a little cautious before accusing one another of not believing the Bible, or of not having adequate biblical support for our views, before we have fully understand the other person's position? I really hope we can.

For what it's worth

[milepost13]

Just a word of caution, here, folks. While I see from this thread that most of the posters on this forum are firm believers in believer's baptism, I would ask for some pause and respect for others before saying that there is no biblical basis for infant baptism.

This is why I find theological discussions on the internet like the one taking place here to often be basically useless, and even detrimental. Too many people get their shorts in a wad when somebody says something like "I believe this is what the Bible says and don't understand how others can see it any other way."

Why is it wrong for me to believe something and state my beliefs? Why does anyone feel disrespected because of that? What does judging people and accusing people of not believing the Bible have anything to do with this discussion...I haven't seen any of that, but maybe I'm not just sensitive enough?

The bottom line is, there are some theological issues that are gray and some issues that are black and white, which means, some people are going to believe the truth and others are not... It's a shame that the doctrine of tolerance has permeated the church. It's a shame that we can't have a theological discussion without people getting their feelings hurt or without the tolerance police showing up to remind everyone to be "respectful" (did we really need that reminder here?). It's a shame that I have to be called disrespectful and judgmental for having the balls to state what I believe.

But, that's the way it is, and because of it, I don't like to participate in these kinds of discussions beyond simply stating my beliefs and shutting up, which I promise I'll do now.

Grrrr....

Nate

[stephen_can_man]

It seems to me that there are two approaches to baptism - when we focus on the individual's respone to Christ's work, then we practice and preach believer's baptism.

Here's my problem with this whole thing though, I stated at the beginning that our church will allow infant baptism to substitute for adult baptism. Well then, if infant baptism is more like "baby dedication" and adult baptism is a "believer's baptism" then in my reasoning it should follow that adult baptism must be required when they accept the faith for themselves either at confirmation or when they choose church membership. Does that make sense?

[mikeymo1741]

Here's my problem with this whole thing though, I stated at the beginning that our church will allow infant baptism to substitute for adult baptism. Well then, if infant baptism is more like "baby dedication" and adult baptism is a "believer's baptism" then in my reasoning it should follow that adult baptism must be required when they accept the faith for themselves either at confirmation or when they choose church membership. Does that make sense?

I would say yes.

In response to John, I would say that is less that both are right, and more that neither is wrong.

As I stated, there is no salvific value in the act of baptism - it is an act of obedience, as typified by Christ. An infant has no opportunity to be obedient. An infant has no opportunity to confess Christ.

As to Act 16:33, nothing in the text states that there was an infant in the family. Perhaps his children were all grown.

Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with infant baptism. All my children, save the youngest, were baptized as infants, and the youngest was dedicated. However, they - save the youngest, who is too young - have also been baptized of their own choice when they reached an appropriate age.

I don't believe anyone has specifically accused anyone of anything in this thread. I simply pointed out that there is no scriptural evidence for the baptism of infants, and I stand by that. There are some verses that might indicate that children might have been baptized, but that is hardly conclusive. What is conclusive is that a choice must be made to follow Christ, that salvation comes by grace through faith. What's frightening is that someone may think that baptism in infancy will carry them through life.

[TruePraise]

I am no theologian, but doesn't the bible say we are to make disciples, batizing them in the name of the father, son and holy spirit....I have always assumed this mean believers...

How can a baby/infant be a believer? I have always been a bit confused by infant baptism....though baby dedications are very sweet and meaningful to the parents....

[worshiptrench]

Here is a great reformed article on why they view infant baptism as viable from a guy who has worked with RC Sproul.

http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99793.qna/category/th/page/questions/site/iiim

I don't agree but you definitely must wrestle with his thoughts.

Another GREAT work on this is Ben Witherington's Troubled Waters
http://www.amazon.com/Troubled-Waters-Rethinking-Theology-Baptism/dp/1602580049/

[Sacredise]

Nate, I really did not intend to be the "tolerance police" - I apologise that my post came across like this.

Certainly you are entitled to express your opinion, and say what you believe. My comments were not intended to prevent this. All I ask is for some openness in the way these opinions are expressed, because the truth of such forums is that we all come from different places and traditions. You can bet if someone had said "anyone who believes in believers' baptism is just plain wrong" that there would have been many who would have objected to that statement. The statement that "there is no scriptural evidence for infant baptism" does come across as "my opinion is..." but as "this is the fact and if you disagree you're wrong". Those of us who believe in infant baptism believe that there is much Scriptural evidence to support infant baptism, so to say there is none is, in my opinion, an unfair statement. This is what I mean when I say I would like a little more openness in how we express our views. After all, didn't Jesus call us to act with love above all?

Anyway, I guess that in a forum like this we will also disagree on what the "protocols" of posting should be and what is considered hurtful or not - for me that's part of the strength of this forum. And my post in this regard was also simply my opinion - with which you are free to disagree. :-)

In terms of the jailer in Acts, it doesn't matter whether there were children in his household or not. My point is that not all who were baptised were stated to be believers in this passage - so some who were baptised were not baptised because of their own belief but because of their membership in the jailers family. The principle is this - people are baptised in this story because they belong to a community of faith, not necessarily because they themselves have expressed that faith personally.

In an individualistic society, believers' baptism makes more sense because the emphasis is on individual response. In a community-based society (like the one that exists in most of Africa, where I live) personal response is less important than the community's shared response and experience. In this context, infant baptism makes sense because the community of faith knows, believes and experiences the grace of Christ, and the child is included in that community. My view of the Scriptures is that they are as much about community as they are about individual response - perhaps more so.

One last thought - if we emphasize the human response in baptism, then "my" faith, "my" capacity to believe is what is important - so we focus on believers' baptism which places the emphasis on the individual's response. If we emphasize God's pre-venient grace, God's work which cannot be earned, and God's initiative, then we will tend to toward infant baptism because there is no question that God is at work in the life of the smallest child. Again, the differences (in my view) are simply differences of emphasis. For me, the Scriptures express both emphases, so in this sense both views of baptism are "right" or biblical. Why don't infant baptism practioners then re-baptise people when they come to personal faith? Because, if the emphasis is on God's work, that work has been done, and we would be arrogant to act as if it wasn't effective the first time, and ask God to do it again.

Again - for what it's worth.

Blessings

[stephen_can_man]

One last thought - if we emphasize the human response in baptism, then "my" faith, "my" capacity to believe is what is important - so we focus on believers' baptism which places the emphasis on the individual's response. If we emphasize God's pre-venient grace, God's work which cannot be earned, and God's initiative, then we will tend to toward infant baptism because there is no question that God is at work in the life of the smallest child. Again, the differences (in my view) are simply differences of emphasis. For me, the Scriptures express both emphases, so in this sense both views of baptism are "right" or biblical. Why don't infant baptism practioners then re-baptise people when they come to personal faith? Because, if the emphasis is on God's work, that work has been done, and we would be arrogant to act as if it wasn't effective the first time, and ask God to do it again.

