I was baptised when I was a small baby. My parents automatically dedicated my life to Christianity by doing so. In short, I wasn't given a chance to think for myself. Do you think parents should wait until an offspring can think for him/herself before being baptised?

Jeff :)

No, it is part of the faith to baptise or dedicate the baby and teach them in the Christian faith. If as a adult they wish to be re-bapitised they can always be if they change to a different christian faith.

As a Christian ( sorry to others) we believe ours is the only correct and true faith, so giving out children a option of not being saved would be almost unforgivable since as a parent we want the best for our children,

As a Christian, to do otherwise would be just unacceptable within the teachings of the church itself.

Christian parents who have their baby baptised make a promise at that time that they will teach the child the beliefs their church has. This gives the child a base, a foundation. When the child is older, he will read and discuss and learn about other beliefs.

He isn't bound to Christianity for the rest of his life, since he has the freedom to choose from other paths. His upbringing in Christianity (or in some religion) gives him a basis for comparison. Had he been brought up with no religion, he would have to figure out first what he himself believes (if anything) about who he is, why he is on earth, and where he is going after death.

If he is interested in finding a religion (or a religion other than Christianity), he then would try to match his beliefs to something, try to find a fit with another religion.

Faith is not automatic, but it is a choice each makes for thierself at some point and time, but it is the parents duty to teach and raise them in that faith,

I was baptised when I was a small baby. My parents automatically dedicated my life to Christianity by doing so. In short, I wasn't given a chance to think for myself. Do you think parents should wait until an offspring can think for him/herself before being baptised?

Jeff :)

I'm not going to say that a mother who is concerned for her baby is necessarily committing some sort of a sin if she has her baby baptized but I personally believe that it is a waste of time. It might make her feel better but baptism should be a choice made by someone who has come of age. The age of accountability in the Bible is 20 years old. However, I have known teens who felt very strongly about being baptized. If they feel that strongly, then, by all means, be baptized. But I believe that they ought to be re-baptized as an adult if they still believe in Jesus Christ.

The Bible says, "repent, and be baptized..." A baby is too young to understand what repentance is and, therefore, too young to understand what baptism is. Also, one of the results of being baptized is that you receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. I bet that there have been many babies who have been baptized prematurely who have become anything but Christians in their adult lives. Just a guess.

Some might say "Ah, but weren't babies circumcised at the age of 8 days?" Yes. The reason being that vitamin K is at its peak at that age (vitamin K being a blood clotting agent). Also, circumcision was done for sanitation purposes.

Sorry to disagree action jackson but where in the world did you ever hear that the bible says age of accountablilty is 20, first there is no such thing, and if it was, it would not be 20, Twenty was considered almost middle age in bible times, marriage for girls would have been at 13 or 14.

But for those that do believe in infant baptism, we feel there is original sin that a baby is born with, and that baptism is needed to save them from that sin. And that is a saving thing for them till they become of age, but that is only 12 or 13.

We see in the bible where a man had his entire household baptised.

But circumcision was in the old testement and was done for religious reason.

I am sorry but you are misquoting the bible badly and basing your ideas on incorrect information.

AJ -- So the Holy Spirit has no involvement with a baby's baptism, only with an adult's? If you read the words used during infant baptism, you will learn why babies are baptized and what the Biblical support is for that.

There are lots of adults who were baptized as adults who are no longer involved in a church or are active Christians. Baptism isn't a magic bullet.

Sorry to disagree action jackson but where in the world did you ever hear that the bible says age of accountablilty is 20, first there is no such thing, and if it was, it would not be 20, Twenty was considered almost middle age in bible times, marriage for girls would have been at 13 or 14.

But for those that do beleive in infant baptism, we feel there is orginal sin that a baby is born with, and that baptism is needed to save them from that sin. And that is a saving thing for them till they become of age, but that is only 12 or 13.

We see in the bible where a man had his entire household baptised.

But circumcision was in the old testement and was done for religious reason.

I am sorry but you are misquoting the bible badly and basing your ideas on incorrect information.

Numbers 1:3 "From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel; thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies."

Exodus 38:26: "A bekah for every man, that is, half a shekel, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for every one that went to be numbered, from twenty years old and upward, for six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty men."

Twenty years old was the age that a man was considered old enough to go into combat and the age Israelites were counted when numbering the children of Israel. That correlates to our law today that considers ages 18 and 21 as ages of accountability.

Middle age for some of the men of the Bible was 400 years or so. But even if 20 was middle age for the men that came later, most had still not reached maturity until they reached the approximate age of twenty. Why did God choose that age to number the children of Israel or to send them off to war? Because God knows the growth and maturity levels of mankind.

So if a baby is aborted prior to being babtized, will that helpless child go to hell in his or her sin? I agree that humans are born in sin. They are very self-centered and selfish. They cry when they want something for themselves. But can we hold them accountable for that sin? Unless a man be born again of the Spirit he shall not see the Kingdom of God.

