Christian Baptism, does it include infants?

[makesends]

JIM said:
No. Baptism is the occasion in the life of the sinner when God saves.

Ya---this is not clear. So, are you saying that it is during baptism that God saves or that salvation occurs?
Let me ask this way---are you saying that a person is not saved until baptism?

Is @JIM talking about water baptism here, or baptism of the Spirit, or what?

 

[Red Baker]

JIM said:
No. Baptism is the occasion in the life of the sinner when God saves.

Is @JIM talking about water baptism here, or baptism of the Spirit, or what?

Water

 

[Red Baker]

Well so much for the topic.

Next....

No ~ let's get back on the topic~all topics can easily be flip another way, it is very hard to completely stay on the topic, but we can overall, if all make a serious attempt to do so.

 

[JIM]

JIM said:
No. Baptism is the occasion in the life of the sinner when God saves.

Is @JIM talking about water baptism here, or baptism of the Spirit, or what?

Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

 

[JIM]

Forth, Baptism supplants circumcision, Col 2:11-12,

Col 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

The limiting of that supplanted circumcision to being through faith in the powerful working of God would necessarily preclude infants.

 

[Red Baker]

I hope you Cedo Baptists really read and consider this.

I firmly believe in the position/doctrine of Credobaptism. Yet, l always read all opposing views carefully to make sure I'm not missing any truth, which a child of God can do, though I believe never purposely will they do so ~nevertheless, other reasons can cause them to do so. I will consider your post carefully and ask the same from you.

The infants of believers are not to be forbidden this sacrament.

Baptism is not a sacrament, a false position of RCC/EOC. I believe the Eastern Orthodox Church was before the RCC, and fight they are still engaged in~big sister fighting little sister. Nevertheless water baptism is not a sacrament let's make that very clear.

Water Baptism and the Lord's supper are an ordinances, neither of which are biblically considered a sacrament.

A sacrament is a religious ritual to impart God's grace ~ necessary for eternal life. Rome has invented seven of them.

All things are forbidden that does not exist in the scriptures, it is extra biblical teaching/doctrine which we reject, and so should you.

First, because if they are partakers of any grace, it is by virtue of the covenant of grace and so both the covenant and the first seal of the covenant belong to them.

None are partakers of saving grace but those chosen of God, before the foundation of the world. Rebecca understood this truth, thereby she instructed her elect son Jacob what to do to receive the inheritance. God revealed this to her while the boys fought in he womb.

Genesis 25:23~“And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.”

1st Corinthians 7:14 cannot be used to support the position of grace being impart to our children through us. We can consider it if you like.

Second, the covenant in which the faithful are now included is clearly the same as the covenant made with Abraham, Romans 4:11,
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
Gal 3:7-9,
7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
and this expressly applied to infants.

So, you beleive that circumcision proves infant baptism~correct? I say no.

Does Circumcision Prove Infant Baptism?​

No! For if it is, then only infant boys should be baptized (Gen 17:10; Ex 12:48).

No! Circumcision was a sign of a covenant based on physical descent. Baptism is a sign of conversion resulting from grace, which has nothing to do with physical descent (Matt 3:7-12; Gal 3:16,26-29).

No! John the Baptist baptized in water those who already had the sign of circumcision. This showed that the sign was different and the condition was different.

No! The children of God are not those born of certain parents or given some ritualistic application of water, but rather the result of a spiritual birth (John 1:12-13).

No! The children of God are not the natural descendants of Abraham, but rather the spiritual descendants (Rom 9:6-8). And these are not the same.

The early Jewish Christians under apostolic direction did not think so, for they continued to circumcise their infant boys (Acts 21:20-21), which was superfluous and contradictory, if baptism had replaced circumcision.

No! The only circumcision with any meaning in the New Testament is a circumcision made without hands by the cutting off of Jesus Christ, Who died for our sins (Col 2:11). When they start baptizing without using hands, we will reconsider their argument.

No! The only circumcision with any meaning in the New Testament is an internal operation of the Spirit upon the heart of man (Rom 2:28-29), which purifies his heart, and makes him a fit candidate for baptism (Ist Pet 3:21)!

No! Scripture teaches plainly and repeatedly that faith and repentance are conditions for baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:37), but circumcision had no prerequisite condition (Lev 12:2-3).

No! Scripture teaches plainly and repeatedly that faith and repentance are conditions for baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:37), and this is impossible for infants (Jonah 4:11).