I certainly see God's hand in a person's life through prevenient grace, but I disagree that baptising a child or someone who is covered by God's prevenient grace is the proper response. By it's very nature, prevenient grace is what covers a person and leads them into saving knowledge of Christ, for a community of believers to recognize this and accept their role in this process is important. But what does that have to do with baptism?

From my understanding of scripture, baptism is the recognition and response to God's grace covering your sins. Examples of this are found everywhere in scripture. The Acts 16:33 "whole household" scripture is proof texting, infant baptism was not implied or mentioned. Every example I see of baptism within scripture is believers baptism.

So, if a child is incapable of recognizing God's grace, why baptize them! Pray for them, make an oath with your community of believers, but wait until confirmation for them to choose for themselves, then baptize them.

This issue is not a matter of what believers choose to emphasize, the issue is staying true to scripture!

[psalmsandhymns]

As someone who is fully committed to baptizing the children of believers, let me add a few things to our discussion.

First of all, the thirdmill article (http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99793.qna/category/th/page/questions/site/iiim) linked earlier was very good. There is also a video that you can watch called "Why Do We Baptize Our Children?" (http://thirdmill.org/seminary/download.asp/site/iiim/category/download) (Scroll to the bottom of the page.)

Second, many of the differences that we are going to have on issues like baptism are related to the presuppositions that we bring to the table. How does God administer his covenants? How much continuity is there between the Testaments? How analogous is New Testament Baptism to Old Testament Circumcision? What is the difference between the visible and invisible church? What is the nature of conversion? What does baptism signify?

As someone who is committed to paedo-baptism (baptizing the children of believers), let me point out a few things that we hold. I will be glad to expand on them later if asked.


Children of believers are to be baptized, not all children. When I baptize a child in our church, I do so after hearing a profession of faith - the parents' profession of faith. God has promised to work through believers and their children. (See the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 17:7ff.)

Baptism is the sacrament of entrance into the visible church. No one should be baptized outside of some sort of body of believers. We're not baptized as "free agents."

Paul draws a very direct correlation between baptism and circumcision in Colossians 2:11-12.

No one who practices infant baptism disagrees with adult baptism. I am opposed to re-baptism of adults who have already been baptized. (Ephesians 4:5 - "one Lord, one faith, one baptism...")

Baptism, like the Lord's Supper, is not about us. It is about the work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the one who is active uniting us to Christ, giving us faith and bringing our dead hearts to life.

Why does it seem like Acts has a lot of people who believe and then get baptized? How does a paedo-baptist explain this?

a) Acts is about the spread of the Gospel to the ends of the known world. When the gospel spreads, the new converts are the ones baptized. In this, it's descriptive rather than prescriptive.
b) Acts 16:15 & 33 do tell us that the household of Lydia and the family of the Philippian jailer are baptized based upon the faith of the head of the house.
c) Peter promises in his Pentecost sermon that the promises of God are for "you and for your children and for all who are far off."



I'm sure that there are multiple points that credo-baptists will disagree with. That's okay. Hopefully, there are some with which you can agree.

Finally, a practical application. I am up late tonight feeding my 3.5-week old son. Since he was conceived, my wife and I have prayed for him that like John the Baptist he would be filled with the Holy Spirit from before his birth. We will raise him as a Christian. We will baptize him into the Church. We will tell him that God is his Father, Jesus is his savior and the Holy Spirit fills him with power to do the will of God. We pray for him that there is not a single day of his life where he does not acknowledge Jesus as Lord. We will teach him to trust in Jesus alone for his salvation. Do I know when the Holy Spirit will work in his heart? No. I pray that he already has! However, my job as his father is to raise him to love the Lord.

Is my son "incapable of recognizing God's grace"? Absolutely not! He might not be able to articulate it in English yet, but that doesn't constrain God! Remember Psalm 8:2:
"Through the praise of children and infants
you have established a stronghold against your enemies,
to silence the foe and the avenger."

[Sacredise]

Stephen,

I appreciate and respect your response on this. I have just two responses:

1. Perhaps my use of the jailer scripture can be seen as "proof-texting", but I did this simply because I didn't want to get into a lengthy biblical review for infant baptism. While I could do this, I really don't have the time, and there are many good resources on the internet for those who want to know more. I'm simply using this one passage as an example and asking that there be some trust and acceptance that those of us who practice infant baptism do so from a deep love of Scripture and a thoughtful, prayerful response to what it says. You may disagree about how to read the Scriptures on this issue, but surely you can find the grace to respect my love of, and faithfulness to, God's Word?

2. Scholars from every denomination agree that to understand Scripture accurately, the history of those who wrote the Scriptures, and the history of how the Church has interpreted and applied the Scriptures is important. So, let me offer this thought. The reason it appears that only believer's baptism is seen in Scripture (I say "appears" because a study of the Scriptures can reveal a different story, I believe), is that the Bible only covers the first generation of Christians - everyone who came to faith in the New Testament did so as an adult. However, historically, there is evidence that as the first children were born to these believers, many were baptised as infants. The Church's practice of infant baptism began very, very early in its practice - and it was as the Church sought to apply the Scriptures that this was done.

Again, feel free to disagree. I started out as a strong believer in believer's baptism, and I'm not knocking believer's baptism at all. But, over the years my understanding of the Scriptures on this issue changed and now I'm in a different place. This happened through lots of prayer and study of the Bible - not through disregarding the Scriptures. So, please don't tell me that my belief in and practice of infant baptism is contrary to Scripture. It may go against your interpretation of Scripture, but that's as far as it goes.

Anyway, I think it's time for me to check out of this debate - I'm clearly in the minority here, and I really don't want to be contentious or argumentative. Thanks for the stimulating conversation, brothers and sisters.

Blessings

[Sacredise]

Great reply Eric, thanks!

Blessings

[worshiptrench]

Interesting that at NorthWood (and I personally would change this), baptism is only received post-conversion by immersion (baptist roots). While I would only baptize AT NorthWood by this method, I don't know that I would not "accept" someone's baptism that was done by sprinkling in a post-conversion scenario. I might do this on a case by case with discussion with them. I believe this is what John Piper's church now does.

[Wrapped in Jesus Love!]

My church does the infant baptism, so I was baptized as an infant. Along with baptism is confirmation. Confirmation is done years later (most of the time teen years). This is where I stood up in front of the church confessing my faith and belief in God, and my commitment to Him and to the church.

I have asked God to be my Savior. I know God is my Savior. I can feel Him at work in my life. I can feel the Holy Spirit working in my life. As I said earlier, I still wonder if I should be baptized as an adult. But I feel like it is about the act of what you are committing to and what is in your heart. I think the form of baptism is a symbol similar to placing a wedding ring on your bride or groom's hand isn't what makes you married. The ring is a symbol.

I'm sure I'll get lots of comments back on this. Don't be too harsh. Thanks

[kraker]

There are a number of good comments in this thread. I have been studying the matter of baptism for a number of years. Anyone interested in delving into infant vs. believer's baptism is welcome to read a paper I have put together. It is posted at:

http://www.dialogos-studies.com/Dialogos/baptism/forum.htm

Thanks!