I fully understand that there are a whole bunch of different beliefs out there but you said that I am misquoting the Bible badly. You also said that there is no such thing as the age of twenty being an age of accountability. I showed two of several verses that say otherwise. Therefore, before you smear me too badly, perhaps you ought to give me a chance to document some of my beliefs. I always try to follow what the Word of God says. When I find that I've made a mistake, I will step up to the plate and say so.

AJ -- So the Holy Spirit has no involvement with a baby's baptism, only with an adult's? If you read the words used during infant baptism, you will learn why babies are baptized and what the Biblical support is for that.

There are lots of adults who were baptized as adults who are no longer involved in a church or are active Christians. Baptism isn't a magic bullet.

Agreed. Baptism is not a magic bullet. That's why Peter in Acts 2:38 said, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

When I look closely at that verse, I see an order of things. 1) Repent 2) Be baptized
3) Receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (in that order). Now some may say that I am badly misquoting the Bible. I will admit that I do need new glasses. If I have misquoted the above verse, please correct me. Now if those "lots of adults who were baptized" that you spoke of in your post did not repent prior to being baptized, then it comes as no surprise that they are no longer "active Christians." If they didn't first "repent" as Peter instructed, then they probably did not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

I would guess that they sincerely repented, but perhaps the things of the world slowly but surely pulled them away from the church. We certainly can't say their repentance hadn't been real or heartfelt at that time.

That takes us to the "once saved, always saved" conundrum. Humans always have the choice to reject God.

I would guess that they sincerely repented, but perhaps the things of the world slowly but surely pulled them away from the church. We certainly can't say their repentance hadn't been real or heartfelt at that time.

That takes us to the "once saved, always saved" conundrum. Humans always have the choice to reject God.

Nobody can judge the heart of another human being. Your guess is 100% equal to my guess. However, my guess is that the majority of those who went through the outward act of baptism would not have gone back to their old ways like a dog to its vomit unless they had truly repented in the first place. However, I have zero Scripture to back up that statement; therefore, it remains a guess.

No, it is part of the faith to baptise or dedicate the baby and teach them in the Christian faith. If as a adult they wish to be re-bapitised they can always be if they change to a different christian faith. As a Christian ( sorry to others) we beleive ours is the only correct and true faith, so giving out children a option of not being saved would be almost unforgivable since as a parent we want the best for our children, As a Christian, to do otherwise would be just unacceptable within the teachings of the church itself.

I trust that you know what you are talking about else you would not be a leader in a church. I know that you believe that I badly misquote Scripture and that I'm a bit thick. I agree with your second conclusion wholeheartedly.

However, so that nobody concludes that you misquote Scripture, could you please show where in God's Word that it is "part of the faith to dedicate a baby?" I'm not saying you are wrong and I don't want to show any disrespect it's just that I have never seen that/those verse/verses yet. Also, if you could please show what verse says that "it would be almost unforgiveable if a parent would not give their children an option of not being saved." Again, I realize that I am a real ignoramus but I somehow missed that verse as well.

Thank you sir, and God bless you, your family, and your church.

For those churches that do infant baptism ( and it is actually the larger part of christians) Catholics, Lutherans, Anglican, Episcopal, the various Orthodox, Methodists.

And to them it is a serious, ( very serous) sin not to baptise your infant,
For them it is considereed being a bad parent. And yes it is believed that infants that die without baptism may not go to heaven, ( it is not a sure thing and it is not saying they go to hell, but since the bible tells us as you noted a person is not saved unless they are baptismed, there is a seroius risk)

As for your age of accountablilty, all Christians that I know of, will use the age of 12, which is the age Jesus was when he went back to be in the temple, and also matches customs and tradtions of the Jewish faith (Bar Mitzvah normally done at 13).
For most of the churches that have infant baptism, they at around ages 12 to 14 have what is called "confirmation" at which time the teen confirms his vows of baptism.

We must not forget the value of grace from the infant baptism, the item man is not born with until they are baptised.
Rom 8:16-17 Grace makes you an adopted child of God
John 14:23 Thou grace God lives within you
1: Col 3:16 When you receive God grace you are made a temple of God

And Christ is very clear about baptism :: John 3:5 Unless a man be born of water and of the Holy Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of heaven

Parents are told to raise a chld properly and baptising the child is just part of being a proper parent and raising your child. To the faiths that believe in infant baptism, anything less would be to the level of abuse, since you are putting the eterminal lfe of your child at risk.

We also have to remember that baptism is a reformed and corrected version of the act of purification. That is why people knew what baptism was, they were used to water and having the body ( outside) purified.
So we also have to realise that baptism as other christian practice came from many of the Jewish customs.

Acts 16:15, 33 speaks of entire households being baptised

Perhaps misquote was a bit hard, but you are using it from a view point of the more fundalmentalists faiths, so to those of the Catholic and Orthodox Faiths, yes it is misquoted or done from a view point of a those that do not accept the teachings of the church.

But in the end, it is all based on faith, you either believe or you don't

For those churches that do infant baptism ( and it is actually the larger part of christians) Catholics, Lutherans, Anglican, Episcopal, the various Orthodox, Methodists.