No! When the New Testament church debated in Acts 15 whether circumcision should be required of Gentile believers as part of becoming a Christian, it is astonishing that not once in that entire debate did anyone say anything about baptism taking the place of circumcision. If baptism is the simple replacement of circumcision as a sign of the new covenant, and thus valid for children as well as for adults, as circumcision was, surely this would have been the time to develop the argument and so show that circumcision was no longer necessary. But it was not even mentioned.

No? Then where did this heresy come from? It came to the Presbyterians, who retained the baptismal heresies of Rome. They ransacked the church fathers of the Roman Catholic Church to find a logical defense for their continuation of Rome’s superstition of infant sprinkling. No apostle or early saint even considered the idea, as faith and repentance were necessary for baptism; and infant baptism was unheard of for at least 200 years.

This is not easy for me to teach, since it goes against some of my favorite men that I have great respect for, yet, we must stand upon the scriptures not with men we love and admire for their over all faithfulness and love of the scriptures.

Forth, Baptism supplants circumcision, Col 2:11-12,
11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
It belongs as much to the children of believers as circumcision once did.

Proven wrong above.

I want to come back and address #5 in a separate post.

 

[Red Baker]

Fifth, in the very beginning of regeneration, whereof baptism is a seal, man is merely passive. Therefore, no outward action is required of a man when he is baptized or circumcised (unlike other sacraments); but only a passive receiving. Infants are, therefore, as capable of participation in this sacrament, so far as its chief benefit is concerned, as adults.

Is this wrong. We agree in regeneration man is passive. but no so in water baptism. This really is not even debatable., or. at least it should not be. Jesus was certainly was not passive at his baptism and knew exactly what he was doing and why he was baptized.

John the Baptist, told those at his baptism these words:

Matthew 3:8​

“Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:”

Peter said:

Acts 2:38​

“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.”

Philip said this to the eunuch these words:

Acts 8:37​

“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.”

This does not prove that folks are passive in water baptism, very much active, and understanding what they had to do.

Infants are, therefore, as capable of participation in this sacrament, so far as its chief benefit is concerned, as adults.

Again, baptism is not a sacrament, it does not convey grace to those being baptized. Infants of all people, would have no recollection of them being baptized and certainly not knowing why! That statement is based upon a false premises of trying to connect circumcision with NT baptism.

Faith and repentance no more constitute the covenant of God now than in the time of Abraham, who was the father of the faithful.

So wrong! Faith is the strongest biblical evidence of one being a child of God's promises. We have proved this in this thread already.

1st John 5:1~“Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.”

Therefore, the lack of these ought not prevent infants from being baptized any more that it prevented them from being circumcized then.

Baptism and circumcision are not one and same. Already addressed this above. What prevents them is: Baptism joined us with the faith and religion of Jesus Christ by giving God an answer of a good conscience, which infants cannot do. What prevents them is this: it is not commanded for us to have our children baptized, if not commanded, then we cannot practice this, it would be adding to the scriptures. What prevents them is this: the apostles did not command it, and never practiced it, and neither did Christ.

The Lord's supper is the sacrament of nourishment and growth for the faithful in Christ. It should, therefore, be administered to them often.

Catholic doctrine, pure and simple. The Lord's supper is not a sacrament~it does not convey grace in any way to those who partake thereof. The Lord's supper is not for nourishment and growth, but for our remembrance of Christ's death for us....... it speaks more of our weakness in forgetting more than any thing else.

But the supper is to be administered only to those who are visibly capable of nourishment and growth in the church. Therefore, it is to be given not to infants, but only to adults.

Why does not the writer use the same logic in baptizing infants? It would save him from his error in baptizing infants. Something to consider, would you not think so.

Because the fullest and most perfect nourishment is sealed in Christ, no single, simple sigh of nourishing is to be used but a double kind - bread and wine, such as the body requires for its nourishment.
Those who take away either of these signs from the faithful in the administration of the Supper take away from the wisdom of God, mutilate the institution of Christ, and grievously lesson or take away the consolation of the faithful.

1st Corinthians 11:24-26~"And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

No pun intended~The writer is in la la land speaking to the wind. The Lord's supper was given to sir up our poor minds in remembering our Lord's death till he comes again.

 

[Red Baker]

Acts 2:38.

This is another proof text used by opponents of infant baptism. "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"

Here again, the subject of the verse is personal salvation and not baptism, and the argument is exactly the same.

A verse in the scriptures that has been hotly debated since Luke penned those words.

The subject of Acts 2:38 is not personal salvation, but what shall they do who were pricked in their hearts after hearing Peter's short sermon.

Those pricked in their hearts were giving true evidence that they had been quicken to life, at some point before they were ever baptized. These in Acts 2 were much different than those in Acts seven.

Acts 7:54​

“When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.”