Herb

[NLoomis]

Here's my take, which is sure to be unsatisfying to some.

First, baptism is not a prerequisite to salvation. This would be a salvation by works doctrine. Sorry. Salvation is by grace alone (Eph 2). Depending on your take, baptism is either the "outward sign of the inward grace" (with communion) or simply an act by which one identifies him or her self as a Christ-follower (or both). Jesus himself implies that the real believer's baptism in the Holy Spirit (Matt 3:11).

As for salvation, one must make their own decision in this regard, which would imply a baptism after the age of accountability. I don't believe this makes infant baptism something we should necessarily avoid as long as we understand it doesn't "save" the infant. Its certainly nothing we should get too exercised about, unless someone is claiming that baptism is required for salvation or that somehow our dipping, dunking, or sprinkling an infant "saves" that person.

Perhaps a follow-on question would go like this:
Infant baptism... is it wrong? I think the answer is clearly no, even if it is incomplete.

Nathan

[worshiptrench]

I am amused thinking we are going to "solve" this issue on TWC when even RC Sproul and Beg couldn't settle this.

[NLoomis]

We'll obviously not solve this. My question is:

Does it really matter that much?

Nathan

[emily]

In my personal opinion, I think that it's better to wait until they are older. A baby can't make a decision, and being baptized into God's family is, or should be, a choice.

:) emily

[stephen_can_man]

We'll obviously not solve this. My question is:

Does it really matter that much?

Nathan

I didn't use to think so, but, I was sitting in our confimation class yesterday and I noticed how many of the kids were just barely beginning to get a grasp of what it meant to follow Jesus. It was then that one of our Methodist ministers made the statement, "Ok everyone, our last issue to discuss is baptism. Baptism is an outward expression of God's grace on our life. How many of you were baptized as an infant?" A couple of kids raised their hands. "Ok, the ones who did not raise their hands need to get baptized before confimation can be completed and we can present you to the church."

See the problem here? We are teaching children to own their faith, but, their parents made the decision of baptism for them. Is this not an inherent paradox that we are teaching? Choose this faith for your self, and, as a sign of God's grace choose baptism, unless your parents already made that choice for you. It just doesn't fit.

[milepost13]

We'll obviously not solve this. My question is:

Does it really matter that much?

Nathan

I think it does matter. I've seen the issue of infant baptism create barriers and mental blocks later in life for people concerning their salvation (and other things).

Nate

[Liko81]

I have to put this out there because it has bothered me for some time. Our church practices infant baptism and also accepts it as a substitute for adult baptism when it comes to membership at our church. I am sorry but, I see no scriptural basis for infant baptism, and quite frankly, if it is more like a baby dedication, why use the loaded word of baptism when there are spiritual implications associated with that word? Any thoughts?

Infant baptism was a practice started by the Catholic Church early in its history. The doctrine behind it is original sin; everyone is "a sinner when my mother conceived me". By baptising as early as possible, we introduce the counter-doctrine of forgiveness; once "born again" as Jesus says, our sin is wiped clean before we even commit one. If you look at the word, it is "fore-given"; God's grace covers and shields you before you have asked for it, deserve it, or even need it.

The Sacrament of Baptism is one of the most varied among churches; most mainstream churches acknowledge "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins" as the Nicene Creed states. Baptist churches baptize regularly, even weekly, as they hold that the act of Baptizing forgives sins, where most other churches have the Sacrament of confession, either corporate or individual.

Among mainstream churches, confirmation is the other half of baptism. At baptism, the parents or sponsors are charged with teaching them the faith. At confirmation, which traditionally happens at what the Catholics call the "Age of Reason" (12, sometimes 13), the child takes upon themselves the responsibility to continue learning and keeping the faith. The rite is actually technically known as the "Affirmation of Baptism" for this very reason.

[TruePraise]

Baptist churches baptize regularly, even weekly, as they hold that the act of Baptizing forgives sins,

I was raised in the Baptist church and was never taught that baptism forgave sins, only Jesus can do that. I was taught that it was a public act of our confession of faith in Jesus. We are baptized because we want to follow Jesus's example, as way to publicly show our faith in Him as forgiveness of our sins. I don't know if that is what all Baptist churches teach, but that is what I grew up being taught and still believe to this day.

[TruePraise]

I think it does matter. I've seen the issue of infant baptism create barriers and mental blocks later in life for people concerning their salvation (and other things).

I would have to agree with Nate.

[milepost13]

Baptist churches baptize regularly, even weekly, as they hold that the act of Baptizing forgives sins, where most other churches have the Sacrament of confession, either corporate or individual.


ummm...actually, that's a very broad and untrue statement. I've never known of a single baptist church that would fall under that description. I'm not saying there is not a baptist church or a branch of the baptist denom that doesn't believe that, but to say that "baptist churches" believe what you've stated they believe is simply not a true statement.

Nate

[worshiptrench]

Baptist churches ....as they hold that the act of Baptizing forgives sins,

This is not accurate. Most baptists would beat you up in a dark alley for that statement. They view the baptismal act as highly symbolic (though I went to baptist seminary, i view them as viewing it too symbolically) and being nothing but and outward symbol (though an important one, albeit) and act of obedience post salvation.

[phil77]

I don't believe that it is neither right nor wrong. Personally, I think infant baptism is more for the parents or guardians than anyone else. They are basically demonstrating that they will raise the child in accordance with what the Bible says. The whole "we dedicate this child to God" stuff is borderline nonsense as it is ultimately going to be up to the kid to follow Christ in their personal lives. There is nothing the parents, or the church, can do to ensure a walk with God.

The issue of wrestling with salvation because one wasn't baptized as an infant, I think, speaks more against what the church has taught that person throughout their life. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that true salvation is only possible if you had a little water thrown at you by some guy in a big robe when you were an infant. We are saved by Grace, through faith; that's it. Any church that teaches otherwise is inserting their own convenience doctrine (which the Bible directly speaks *against*) into the whole idea.

[Robinskeys]

I look at infant baptism as a dedication and setting apart to God. That said, none of my children were baptised as babies (though my oldest two recently made the decision to be baptised once they accepted Jesus as their Savior). The first two were dedicated before the church, as well as my own dedication of them to God, and my 3rd, I dedicated to God alone, not before the church... Lots of reasons for doing it that way the last time!

I dedicated each of them to Him as soon as I found out I was pregnant though... Our children are His anyway! I prayed consistently for my oldest two to accept Him and both have, at a young age!... My youngest is still in diapers, but I pray consistently for her too as well!!!!

What bothers me about infant baptism is that some believe that as long as they were baptised as a baby, they're "safe"... thereby negating the necessity of salvation by grace through faith!

On the baptist churches holding that the act of baptism forgives sins... I've been in attendance and ministry in a WIDE variety of baptist churches throughout my life and have never even once heard such a thing taught! (Nor did I hear it in the nondenominational, nazarene, or other churches I was in!)

Baptism within the baptist church is a public declaration of a personal decision to follow Christ, and symbolic of a belief that He died and rose again.