And to them it is a serious, ( very serous) sin not to baptise your infant,
For them it is considereed being a bad parent. And yes it is beleived that infants that die without baptism may not go to heaven, ( it is not a sure thing and it is not saying they go to hell, but since the bible tells us as you noted a person is not saved unless they are baptismed, there is a seroius risk)


Thank you for your answer. I'm sure that you are correct about a lot of people considering themselves bad parents for not baptising their offspring. I can understand the feelings. Feelings are powerful things and emotions cause people to do all sorts of things. That's fairly common and normal.

As for me, I've never been one that has been too impressed with what the majority of people think or do. The majority of Americans have sat on their rear ends and have done nothing to stop the horrendous crime of abortion (including all those people in all those churches you mentioned). The majority of people present when Pilate asked who should be crucified voted to have Christ, an innocent man, crucified instead of Barabus, a hardened criminal with a lengthy record.

I'm also aware that many people consider many things based on many emotions and feelings. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that it is more wise to make choices based on the Word of God which is constant and changes not.

That being the case, I request that you back your conclusions concerning infant baptism with Scripture. I don't mean to be pushy. I know you are busy. But I also know that a man in your position has a ready answer as that is a Scriptural requirement if one is to lead a church. Thanks, and God bless you and yours.

As FrChuck said, Catholic and many Protestant church bodies believe in infant baptism. Infants are baptized, not because they believe, but because of the clear Word, command, and promise of God. They are baptized into God's grace, but not because of their existing faith.

These church bodies do not adhere to the claim that a person must reach the "age of accountability" before receiving Baptism. That claim implies that there is something within the person that is able to cooperate with the grace of God. Man does not cooperate with God to obtain salvation. The work is done entirely by the Holy Spirit. It's not "I found God" -- it's "God found me".

Ephesians 2:8-9 says we are saved by grace through faith; it is not our doing. Grace comes before faith. Baptism is a means to receive this grace.

Baptism of infants is rooted in the history of the Christian Church and practiced by most mainstream Christian church bodies.

There are NO specific references in Scripture excluding children and infants from Baptism. The Gospel has an inclusive message -- "God so loved the world," and "baptize all nations." Infants are a part of the world and are in all nations.

There are five references in the NT to the baptism of entire households:

1) Peter baptized the household of Cornelius (Acts 11: 14)

2) In Philippi, Paul baptized the household of Lydia and 3) the household of the jailer (Acts 16: 15, 33)

4) Paul also baptized the household of Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue in Corinth

5) In his first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul speaks of baptizing the household of Stephanas (1:16). The Greek word for household is oikon and refers to ALL the inhabitants of the house -- masters, slaves, servants, infants, and children.

Can anyone seriously suggest that within the households of Cornelius, Lydia, the Jailer, Crispus and Stephanas there were no children or infants present?

In addition, if the members of these households had converted to Judaism, all the males would have been circumcised. This included infants who were at least eight days old. In Colossians 2:9-12, Paul compared the effect of circumcision with the effect of Baptism.

perhaps misquote was a bit hard, but you are using it from a view point of the more fundalmentalists faiths, so to those of the Catholic and Orthodox Faiths, yes it is misquoted or done from a view point of a those that do not accept the teachings of the church.

But in the end, it is all based on faith, you either beleive or you don't


Thanks for the clarification on the first point.

I agree with you on the second point.

[QUOTE=Wondergirl]

These church bodies do not adhere to the claim that a person must reach the "age of accountability" before receiving Baptism. That claim implies that there is something within the person that is able to cooperate with the grace of God. Man does not cooperate with God to obtain salvation. The work is done entirely by the Holy Spirit. It's not "I found God" -- it's "God found me".

QUOTE]

In a roundabout way, I agree with you concerning "God finding His sheep" rather than "they finding Him." Christ picked out the Apostles... they didn't pick themselves. However, if we agree that the Bible was written for our instruction, then it might be important that we be able to understand those instructions. I mean, something must be required of a Christian else we wouldn't need a Bible at all. We could just go through our lives hoping that God was going to pick us. If He did, He did. If He didn't He didn't. It would be really simple.

Therefore, I do believe that there is "something within the person" that comes into play. I wasn't baptized as a child. Would you say that I will go to hell? If not hell, then will I be banned from God's Kingdom? (If you're Catholic then the answer is yes, AJ will be banned since he is not Catholic). Before I repented; before I was baptized; before I received the gift of the Holy Spirit; before I read the Bible in any substantial way, I reached a point where something in me desired to know the truth. Was God working in me at that point? I believe He was. However, God gave me free will. I was allowed to choose that path for myself. Free will is one of the greatest gifts He gave us. Something in me chose to follow God and seek truth within the pages of His written Word.

The very same set of circumstances would have occurred even if I HAD been baptized as an infant. Since I would not of been at all aware of what was going on then it would not have mattered to me because I hadn't made my own decision at that point. I would not have exercised my free will.