Peter being a man of God and knowing certain evidences of one born of God, said what he said in Acts 2:38. Those in Acts 7, after they heard one of the greatest sermons recorded in the scriptures outside of Matthew 5-7, were cut to the heart and sought to kill the messenger. Those in Acts 2, proved to Peter they had been quickened to life, told them the next step for you is to repent and be baptized for (because of) the remission of their sins. "For" in Acts 2:38 is not in order to obtain, but "because of"! Proof text? I got some, please cosnider:

Mark 1:44​

“And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.”

The word for here is used in the sense....Because of, not in order to obtain as so many labor to make it mean.

This being said, Acts 2:38 is speaking of water baptism in giving to God the answer of a good conscience! Regeneration first, then water baptism into the faith and religion of Jesus Christ, with a commitment to follow him and his people, proclaiming the truths of his word. Infants are not capable of doing these things, and most youth are too busy serving their own lust and trying to figure out life as their body is going through many changes.

It seems to me that all the arguments against infant baptism are also arguments against infant salvation. Yet, the most vehement Baptist will not deny the possibility of the salvation of those who die in infancy. Also, many Baptists insist that all infants are saved until they reach the undefined age of accountability.
And this interpretation puts the brethren who profess to believe in the security of those who are saved in the unhappy position of insisting that those infants who were once saved can be lost again when they reach a certain age and are lost until they believe.

If they are one of God's chosen, then they will not spoil, they will be fine, our duty and the only one I see is to train them in the fear of God, and teach them the scriptures while they are very, very young. Above all, live out the word of God daily before them. Salvation in a young age is very, very rare~yet they can know the scriptures and see it live out before them from birth until they get to be young adults, when much changes for them, and they begin to enter another phase of their life.

 

[Red Baker]

Also, God Himself tells us, that the children of believers are holy. 1 Cor 7:14.

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

Brother, will you give me your understanding of 1st Corinthians 7:14 before I speak on that scripture?

Also, we might want to look at Acts 2:39......

Acts 2:39​

“For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” The closet scripture regarding our children, and God's promises.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Eleanor]

Agree
Agree
Again, salvation is broken down into phrases.. Consider John Gill on this subject.
The one view/phrase not mentioned by John Gill is the practical phrase which he taught in other places, which the scriptures in the NT puts a lot of emphasis on in such scriptures as these:
There ae several we could produce, but not now for sake of time.

In these scriptures there is a practical salvation that we all have a part in by doing certain things which Paul mentioned and I highlighted.
Timothy was a saved vitally and legally, yet in order to enjoy and be fruitful in our walk with God, we, and even great men such as Paul and Timothy ~ MUST do the five things mentioned in these verses, neglect them and one will not enjoy God's best for them, and will be useless in God's service, and easy to be overcome by our enemies.
I believe we were actually in Christ according to Ephesians 1:4

The decree to create was certain before there ever was anything material.
The creation decree was accomplished in time, according to the nature and order of the time and matter of the decree.
The event of the decree did not occur until the time decreed for it to occur.

Ephesians 1:4​

“According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:”
There has never been a time in God's mind/purpose

God's mind and purpose are outside time.

taht we were not in Christ, that's why I hold to eternal justification, but another subject for another thread.
We have never been outside of Jesus Christ in the mind and eternal purposes of God. I know this could keep going, but enough for now.

Not quite. . .

God neither ignores nor excludes the very reality which he created--time.

God's decrees are about destinies in time, which do not exclude journeys in time to those destinies.

 

[JIM]

Peter being a man of God and knowing certain evidences of one born of God, said what he said in Acts 2:38. Those in Acts 7, after they heard one of the greatest sermons recorded in the scriptures outside of Matthew 5-7, were cut to the heart and sought to kill the messenger. Those in Acts 2, proved to Peter they had been quickened to life, told them the next step for you is to repent and be baptized for (because of) the remission of their sins. "For" in Acts 2:38 is not in order to obtain, but "because of"! Proof text? I got some, please cosnider:

Mark 1:44​

“And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.”

The word for here is used in the sense....Because of, not in order to obtain as so many labor to make it mean.

The Greek word in Mark 1:44 translated as for thy cleansing is "peri" and can indeed mean "because of". The Greek word in Acts 2:38 translated as for the remission of sin is "eis" and does NOT mean" because of", but instead means "unto" or "for the purpose of " or "in order to obtain". That is the same Greek word, "eis" in Mar1:44 translated as for a testimony. Here, as in Acts 2:38, the meaning is NOT "because of" but "unto" or "to the intent of".

With all due respect, Red, changing the meaning of the word to mean "because of" in direct conflict with what Luke wrote is really egregious abuse of scripture.