[Joel Hinck]

I apologize in advance- I have a feeling I'm about to get long winded. As part of the minority (infant baptizer), here's what I've come to believe:

1. What does the Bible say?
First, it is true that in scripture we do not see the baptism of infants. We are told of several baptisms of “entire households,” but aren’t told who the members of the households are, or their ages. However, to argue that the baptism of infants is prohibited due to its absence in the New Testament is faulty logic. We also have no mention of women taking communion. To apply the same biblical standard, then, we should not allow women to take the Lord’s Supper.

Second, there are several parallels in Scripture between a person’s entrance into the Old Covenant, or Law, by circumcision, and a person’s entrance into the New Covenant, Christ, through baptism. Circumcision was performed on infants as an outward symbol, but also as a spiritual induction into the covenant between Israel and Yahweh. In Romans, Paul writes that “A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical (Romans 2:28).” Circumcision was a physical act with deep spiritual implications for the people of Israel, and it was performed on infants. After discussing circumcision’s role in the Old Covenant, Paul concludes that, though Christ, God will “justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith (Romans 3:30).” Circumcision is no longer the symbol or means of entrance into a covenant with God, God will judge “by faith.” But what becomes the new act of induction into God’s new covenant with humanity? “Don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life (Romans 6:3-4).” Baptism, now, is a physical act with profound spiritual implications, replacing circumcision as an entrance into covenant with the Lord, an induction into citizenship within His kingdom. Can a contract of citizenship be carried out for a child? Circumcision was such a contract, and when a parent, who holds spiritual authority over and spiritual responsibility for their child, brings their child to the waters of baptism, that child is accepted as a member of the Body, the New Covenant, and receives the Spirit of God. Of course, that child must grow in faith, just as the Jews were expected to grow in adherence to the Old Covenant, but for Jew and Christian, that growth is a journey that begins at childhood.

Third, when parents brought their children to Christ, he welcomed them and blessed them, saying, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these (Luke 18:16).” We are often reminded of the importance of child-like faith, complete trust, and dependence in this passage. But it is also important to note that these children were brought by their parents, and welcomed by Jesus. The children did not know who he was or why they were being brought to him, and because of this the disciples tried to shoo them away. Jesus accepted them in this state of helplessness and reliance on their parents, and blessed them for it.

2. Who does the work in baptism?
This is an important question in deciding who should be baptized. If the work of baptism is primarily an act of the human will (albeit guided, led, or stirred by God), then only those who are in a fit mental state to perform the act can be baptized. If baptism is primarily an act of God in His grace, then an infant can receive this gift through no merit of their own. I believe that in infant baptism, we see an example of the supreme power of God’s grace, in spite of the absolute helplessness of mankind.

Baptism and repentance are often linked in the New Testament, and to many, baptism is simply a public act of repentance. If this is the case, then, the capacity and willingness to repent are required for a person to be baptized. I do not believe, however, that Christian baptism is primarily an act of repentance. While repentance and baptism are often mentioned together, they are also distinct. This is most obvious in the Bible when the ministry of John the Baptist is discussed. For example, in Acts 19, Paul speaks to a group of people who were baptized by John, and tells them that “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance (Acts 19:4).” Paul then baptizes them in the name of Jesus, and the group receives the Holy Spirit. This indicates that repentance is not the primary role of baptism to the Christian. In fact, repentance and submission to God’s will should be continual acts in the life of the Christian. Is baptism, then, a single act of repentance and submission performed through a person’s will, or an act of God, through water and the Word bringing us into His kingdom? In baptism, God receives us as His children, and offers His Spirit to bind us to the Body of Christ. To see this, we can look to the baptism of Christ himself.

3. Why was Jesus baptized?
When Jesus came to John to be baptized, John protested. John’s baptism was an act of repentance, but John knew that Jesus had nothing to repent. This again draws a line between the act of repentance and the sacrament of baptism. Jesus is baptized, even though he had no need to make himself right with God. In Christ’s baptism, we see two things, the receipt of the Holy Spirit, and God’s acknowledgement that this is His Son, whom He loves. When we are baptized into Christ, we are sharing in Christ’s own baptism, receiving God’s Spirit and His promise that we are His children. Continuous self reflection, repentance, and acknowledgement of God’s saving grace are necessary in the life of the Christian, but are not a one time ticket to redeem through baptism. We are wholly unworthy to be called children of God, yet He calls to us as freely as He called to His own Son, because in baptism we are baptized into Christ.

4. What is the “age of reason?”
If we assume, however, that an individual must take the initiative in baptism, repenting of their sins in order to receive God’s forgiveness, we then need to decide on an age when a person can reasonably perform this act. The “age of reason” in churches who do not perform infant baptism can range from seven years old to the late teens. This can be problematic, however, if the necessary ingredient for baptism is a fully formed, individual, and unforced desire to repent and be baptized. What child will not be baptized if it is what they are raised to do? If it is taught to them and expected of them by their parents their entire life, are they freely choosing baptism any more than an infant? Is a seven year old in a developmental position to disagree with the faith and expectations of their parents? Similarly, what teenager, if it is what they have been raised to do, when all of their peers within the church begin to be baptized, will choose not to be baptized. Some may, but most will submit to the pressure of their parents’, church’s, and peers’ expectations just as helplessly as an infant. In my own life, I did not encounter any serious doubts about my own faith until my twenties. If I, then, had to set an adequate “age of reason,” after which people will make the most informed, free choice, I would set it at thirty.

Another difficulty in setting an “age of reason” is the problem of the mentally handicapped. If a person never mentally reaches an “age of reason,” are they unfit to be baptized? I believe that, regardless of age, anyone can receive the Spirit of God, and be accepted as His child through baptism, whether acting under their own spiritual authority, or represented by a parent who assumes spiritual responsibility if they are not able.

In I Peter 2:2 we read, “Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation.” Paul also writes in his letters that “I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready (I Corinthians 3:9),” and “In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness (Hebrews 5:12-13).” These words were written to baptized members of the Church, and yet they are being equated to infants in their spiritual development. We all begin our journey of faith at baptism as spiritual infants, whether we are infants in body or not.

5. What can we agree on?
In a spirit of love and respect, we can agree on several aspects of baptism even while we disagree on others. First, we can agree that humanity is helpless and in need of a Savior. Second, we can all recognize the biblical command to baptize, best known through the words of the Great Commission, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you (Matthew 28:19-20).” Those who practice infant baptism baptize, then teach, while those who practice adult baptism teach, then baptize. We can all acknowledge, however, the importance of doing both. Finally, both sides can agree on the importance of repentance, and of the public confession of faith in the life of the Christian. The confirmation process, by which children baptized as infants grow to publicly affirm their faith, is vital in churches that practice infant baptism. Conversely, the dedication of newborn babies, and the public commitment of their parents to raise them in the faith, is equally important in churches that practice adult baptism.

[Lance]

I apologize if some of this is redundant, but this is from the FAQ for the official Missouri Synod Lutheran page, the church body to which I belong:

Why Baptize Infants?