You didn't exercise your free will to accept God into your life. That nudge wasn't from you. You said, "Something in me chose to follow God and seek truth within the pages of His written Word." That Something, that Nudge, was the Holy Spirit at work--the same Holy Spirit Who begins the work of faith in a tiny baby.

You didn't exercise your free will to accept God into your life. That nudge wasn't from you. You said, "Something in me chose to follow God and seek truth within the pages of His written Word." That Something, that Nudge, was the Holy Spirit at work--the same Holy Spirit Who begins the work of faith in a tiny baby.

Read my post again. I did say that God was working in me and gave me that "nudge." However, he did not force me to follow Him. I chose to do so, He could force all of mankind to follow Him... but He doesn't. He wants His followers to follow Him by their own free will. Nudge was from Him; choice was mine. Even you admit that many who are baptized drift away from the church. God doesn't "nudge" them away from the church... they leave of their own free will.

One can only say no. The yes is the Holy Spirit.

One can only say no. The yes is the Holy Spirit.

At least you agree that I have the option of saying no thus exercising my free will.

Yes--anyone can say no. Many do.

Yes--anyone can say no. Many do.

Again... free will... choice. To exercise free will or make a choice one has to know and understand what choices are available to them. Infants do not have that ability.

No, they don't, thus we depend on the power of the Holy Spirit to begin the work of faith, to open their hearts to receive the Word. Sponsors (godparents) promise, along with the parents, to do everything they can to guide and encourage the child as it feeds on the "milk" of the Word and grows in grace until it is old enough to tackle the "meat" of the Word. Around age 12 or 13, after being fed much "milk", the child will, in the rite of Confirmation, affirm its baptism. At that time, some ask to be rebaptized; others do not.

No, they don't, thus we depend on the power of the Holy Spirit to begin the work of faith, to open their hearts to receive the Word. Sponsors (godparents) promise, along with the parents, to do everything they can to guide and encourage the child as it feeds on the "milk" of the Word and grows in grace until it is old enough to tackle the "meat" of the Word. Around age 12 or 13, after being fed much "milk", the child will, in the rite of Confirmation, affirm its baptism. At that time, some ask to be rebaptized; others do not.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. I am a Bible-only Christian and you base your faith on a mixture of Scripture and tradition. I've found that there are too many SEEMING contradictions between the two (I use the word "seeming" now so that I don't get a plethora of attacks from the non-Bible-only community later).

I was attacked earlier for not having Scriptural backing when I said that 20 was the age of accountability but I keep hearing this "around the age of 12 or 13" thrown around a lot without any Scriptural backing. I don't mean to point a finger but, come on...

Some might say "Ah, but weren't babies circumcised at the age of 8 days?" Yes. The reason being that vitamin K is at its peak at that age (vitamin K being a blood clotting agent). Also, circumcision was done for sanitation purposes.

You really do not think there was more to circumcision then that? Certainly you know it was the mark of the covenant between God and Abraham. Also worth noting: Gen 17 vs 14. "If a maile is uncircumcised, that is, if the flesh of his foreskin has not been cut away, such a one shall be cut off from his people: he has broken my covenant."

Much, much more than sanitation purposes.

You really do not think there was more to circumcision then that? Certainly you know it was the mark of the covenant between God and Abraham. Also worth noting: Gen 17 vs 14. "If a maile is uncircumcised, that is, if the flesh of his foreskin has not been cut away, such a one shall be cut off from his people: he has broken my covenant."

Much, much more than sanitation purposes.

Actually, I do believe that there was more to it than that. However, I used to question why it was done on the 8th day and not the 5th or 15th, etc. I thought that there might be some significance to the 8th day. Though I have never seen anything scriptural written about the 8th day, there could very well be some significance to that time. God rested on the 7th. So, the 8th day was sort of a new beginning. So, I wasn't trying to discount the greater importance associated with circumcision but was trying to explain why it was done at that particular age.

Also, sanitation is a byproduct but God's Law covers sanitation and circumcision is more sanitary than the alternative.

I was baptised when I was a small baby. My parents automatically dedicated my life to Christianity by doing so. In short, I wasn't given a chance to think for myself. Do you think parents should wait until an offspring can think for him/herself before being baptised?

Jeff :)

I'm VERY uncomfortable with this question. I too was baptised as a small child, however, I have been thinking for myself for my whole life (or at least from a young age). I don't understand how you can think that your religion is anyone's choice except your own.

Faith is yours to choose. I don't believe that the fact I was baptised makes me Christian, I don't think that my parents chose my faith for me.

Christian parents SHOULD give their children a Christian upbringing. Totally. Because the child will always have a time when they can decide what being a Christian means to them, if it's something they don't agree with, they're free to leave. And if they wish to stay christian, they can be baptised if they wish to show that they are accepting the church as their own choice and not those of their parents.

Actually, I do believe that there was more to it than that. However, I used to question why it was done on the 8th day and not the 5th or 15th, etc. I thought that there might be some significance to the 8th day. Though I have never seen anything scriptural written about the 8th day, there could very well be some significance to that time period. God rested on the 7th. So, the 8th day was sort of a new beginning. So, I wasn't trying to discount the greater importance associated with circumcision but was trying to explain why it was done at that particular age.