Q. Why do Lutherans baptize infants?

A. Lutherans baptize infants because of what the Bible teaches regarding:

1.) God's command to baptize (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). There is not a single passage in Scripture which instructs us not to baptize for reasons of age, race, or gender. On the contrary, the divine commands to baptize in Scripture are all universal in nature. On the basis of these commands, the Christian church has baptized infants from the earliest days of its history. Since those baptized are also to be instructed in the Christian faith, (Matt. 28:20), the church baptizes infants only where there is the assurance that parents or spiritual guardians will nurture the faith of the one baptized through continued teaching of God's Word.

2.) Our need for Baptism (Psalm 51; 5; John 3:5-7; Acts 2:38; Romans 3:23; Romans 6:3-4). According to the Bible, all people--including infants--are sinful and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). King David confesses, "I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Ps. 51:5). Like adults, infants die--sure proof that they too are under the curse of sin and death. According to the Bible, Baptism (somewhat like Old Testament circumcision, administered to 8-day-old-babies--see Col. 2:11-12) is God's gracious way of washing away our sins--even the sins of infants--without any help or cooperation on our part. It is a wonderful gift of a loving and gracious God.

3.) God's promises and power (Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; John 3:5-7; Titus 3:5-6; Galatians 3:26-27; Romans 6:1-4; Colossians 2;11-12; Ephesians 5:25-26; 1 Corinthians 12:13). Those churches which deny Baptism to infants usually do so because they have a wrong understanding of Baptism. They see Baptism as something we do (e.g., a public profession of faith, etc.) rather than seeing it as something that God does for us and in us. None of the passages listed above, nor any passage in Scripture, describes Baptism as "our work" or as "our public confession of faith." Instead, these passages describe Baptism as a gracious and powerful work of God through which He miraculously (though through very "ordinary" means) washes away our sins by applying to us the benefits of Christ's death and resurrection (Acts 2:38:39; Acts 22:16), gives us a new birth in which we "cooperate" just as little as we did in our first birth (John 3:5-7), clothes us in Christ's righteousness (Gal. 3:26-27), gives us the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5-6), saves us (1 Peter 3:21), buries us and raises us up with Christ as new creatures (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12), makes us holy in God's sight (Eph. 5: 25-26) and incorporates us into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). All of this, according to the Bible, happens in Baptism, and all of it is God's doing, not ours. The promises and power of Baptism are extended to all in Scripture--including infants-and are available to all. Parents and sponsors then have the privilege and responsibility of nurturing the baptized child in God's love and in His Word so that he or she may know and continue to enjoy the wonderful blessings of Baptism throughout his or her life.

[stephen_can_man]

I really am struggling to follow the logic in these interpretations of scripture. I guess I will just respond to the following points.


Q. Why do Lutherans baptize infants?

A. Lutherans baptize infants because of what the Bible teaches regarding:

1.) God's command to baptize (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). There is not a single passage in Scripture which instructs us not to baptize for reasons of age, race, or gender. On the contrary, the divine commands to baptize in Scripture are all universal in nature. On the basis of these commands, the Christian church has baptized infants from the earliest days of its history. Since those baptized are also to be instructed in the Christian faith, (Matt. 28:20), the church baptizes infants only where there is the assurance that parents or spiritual guardians will nurture the faith of the one baptized through continued teaching of God's Word.

So let me get this line of reasoning straight, the Bible commands us to baptize regardless of age, creed, sex, or whatever. What about human choice? Is that an exclusion? Can we in good conscience baptize an adult who has rejected God's plan of salvation? I should think not. Extend that reasoning to children. If the only exclusion is choice, then why are you baptising a non-consenting person?


2.) Our need for Baptism (Psalm 51; 5; John 3:5-7; Acts 2:38; Romans 3:23; Romans 6:3-4). According to the Bible, all people--including infants--are sinful and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). King David confesses, "I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Ps. 51:5). Like adults, infants die--sure proof that they too are under the curse of sin and death. According to the Bible, Baptism (somewhat like Old Testament circumcision, administered to 8-day-old-babies--see Col. 2:11-12) is God's gracious way of washing away our sins--even the sins of infants--without any help or cooperation on our part. It is a wonderful gift of a loving and gracious God.

I think that the scriptures very plainly state that we need justification and that baptism is a symbol of this. If a church wants to baptize a baby as a symbol recognizing God's grace that covers that child's sin until maturity, I'm fine with that, as long as the child is baptized again when they make the decision for themselves.


3.) God's promises and power (Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; John 3:5-7; Titus 3:5-6; Galatians 3:26-27; Romans 6:1-4; Colossians 2;11-12; Ephesians 5:25-26; 1 Corinthians 12:13). Those churches which deny Baptism to infants usually do so because they have a wrong understanding of Baptism. They see Baptism as something we do (e.g., a public profession of faith, etc.) rather than seeing it as something that God does for us and in us. None of the passages listed above, nor any passage in Scripture, describes Baptism as "our work" or as "our public confession of faith." Instead, these passages describe Baptism as a gracious and powerful work of God through which He miraculously (though through very "ordinary" means) washes away our sins by applying to us the benefits of Christ's death and resurrection (Acts 2:38:39; Acts 22:16), gives us a new birth in which we "cooperate" just as little as we did in our first birth (John 3:5-7), clothes us in Christ's righteousness (Gal. 3:26-27), gives us the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5-6), saves us (1 Peter 3:21), buries us and raises us up with Christ as new creatures (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12), makes us holy in God's sight (Eph. 5: 25-26) and incorporates us into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). All of this, according to the Bible, happens in Baptism, and all of it is God's doing, not ours. The promises and power of Baptism are extended to all in Scripture--including infants-and are available to all. Parents and sponsors then have the privilege and responsibility of nurturing the baptized child in God's love and in His Word so that he or she may know and continue to enjoy the wonderful blessings of Baptism throughout his or her life.

I think you misunderstand the opposing viewpoint and I don't think that we are in agreement as to what some of these terms mean. I believe that a distinction should be made between God's justification of sinners and our symbolic response to this occurence called baptism. The two work hand in hand like faith and works. If a person claims to be a believer in Christ, I would expect to see works of righteousness in this person's life. Also, scripture clearly states that baptism is one of those important symbols, (like communion) that is an outward sign of an inward revelation.

[Lance]

First of all, let me say that I don't feel that disagreements of this kind are going to make or break anybody's salvation.


I really am struggling to follow the logic in these interpretations of scripture. I guess I will just respond to the following points.



So let me get this line of reasoning straight, the Bible commands us to baptize regardless of age, creed, sex, or whatever. What about human choice? Is that an exclusion? Can we in good conscience baptize an adult who has rejected God's plan of salvation? I should think not. Extend that reasoning to children. If the only exclusion is choice, then why are you baptising a non-consenting person?

Eph 2:8-9 says "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."

We cannot make a choice of our own accord to follow God--that would be a form of works salvation. It is by the Holy Spirit working faith in our hearts. And the Holy Spirit works in, among many other ways, the sacrament of baptism.