Also, sanitation is a byproduct but God's Law covers sanitation and circumcision is more sanitary than the alternative.
Yes, I see that now. Thanks for clearing that up.:)

For non believers baptism is just getting the baby a little wet. If it involved scaring the child for life to show that they are a servant of god I would say wait until the child decides on their own but since it does no harm to the child it's up to the parents on when it's done.

Yes--anyone can say no. Many do.

Not everyone has a chance to say no or to exercise that choice. If it is okay for a parent to make the decision that their child WILL be of a certain faith and they decide for that baby that he or she will be baptized, I'm sure that you would be happy for the decision that the parents made. What if some parents decided that their child should be a member of the church of Satan and they opted to have their child baptized in the blood of a goat. Do they have the right to make that choice for their baby?

Goats blood is fine it won't hurt the baby. As long as the church of Satan doesn't preach anything that is illegal in the Unite State the parents have the right to raise their child in a matter they see fit.

I was baptised when I was a small baby. My parents automatically dedicated my life to Christianity by doing so. In short, I wasn't given a chance to think for myself. Do you think parents should wait until an offspring can think for him/herself before being baptised?

Jeff :)
I do not believe infant baptism to be an intrinsic evil. By having an infant immersed in or have water poured over the infant in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would not be damning this child. If an infant is baptized and grows up to have a false sense of salvation or walks a way from the faith; that would not be do to the fact that the person was baptized as an infant. I believe that baptism actually confers the grace that it symbolizes. I do not believe this negates Christ’s death and resurrection, in fact, it depends upon it. I could not deny the little ones the water of regeneration. As a parent myself, I want to give my children, from birth to death, every opportunity to experience God’s grace.

Goats blood is fine it won't hurt the baby. As long as the church of Satan doesn't preach anything that is illegal in the Unite State the parents have the right to raise their child in a matter they see fit.

So you believe that anything goes as long as it is "legal" in the United States. I suppose that would include abortion? What if a family of Nazis decide that their child should be baptized in Nazi Juice (don't know what that is but you get the point) would it be the parents' right to do so as long as no laws are broken? I know it sounds ridiculous but it still boils down to whether a parent can make that important decision. I agree with whoever said that it won't hurt the child to be baptized as long as during their life the child is taught the importance of baptism and is encouraged to be immersed again should he or she fully accept Jesus Christ when he or she is old enough to make that decision for his or herself.

<--Libertarian
Official Website of the Libertarian National Committee (http://www.lp.org/)
So as long as your not doing any physical or severe directed emotional harm to someone it is not my business. Religious ceremonies are ceremonies only they don't make you magically believe one thing or another. So if your parents thing is Nazi juice I hope that the rest of society has enough of a positive impact on you that you are not affected by your parents deranged believes in your adult life. Would I fight tooth and nail to protect your parents freedom of religion and speech, you bet I would.

So you believe that anything goes as long as it is "legal" in the United States. I suppose that would include abortion? What if a family of Nazis decide that their child should be baptized in Nazi Juice (don't know what that is but you get the point) would it be the parents' right to do so as long as no laws are broken? I know it sounds ridiculous but it still boils down to whether a parent can make that important decision. I agree with whoever said that it won't hurt the child to be baptized as long as during their life the child is taught the importance of baptism and is encouraged to be immersed again should he or she fully accept Jesus Christ when he or she is old enough to make that decision for his or herself.

Nazi Juice is illegal in the U.S.

Actually most Nazis were christian, people forget that in Europe we were fighting other christians. Maybe not the leaders but the normal soldiers carried their bibles into battle just like the US soldiers did.

But a baby baptism, does not stop the child from denying the faith when they get older. But it does for the chiristian save their child till they are old enough to deny the faith.

And sadly while abotion doctors all need to be in jail, current it is legal in the US, but abotion has nothing to do with religion, it is merely murder, and against moraity in general almost reqardless of religion.

But for a parent, they have to, of they are not following the faith plain and simiple, it does not force the child into anything, except salvation till they make their choice.

<--Libertarian
Official Website of the Libertarian National Committee (http://www.lp.org/)
So as long as your not doing any physical or severe directed emotional harm to someone it is not my business. Religous ceremonies are ceremonies only they don't make you magically believe one thing or another. So if your parents thing is Nazi juice I hope that the rest of society has enough of a positive impact on you that you are not affected by your parents deranged believes in your adult life. Would I fight tooth and nail to protect your parents freedom of religion and speech, you bet I would.

I happen to agree fully with your point here. That's why this country was founded, in part, on freedom of religion. I'm not even saying that it should be illegal or even wrong for parents to baptize their infants. But the issue here is baptism from a biblical perspective. I believe that accepting and believing in Jesus Christ is a very personal thing. Obviously, parents who baptize their infant loves their child and will probably raise the baby with Christian morals. That's good. I have no problem at all with that. I just believe that when a person accepts Christ for himself he should establish his relationship with Jesus Christ by being baptized of his own free will. I don't believe that the baptism that occurred during infancy takes the place of that.

Nazi Juice is illegal in the U.S.

I thought only 60 proof was illegal.

I don't believe that the baptism that occurred during infancy takes the place of that.

Ok, no problemo. That person can asked to be rebaptized as an older child or adult and make the decision his own. No one has said that, after being baptized as an infant, a person cannot be baptized a second time at his own request.

Baptizing an infant also (we hope) jumpstarts parents, relatives, and friends into considering that child to have been dedicated to God and encourages their responsibility to guide the child to grow in grace. Unfortunately, too often baptism is merely a "christening," a naming ceremony and occasion for a big family dinner with gifts for the baby.

Ok, no problemo. That person can asked to be rebaptized as an older child or adult and make the decision his own. No one has said that, after being baptized as an infant, a person cannot be baptized a second time at his own request.

Baptizing an infant also (we hope) jumpstarts parents, relatives, and friends into considering that child to have been dedicated to God and encourages their responsibility to guide the child to grow in grace. Unfortunately, too often baptism is merely a "christening," a naming ceremony and occasion for a big family dinner with gifts for the baby.

I'm glad we're on the same page. I have no doubt that you love Christ and want to live a Christian life. God bless you, your family, and your church.

Hello Jeff Logan,
Everyone who has ever thought of his own or his child’s baptism should be vitally interested in this question. There is no doubt that baptism is a requirement for Christians. Jesus Christ himself was baptized in the Jordan River. But what is the Bible’s view of baptizing babies, which is usually done with a few drops of water? Does an unbaptized baby that dies suffer in a world beyond in what has been called “perdition”? Is there hope for unbaptized babies who die?

Just when infant baptism began is not known with preciseness, but it was definitely after the death of the apostles of Jesus Christ that the practice appeared. The Encyclopœdia Britannica Explains: “The whole early period knows baptism only for adults, who join themselves of their own resolve to the Christian community. Infant baptism appears sporadically towards the end of the second century and was practiced also during the following centuries, yet only as an exception.” Vol. 3, page 84.

This same authority shows that it was nearly four hundred years after the time of Jesus Christ that baby baptism came into considerable prominence, due largely to the influence of Augustine: “The theorist of baptism who has been most influential for succeeding ages is S. Augustine.” What did he believe? “Infants dying unbaptized are excluded from the Kingdom of heaven in consequence of original sin, and live in the world beyond in some form of perdition, even if of the mildest kind. Baptism has effect upon original sin, in the sense that it takes from it its character of guilt.”

But what of the view that infant baptism is of apostolic origin? The religious historian Neander writes of the first-century Christians: “Faith and baptism were always connected with one another; and thus it is in the highest degree probable that baptism was performed only in the instances where both could meet together, and that the practice of infant baptism was unknown at this period. . . . That not till so late a period as (at least certainly not earlier than) Irenaeus, a trace of infant baptism appears, and that it first became recognized as an apostolic tradition in the course of the third century, is evidence rather against than for the admission of apostolic origin.”—Planting and Training of the Christian Church.

Did things change with the institution of Christian baptism, so that now babies should be baptized? To answer that question we must ask: How was Jesus baptized? Why was Jesus baptized?

The Son of God went to John the Baptist and, to John’s surprise, asked to be baptized. John did not understand why Jesus should be baptized and said: “I am the one needing to be baptized by you, and are you coming to me?” (Matt. 3:14) Jesus stood firm in his request and John obeyed, dipping Jesus under the water as he had been dipping others.
Jesus was not merely sprinkled but was down in the water: “Jesus immediately came up from the water.”—Matt. 3:16.

Why did Jesus get baptized? It could not have been for the removal of sins or for a sign that he had repented of sins, because he was “guileless, undefiled, separated from the sinners.” And “he committed no sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth.” A perfect man—yet Jesus was baptized!—Heb. 7:26; 1 Pet. 2:22.

The sinless man Jesus got baptized because of his desire to do his Father’s will. Explaining this, the apostle Paul applies Psalm 40:6-8 to Jesus Christ: “Look! I am come (in the roll of the book it is written about me) to do your will, O God.” (Heb. 10:4-7) Jesus was baptized because he wanted to symbolize his dedication to do Jehovah’s will; and he proved that he had made this dedication by turning his back on carpenter work and beginning the ministry. Jesus made this dedication as a full-grown man: “Jesus also was baptized. . . . Furthermore, Jesus himself, when he commenced his work, was about thirty years old.”—Luke 3:21, 23.

Christian baptism today should be performed in imitation of the example that Jesus Christ set. Thus the significance of Jesus’ baptism adheres to the baptism of his followers today. The baptism of a Christian serves as a symbol that one has dedicated his life to God and has vowed, like Jesus: ‘I am come to do your will, O God.’