I think that the scriptures very plainly state that we need justification and that baptism is a symbol of this. If a church wants to baptize a baby as a symbol recognizing God's grace that covers that child's sin until maturity, I'm fine with that, as long as the child is baptized again when they make the decision for themselves.

When someone says something like "the scriptures very plainly state" I think it's helpful if they include references. Also, the Lutheran church views baptism as a sacrament. That is a little more than just a symbol. The classic definition is "an outward sign of an inward grace." We believe that God is really present in the water and the Word together.


I think you misunderstand the opposing viewpoint and I don't think that we are in agreement as to what some of these terms mean. I believe that a distinction should be made between God's justification of sinners and our symbolic response to this occurence called baptism. The two work hand in hand like faith and works. If a person claims to be a believer in Christ, I would expect to see works of righteousness in this person's life. Also, scripture clearly states that baptism is one of those important symbols, (like communion) that is an outward sign of an inward revelation.

I may misunderstand your viewpoint. But it appears that many people here misunderstand mine and I'm only trying to clarify it. I don't say that you have to agree with me.

The Lutheran understanding of the place of works in the life of a believer is in response to our salvation. By His grace Jesus' death frees us from our sin. His resurrection provides us eternal life. And through our sanctification (being filled with the Holy Spirit) we are empowered and encouraged to do good works--not to earn our salvation, but because we're saved.

Communion, by the way, is another sacrament. God is, according to the Lutheran understanding, really present in the bread and wine through the power of the Word. This is not the same as the Catholic view that the bread and wine are transformed into body and blood. But "symbol" doesn't completely do the concept justice.

[Jason Huffman]

I grew up in the Southern Baptist Church where infant baptism by sprinkling was unbiblical and new converts were baptized by immersion upon professing their faith in Christ. I went to a Southern Baptist Seminary as well. Currently, I am serving in a United Methodist Church (and have been for 3.5 years) and we infant baptize. If someone has been baptized in another denomination by immersion, or infant baptized in the UM church or anywhere else, they are not re-baptized upon professing their faith. When I first came to this church, this was one of those doctrinal issues that produced a hang-up for me.

As I began to look, though, at how dogmatic some churches were about the issue. Understanding that the UM church has its roots in Roman Catholicism and later in the Protestant Reformation and ultimately the Anglican Church, I just began to perceive infant baptism differently. ONe of John Wesley's teachings of grace is the idea of prevenient grace. This is the idea that God's grace is reaching out to us long before we are born. Parents affirm this idea of God's grace in the infant baptism of their child. While I think scripture probably leans the other way, there is something beautiful in the symbolism. Our pastor will not re-baptize someone who was infant baptized (goes against Methodist doctrine), but if someone who has not been baptized wishes to be baptized upon professing their faith, he can and will do it by immersion if they want to.

I think church traditions and sacraments are hugely important in the life of the church. But I think God is big enough to use our different means and idiosyncrasies of carrying out these sacraments to accomplish his purposes in our lives. Example, Christ used unleavened bread at the Passover when he led the disciples in the first service of Holy Communion (Lord's Table, Lord's Supper, Eucharist). If we use sweet, leavened bread, do we miss something? Do we get less out of it because we use something different than what was used back then? I don't think so. Every denomination and church tradition has a basis for baptizing the way they do. I think while baptism is symbolic of the work that God does in our lives through Jesus Christ, the way we live our lives and how we serve him is more important than whether we were baptized as infants or adults. I think God would rather see someone baptized as an infant faithfully serving him than someone baptized as an adult believer who is making a mockery of God in the way he lives his life.

[travisvwright]

First off let me say I've learned quite a bit from this thread, this isn't something I've considered too much so I'm not going to try to convince anyone. But please, and I'm saying this to people on both sides, the historical argument of "this is a tradition that goes back centuries." is the most immature argument that can be made. "Every body's doing it" Seriously if that's the best you've got stick to the sidelines and let others who actually have studied make the important points without you bleeding credibility from them.

7They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." Mark 7:7-8.

Isn't not worshiping in vain the whole point of this board. I'm not saying anything against tradition. Not even against tradition for tradition sake. Just against tradition as an argument against scripture.

[Zeke101]

Stephen,
I definitely wouldn't use it as a substitute - I'm OK with "dedicating" an infant to the Lord ... but baptism is a public response to salvation, and clearly, an infant is unable to confess Christ as Savior and understand/walk in that.

We dedicate infants, and we always point out during the ceremony that this is a sign of consecration and dedication, and that we charge the parents and congregation to bring up the child in the ways of the Lord and Scripture, and trust that the child will confess Christ at a time when they are able to do so on their own accord, and receive true baptism.

We do NOT call it infant baptism.

Same thing we do. And it makes biblical sense

[Jason Huffman]

Having been a part of both sides of this discussion (having served in churches that have done both infant and believer's baptism), I understand the arguments for both sides. However they are what I just said "arguments." And while I like to focus on issues like God's grace and forgiveness and however people feel about baptism is between them and God, I do realize that some people are not going to be moved on this issue.

One of my Christian philosophy professors (yes, I have studied) used to say, "It is okay to disagree, but it is not okay to act disagreeably." If you have put your faith in Christ (Rom. 10:9-10) then you are my Christian brother whether you were dunked, sprinkled, infant baptized, or run through the car wash holding the preacher's hand.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, here (pun intended).

[Lance]

It all comes down to what one understands baptism to be. If one views baptism as a symbolic act signifying one's choice to follow Jesus, as do many protestant denominations, then it makes sense to wait until the person in question is old enough to make that choice--whatever age that might be.

If, on the other hand, one believes, as do Catholics and Lutherans among others, that we cannot, in our sin, choose to follow Jesus, then Baptism is seen as the Holy Spirit working that faith in us, in which case choice does not enter into the matter.

That is not to say that we are forced to follow Jesus. Jesus offers His salvation as a free gift to everyone. We cannot, as sinners, accept this. We can only reject it or not reject it, at which time the Holy Spirit takes over.

In my first post on this thread I offered up the LCMS's official position on infant baptism, complete with Scriptural support. One Joel Hinck also gave Scriptural references in support of infant baptism. I have seen posts by those opposed to infant baptism in which the poster says that infant baptism is unbiblical and in which the poster claims that those of us who are pro-infant baptism are misinterpreting Scripture. I have, however, yet to see anyone opposed to infant baptism offer any Scriptural support for their position. I'm just sayin'. ;)

[travisvwright]

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, here (pun intended).
Brilliant :D

[Don_Z]

I think we must be VERY careful about keeping a level playing field when addressing spiritual matters about doctrine in an open forum. You will never get a consensus that will suit everyone here but you will stir up a debate that may hurt people's feelings.

The reason why we have so many denominations is precisely why you are asking this question in the first place. Man cannot agree on what they believe God's Word is telling them. All of us want to be right and no one else can possibly have the correct answers.