Those who believe that water baptism washes away sins often quote Acts 2:38 as support. This verse contains the apostle Peter’s words: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins.” Here Peter, at Pentecost, was talking to those who had sinned against Jesus. How could they gain forgiveness? They needed to repent and to accept Jesus and his cleansing blood and show this by getting baptized in Jesus’ name. Not that the baptismal water would itself wash away their sins; if that were the case they would have had to get rebaptized after every new sin. But as Acts 22:16 explains: “Now why are you delaying? Rise, get baptized and wash your sins away by your calling upon his name.” How are sins washed away? Not by the water itself but by “calling upon his name.”

So water baptism for Christians is a symbol of having repented of sins and of having accepted Jesus and of having dedicated one’s life to do God’s will
faithfully, as Jesus did.

The command given by Jesus was: “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you.”Matt. 28:19, 20.
Did this term “people of all the nations” include babies? No it did not,that would have changed the meaning of the baptism Jesus instituted! Babies cannot make a personal dedication to God, based on faith and knowledge. Further, baptism is not that which removes one’s sins. The apostle wrote: “Unless blood is poured out no forgiveness takes place.” Heb. 9:22 It is Christ’s ransom sacrifice and the Christian’s repentance and acceptance of that ransom, as proved by his changed course in life, that makes such forgiveness possible. Moreover, the apostle explains: “For ‘anyone that calls upon the name of Jehovah will be saved’. However, how will they call upon him in whom they have not put faith? How, in turn, will they put faith in him of whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach?” (Rom. 10:13, 14) No, the “people of all the nations” that were to be baptized did not include babies; they had to grow up first so they could understand the value of Jesus’ ransom sacrifice and put their faith in it, after hearing about the Messiah.

Search as you will in the Holy Scriptures, you will never find a single example of the baptism of a newborn baby! Supporters of baby baptism try to defend the doctrine by saying that entire families accepted Christianity in the apostles’ days and were baptized. But if these families included tiny babies, the apostles failed to say so,despite the excellent opportunity this would have given them to underline the importance of such a doctrine.

Instead of being concerned about baptizing their baby, Christian parents will heed the advice of the inspired Scriptures and bring up their child “in the discipline and authoritative advice of God. Eph. 6:4
Teach the child the will and commandments of God. Do as the inspired proverb says: “Train up a boy according to the way for him; even when he grows old he will not turn aside from it.” Prov. 22:6

If parents have been diligent to teach their children God’s truth, then when they grow up they will be able to make a personal decision to dedicate their lives to God. After having made this decision, they will, like Jesus, symbolize that dedication by water immersion. By being faithful to that dedication, they will prove worthy of enjoying everlasting life on earth, under the kingdom of heaven. Did you note that we are to be baptized as Jesus was when he was baptized at the Jordon. Complete emersion and not sprinkling on the head.

What if the child dies before it is old enough to make a personal dedication to God? We can be sure that since God views the children of believing parents as “holy,” any child of such faithful parents who dies will be certain to be resurrected from the dead. Parents who obey and follow Jesus’ example never go wrong. Even the evildoer who was put to death on the torture stake next to Jesus was promised a resurrection and the opportunity of gaining everlasting life in the righteous new world. “You will be with me in Paradise,” said Jesus. Luke 23:43

To real Christians the words and example of Jesus Christ carry far more authority than the traditions of men. Real Christians follow the example of Christ closely. They see from a study of the Holy Scriptures overwhelming evidence that
(1) no baby was ever baptized by the first-century Christians;
(2) Christian baptism is not for washing away sins but is a symbol of a personal dedication to God, and
(3) children of believing parents, without baptism, are viewed by God as “holy.”

Babies, then, need not and should not be baptized. Baptism is a ceremony that marks a personal commitment, a commitment that no one else can make for you and that certainly a babe-in-arms cannot make for itself. The Biblical doctrine of water baptism, and therefore the one water baptism that God really accepts, remains the same today as it was when Jesus began it.

Thanks for reading this and take care,
Hope12

Personally Jeff, I don't see the point in infant baptism. Seems to me all it does is get the child wet. The biblical model for baptism is an act obedience following conviction of sin, repentance of sin and confession of Christ as Lord and Savior.


Acts 2:38-39 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call."

Acts 8:12-13 But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Simon himself believed and was baptized.

Acts 8:36-38 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

In Acts 19, the Ephesians there had received the baptism of John, and Paul told them John said "to believe in the one coming after him," and "on hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus."

Clearly, baptism is an act of obedience following acceptance of Christ. Parents are not proxies of the child's faith, and so I believe infant baptism is only for the parents sense of security. I believe it does nothing for the child as far as "saving" the child goes. I'd be interested to see a better scriptural answer to the contrary.

I was baptised when I was a small baby. My parents automatically dedicated my life to Christianity by doing so. In short, I wasn't given a chance to think for myself. Do you think parents should wait until an offspring can think for him/herself before being baptised?

Jeff :)


"Then Peter said unto them, 'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 2:38. Not the chronological order of events: Belief, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost.