(Every way of man is right in his own eyes: but the Lord pondereth the hearts. Proverbs21:2)

Perhaps we should spend less time worrying about these little things and look at what happens to the infant after they get splashed with water or what happens to the adult after the initial emotional rush fades and they are now left on their own searching for their way.

Perhaps instead of bickering about the trees of the act of baptism, we should be looking at the forest of how to make sure that what comes after these infants, children, teens or adults receive this blessing that they continue to stay on the path they started on an not go running off into the woods all alone only to get lost again.

Theologians argue a lot about what is righteous and what is godliness but the brightest shining moment seems to allude most of them. When someone is placed in our care, at whatever age, what do we do with that? Do we step up and show them the truth about "Love God with all your heart, mind and soul and love your neighbor as you would yourself", or do we simply show them the political side of Christianity?

I do not care if you are Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic or whatever... Those are man made distinctions. We all have a job to do. It does not matter to God whether you get set on the path early or late in because He is way passed all our pettiness.

In a nutshell, relax folks. Do what you believe is right. Respect one another, love another, regardless of our differences and because of those differences.

Peace,

Don.

[Lance]

Nothing wrong with a little healthy debate, though, as long as it's all done in a spirit of love.:)

[Don_Z]

Tell that to Martin Luther... That is how this all started...

Continue on if you want, but please remember that you are only expressing your opinions. Each denominations has their own and although they all believe they are 'right', it is still a matter of opinions...

In that same spirit, I would rather see us place our energy in helping one another with ways to help build the new Christians or in the case of infant baptism, their families, figure out a way to help them keep their child on God's path.

That would be much more useful use of energy than debating when or how we soak them, but hey your mileage may very. I feel man does a good enough job complicating religion so I tend to keep my faith fairly simple.

[Lance]

<Tell that to Martin Luther... That is how this all started...>

How all what started, exactly?

This thread? No, somebody asked whether infant baptism is right and I was sharing one Christian view.

Debating the position of a status quo within the Church? Well, there were other less successful attempts before Luther. But yes, Martin Luther felt that certain positions held by the Catholic church--THE church at the time--were wrong. Among these were the idea that one could buy salvation (indulgences) and the idea that the Pope's word was equal to the Word of God. He didn't seek to overthrow the church, only to debate some important issues and possibly sway people's positions to what he believed, and I think you would agree, was right.

The disagreement on the issue of infant baptism? No, on this issue Martin Luther agreed with the Catholic church. Though there were those who disagreed even before Luther. The practice of the earliest church is unclear though both sides of the issues claim that they know.

<Continue on if you want, but please remember that you are only expressing your opinions. Each denominations has their own and although they all believe they are 'right', it is still a matter of opinions...>

Fair enough, but again, the question was asked.

<In that same spirit, I would rather see us place our energy in helping one another with ways to help build the new Christians or in the case of infant baptism, their families, figure out a way to help them keep their child on God's path.>

Oh believe me, I'm sure that many of us here are hard at work on these issues with small groups, confirmation classes, and various other plans of action.

<That would be much more useful use of energy than debating when or how we soak them, but hey your mileage may very. I feel man does a good enough job complicating religion so I tend to keep my faith fairly simple.>

But if we have disagreements that effect the way we practice our faith, isn't it better to discuss them in the open than to pretend they don't exist? And I'd like to think that we can do so in a civil way--by debating, not arguing. The difference is that in debate we come to the table realizing that we disagree, but not seeing the other side as the enemy. Each side just gives their view and their evidence in support of it. Maybe minds will be changed; maybe not. And when it's over, we all shake hands.

I'm really glad that I found this forum and I enjoy the discussion that goes on here. And I hope that all of our faiths can withstand a little friendly disagreement now and then.

It was Thomas Paine who said, "My own mind is my own church." Even Lutherans disagree with Lutherans, Baptists with Baptists, Methodists with Methodists, brothers with sisters. Because, even though we're one Body, we're still all individuals.

[Robert]

I was baptized as an infant and have been thinking for a while now that I might want to be baptized as an adult. So if you are a music director at a church that uses infant baptism and you want to be baptized as an adult, do you think there are any church's that will baptize you as an adult even if you cannot attend services due to employment with another church???

I was floored when I read this. (not about baptism) What chuch prohibits you from attending because of 'any' affiliation with another church? That is scarey. I would be afraid that such a congregation would be cast into utter darkness. I certainly would not have anything whatsoever to do with such a group of anti-christ. I am sorry for sounding harsh....but that is not in any way of Christ, or Christian, or Scriptural. Run. Run fast from such a place.

[Robert]

I really do not think we need to worry about it. It is a non-issue. If some churches practice infant baptism, because for whatever reason it has become thier custom....we probably are not going to change that fact by our opposition....and I do not think we should get caught up in the legalistic issue. I think we only need to let people know who have received this baptism, that they can be baptised as an adult. I see it like a marriage ceremony; A concious thing that we do, giving our life to the Lord.

[travisvwright]

I was floored when I read this. (not about baptism) What chuch prohibits you from attending because of 'any' affiliation with another church? That is scarey. I would be afraid that such a congregation would be cast into utter darkness. I certainly would not have anything whatsoever to do with such a group of anti-christ. I am sorry for sounding harsh....but that is not in any way of Christ, or Christian, or Scriptural. Run. Run fast from such a place.
I think the quote was saying they could not attend the church because they were needed on Sundays at their own church not that the other church wouldn't allow them to come.

[Don_Z]

It was Thomas Paine who said, "My own mind is my own church." Even Lutherans disagree with Lutherans, Baptists with Baptists, Methodists with Methodists, brothers with sisters. Because, even though we're one Body, we're still all individuals.

Quoting a deist does make for an interesting take on the viewpoint here. I do not know if I would have went this route, but your mileage may vary.

To debate simply for the fun of it is wrong. My only concern here is that we preserve everyone's right to practice their faith as they see fit. It is their walk and therefore their right. With numerous denominations present, we should maintain respect for all. To ask a loaded question like the OP's pit one side against the other. The correct answer to this question is that your denomination will have to answer this question fro you, or we have to present both sides evenly. WHY? Because this is an open site. If this was a denominational site then we could answer in one particular way.

We are not here to set each other's policies. We are here to support one another, or maybe I am mistaken?

[travisvwright]

The reason I've read this thread is because one's denomination shouldn't decide right and wrong. If a certain church believed erroneously on any matter would you be comfortable with it just because they said it was ok. I think we should always go back to the Bible and therefore greatly appreciate the side that has listed scripture references.

I've never agreed with the "everyone do what they think is right" and have real reservations with "everyone do what their church thinks is right". If there is a difference where only one can be right (and I don't yet think that has been proved in this case) then the other is wrong, and I would rather someone show me my error than continue in the wrong. "How long will you labor between two opinions" et al.

If you are right and have the correct biblical foundation and see your brother erring it is your responsibility to try to correct him.

[Don_Z]

Then my friend, you have stumbled on the greatest theological debates of our time.

When I was studying church history, it was unbelievable on all the 'thinking' that was done about God's Word. It is no doubt this was the reasoning why Christ chose simpler men to be His first Apostles. We have over thought His Word to the point that we cannot seem to agree on basic principles and furthermore the same passages that one denomination brings up concerning one thing another will counter with scripture to the contrary.