THE BAPTISM OR OUR LORD, SAVIOUR, AND EXAMPLE
"And Jesus, when He was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto Him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon Him." Matthew 3:16 Please note the order of events: Belief followed by baptism followed by the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Christ, our example, was not baptized as an infant but as a grown man nearly 30 years old.

Hi Jeff,
I was Christened as a baby. When I was older I made the decision to get Baptised as I felt that was what God was callingme to do.
Yours in Christ
Moomin

[QUOTE=speechlesstx]Personally Jeff, I don't see the point in infant baptism. Seems to me all it does is get the child wet. The biblical model for baptism is an act obedience following conviction of sin, repentance of sin and confession of Christ as Lord and Savior.

If it is okay to baptize a baby without that human soul having made the choice on his or her own, then is it okay to baptize an adult who hasn't made that choice yet? Let's say I want an alcoholic that I find laying in the gutter to have the gift of the Holy Ghost. Should I scoop the guy up, take him to a body of water, toss him in, say some words over him, then dry him off all while he was unconscious? How would that be any different than baptizing a baby who isn't really conscious of what is going on?

Ok, so some of you don't believe as the majority of Christians do in infant baptism, so don't,

But for the ones that do, it is important, if you don't, you are not doing an important duty in your Christian life as a parent.

And of course no one is listing the verses where entire families were baptised, nice to leave out verses that don't agree with what you say.


There is no reason to dishonor the beliefs of others by such remarks.
Christ of course was dedicated in the temple ( and he was not baptised since that was only started after he started his ministry)

And by christian legal terms, Christ was not actually baptised, since he was not baptised in the name of the father, son and holy spirit as required by the new testement to be a valid baptism, so by the bible itself, Christ was not baptised, John was baptising but not in the name of Jesus, so by today's christian churches it was not any more a baptism, than the dedication that Jesus had as an infant, so in fact, I could challenge that Jesus was "baptised" since he was dedicated as an infant.

Ok, so some of you don't beleive as the majority of Christians do in infant baptism, so don't,

But for the ones that do, it is important, if you don't, you are not doing an important duty in your Christian life as a parent.

And of course no one is listing the verses where entire families were baptised, nice to leave out verses that don't agree with what you say.


There is no reason to dishonor the beliefs of others by such remarks.
Christ of course was dedicated in the temple ( and he was not baptised since that was only started after he started his ministry)

And by christian legal terms, Christ was not actually baptised, since he was not baptised in the name of the father, son and holy spirit as required by the new testement to be a valid baptism, so by the bible itself, Christ was not baptised, John was baptising but not in the name of Jesus, so by todays christian churches it was not any more a baptism, than the dedication that Jesus had as an infant, so in fact, I could challenge that Jesus was "baptised" since he was dedicated as an infant.
FR_ chuck,

What verse do you use for infant baptism? Just curious. I don't have a problem with a dedication to Christ. I just think a child should be able to understand what it means. Both of my boys were dedicated and then they made the decision themselves when they were older.

Ok, so some of you don't beleive as the majority of Christians do in infant baptism, so don't, But for the ones that do, it is important, if you don't, you are not doing an important duty in your Christian life as a parent. And of course no one is listing the verses where entire families were baptised, nice to leave out verses that don't agree with what you say.

First, I'm not interested in what the majority thinks. Simply not interested. Some have listed the verses of which you speak. You didn't but others have. There is still some question as to whether or not "household" included those who were unable to make a conscious decision or those old enough to understand what they were agreeing to.

There is no reason to dishonor the beliefs of others by such remarks.
Christ of course was dedicated in the temple ( and he was not baptised since that was only started after he started his ministry)

I'm not dishonoring your belief. I'm asking how baptizing an unconscious adult is any different that baptizing a new born infant.

And by christian legal terms, Christ was not actually baptised, since he was not baptised in the name of the father, son and holy spirit as required by the new testement to be a valid baptism, so by the bible itself, Christ was not baptised,

First of all, I thought that New Testament Christians aren't under the Law anymore. At least that's what the prevailing belief seems to be. Secondly, "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad Him, saying, 'I have need to be baptized of Thee, and comest Thou to me?' And Jesus answering said unto him, 'Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.' Then he suffered Him. And Jesus, when He was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon Him." Matthew 3:13-16
Fr_Chuck says Christ was not baptized and the Bible says He was. Hmmm, which conclusion should I choose?

John was baptising but not in the name of Jesus, so by todays christian churches it was not any more a baptism, than the dedication that Jesus had as an infant, so in fact, I could challenge that Jesus was "baptised" since he was dedicated as an infant.

John baptized Jesus at Jesus' command. Jesus was fully immersed in water (the very definition of baptism) and He received the gift of the Holy Ghost (a promise given to those who accept Christ and are baptized in Christ's name). Secondly, Christ (our living example) still wasn't baptized as an infant regardless of whether or not you believe that His adult baptism was "legal" or not. "Dedicated as an infant?" Chapter and verse please. And even if He was "dedicated" how does that take the place of baptism?

I've been accused of "badly" quoting the Bible. In this case, I quoted the Bible verbatim.