Man has gone off and created faith as he sees fit. Any time he did not like something that was happening he would split off the branch, establish new rules and call himself something different. Luther, Calvin, Wesley to name a few, all had different approaches to salvation and the way the Word should be preached.

That was not the first split however. We started fighting about what was God's intentions right after the Apostles died. The Greek Orthodox church was the first to split off for a difference in opinion. (I am simplifying)

Catholics have a view point that is different yet. Where would you like to start. Who would you like to take on first? I am a member on several bible study sites and have witnessed near bloodshed between members of various denominations on these vary issues. One person brings up a scripture to back up their claim, the other person counters. The next thing you know people are calling people terrible Christians or worse...

Which denomination would you like to call correct? They all claim to be right and they all can defend themselves with God's Word. Do you see why it is best to leave sleeping dogs lie?

It is best to direct people back to their governing bodies for this sort of discussion.

[zachicks]

There is a lot of solid Scriptural support for infant baptism. I understand that this forum is largely filled with evangelicals (of which I am one), and that evangelicalism's majority heritage in the US has been credo-baptistic (believers'/adult) baptism, but I'd encourage the thinkers in this thread to, even if you disagree, realize that there's strong, viable exegetical and historical reasons why other evangelicals are paedo-baptists. I used to believe in believer's baptism, and was convinced, by Scripture, to change my position. Some books I might recommend for some entry-points:

Christian Baptism, by John Murray
The Christ of the Covenants, by O. Palmer Robertson

I'm not necessarily convinced that those two are the best, but they are the ones that exposed the Scriptures to me personally, leading to my change.

I'm really not trying to be contentious, but I am trying to point out that infant baptism is a viable and biblical option. Thanks!

Zac

[matreames]

Zac, perhaps, if you listed several of the scriptures you are referring to it would be more useful. Most of us do not have the time or energy to go find these books and read them. But you who has read from them, you could enlighten us to their evidences. Thanks.

[zachicks]

Thanks, Mathew.

My purpose wasn't to go into it, really. If you're curious and DO have the time and energy, a google search would get you a lot of the basic passages and arguments that accompany infant baptism.

My main purpose was to provide balance to the discussion, because it seemed as though infant baptism was being at least partially painted as foreign and incompatible with biblical thought.

I AM encouraged to see discussions of things such as these on WORSHIP forums, because for too long "worship" has been relegated to music. Worship leaders are, ideally, folks who understand the theological issues surrounding everything that takes place within the corporate worship setting...it should fall under their purview. Unfortunatley, we've abdicated our pastoral role, and it needs to be reclaimed. This, in turn, means that worship leaders should be eager to hit the books and go deep in their understanding of the Scriptures. I recently blogged about this very topic:

Zac Hicks - Old Hymns, New Music, Ancient Liturgy, Modern Worship - Zac Hicks Blog - Passion for God Means Passion forTheology (http://www.zachicks.com/blog/2009/11/7/passion-for-god-means-passion-for-theology.html)

But now I've expanded the discussion beyond its starting point. Sorry! Thanks for responding.

Zac

[CraigHarmann]

I am a Lutheran, of the same denomination as Lance is. Infant baptism has always been a sticking point for many. As one who has studied theology, and spent time trying to figure out what other church bodies do and why, the whole thing of infant baptism comes down to two things, in my estimation. First, what is baptism? Is it an outward symbol, or response? Or is it something more, marking you as one of Christ saved children, giving you eternal life and salvation? Secondly, it comes down to the state of infants. Are they sinless? I have a 14 month old daughter, and while I know she isn't going to lie to me, the state of her being is corrupt and sinful. Therefore, she needs a change in state. That's why she has been baptized. And a corollary to that point, it's a matter if whether or not you believe that you play an active or passive role in salvation. If you play an active role in salvation, then you have to be able to reason and accept God as part of your salvation. If you play a passive role in salvation, God is the one doing the work. Remember, "For while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Just my two cents.

[sycamoredave]

At the risk of extending the debate, I enter the ring as a Baptist, raised as a Presbyterian, married to a former Catholic (in the Presbyterian Church). I was sprinkled as an infant, and chose believer's baptism as a public profession of faith as an adult. My wife did the same, and we have had both our children baptized as infants. One chose to be baptized as a teen, the other never did. As a young parent, we chose infant baptism largely because "that is the custom" in our family. I'm not sure we thought much about it.

In my Baptist congregation today, we do not do infant baptism, but do a dedication. When I read the words of both ceremonies, there really is no difference other than a bit of water. The key to both is the public profession by both the parents and congregation to raise that child in the light of God, and dedicating that child to Him. Whether there is H2O or not, the important thing is the dedication to God.

To me, the believer's baptism was one of the most memorable things I have ever done, and was the start of coming to real faith in Christ. Sure I was raised as a Christian, but considered it more a way of life, and took a lot for granted. Over time, the act of coming to a decision to be baptized as an adult, required me to reconsider what it really meant. I had to accept both the fact that I am fundamentally faulty, and that God loves me anyways. Humility had to enter into my being in a real way, maybe for the first time. A public profession of faith is an act of coming off your high horse, and kneeling at the foot of the risen Savior. It is a conscious act of contrition, humility, and joy. Having been baptized both ways, I would have to say that the act of choice was far more important than either ceremony.

In terms of whether one or the other is better, or more scriptural, or more correct, I think the argument is irrelevant. Jesus was taken to the Temple as an infant, and the custom of the day involved some form of dedication. Jesus chose as a man to be baptized by John the Baptist, and God responded that He was very pleased with His Son. Jesus encouraged baptism, but stressed baptism of the heart.

Last Sunday, our Pastor talked about the tower of Babel, and how it divided the world until the Holy Spirit came and suddenly the believers were able to speak so that everyone could understand. To some extent, this debate is just another example of Babel. We worship the risen Savior, who came to unite us. We sure seem to spend a lot of time in confused argument over form not substance.

As for me and my house, while we would seem to have the bases covered quite nicely with both forms of baptism, the real ongoing debate is over who we believe in, and how we respond. I have two wonderful sons, who have been raised in the Church, but who still do not entirely know Christ. I would certainly give back any and all of the baptism ceremonies to know that they both have found their Savior. Please pray for us all as we struggle with these very real things.

Blessings to all...:o
Dave

[Don_Z]

I recently had a wise person tell me that infant baptism was much like giving a person a 'learner' permit, if you will. This learner's permit is a placeholder that is placed on the infant but is entrusted to the parents and the church to uphold until the child reaches an age that they can take responsibility for their own actions. This usually comes in the form of a confirmation.

None of these baptisms are even a point of discussion if the person in question never decides to repent his or her sins and come to know Christ personally. Baptism does not take the place of that relationship and perhaps we get this confused all the time. I know that many folks believe baptisms are all one needs to get to heaven. If that were the case, we could simply open bath houses and close our sanctuaries. :)