 

[makesends]

The Greek word in Mark 1:44 translated as for thy cleansing is "peri" and can indeed mean "because of". The Greek word in Acts 2:38 translated as for the remission of sin is "eis" and does NOT mean" because of", but instead means "unto" or "for the purpose of " or "in order to obtain". That is the same Greek word, "eis" in Mar1:44 translated as for a testimony. Here, as in Acts 2:38, the meaning is NOT "because of" but "unto" or "to the intent of".

With all due respect, Red, changing the meaning of the word to mean "because of" in direct conflict with what Luke wrote is really egregious abuse of scripture.

With all due respect, Jim, eis can also logically imply, "because of", when used to demonstrate intent. Meaning is, in part, dependent on use.

 

[Red Baker]

The decree to create was certain before there ever was anything material.
The creation decree was accomplished in time, according to the nature and order of the time and matter of the decree.
The event of the decree did not occur until the time decreed for it to occur.

God's mind and purpose are outside time.

Not quite. . .

God neither ignores nor excludes the very reality which he created--time.

God's decrees are about destinies in time, which do not exclude journeys in time to those destinies.

Greetings Eleanor, I'm trying hard to stay on the topic of this thread, but would love to discuss this subject in another thread. I fully understand the temptation to speak up when something is said that we could add light on, so no problem you saying what you did, but Carbon has already mentioned about the thread going off track.

 

[Red Baker]

The Greek word in Mark 1:44 translated as for thy cleansing is "peri" and can indeed mean "because of". The Greek word in Acts 2:38 translated as for the remission of sin is "eis" and does NOT mean" because of", but instead means "unto" or "for the purpose of " or "in order to obtain". That is the same Greek word, "eis" in Mar1:44 translated as for a testimony. Here, as in Acts 2:38, the meaning is NOT "because of" but "unto" or "to the intent of".

With all due respect, Red, changing the meaning of the word to mean "because of" in direct conflict with what Luke wrote is really egregious abuse of scripture.

Jim, I did not change the meaning any word, I gave the biblical sense based upon the context~which context I explained by pointing out how they were pricked in their hearts, and Peter understanding the evidence of regeneration, instructed them to repent and be baptized because of their sorry concerning what Peter had said when he said: "Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain. Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Jim, God gave us to clear instances of what happens when the word of God preached, one is found in Acts 7, which I brought up, and the other one here in Acts 2. The one in Acts 2, proves that those that were pricked in their hearts and they ask Peter what should they do, to please God and submit to what Peter had just preached to them~ and Peter, the man of God, told them, and his words should be interpreted in light of the context of why Peter said what he did ~ to do otherwise is truly egregious abuse of the scriptures in order to maintain one's doctrine. Jim, context is king, and it will drive the true biblical meaning for us, if we allow it to do so. Men, are not naturally pricked in their hearts, when they hear the word of God, they are dead in trespasses and sin and will despise and reject its wonderful message, it is foolishness to them. I could keep going, but enough on this for now.

 

[JIM]

Jim, I did not change the meaning any word, I gave the biblical sense based upon the context~

No, Red, you changed the meaning of the Greek word "eis" to give the sense of what you needed to fit your soteriology.

From Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries

G1519

εἰς

eis

A primary preposition; to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose (result, etc.); also in adverbial phrases.: - [abundant-] ly, against, among, as, at, [back-] ward, before, by, concerning, + continual, + far more exceeding, for [intent, purpose], fore, + forth, in (among, at unto, -so much that, -to), to the intent that, + of one mind, + never, of, (up-) on, + perish, + set at one again, (so) that, therefore (-unto), throughout, till, to (be, the end, -ward), (here-) until (-to), . . . ward, [where-] fore, with. Often used in composition with the same general import, but only with verbs (etc.) expressing motion (literallyor figuratively.

Nothing in that to even begin to suggest the meaning of "because of". I can post similar results from Thayer's Greek Definitions and from the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance.

We find a very similar declaration from Jesus at the last supper in Matthew 26:28 for [gar] this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for [peri] many for [eis] the forgiveness of sins. Here again, the Greek word "eis" denoting the point to be reached, i.e., "unto".

There is no way to make this "eis" mean "because of" Clearly, the blood of Christ was poured out for many UNTO the forgiveness of sins. It was not poured out because sins had been forgiven as you want to say Acts 2:38. In fact the translation to English "for" occurs three times in that verse and each time it is translated from three different Greek words, each indicating the specific meaning as originally rendered in the Greek. Just because the English “for” has some elasticity, and may point to a precedent circumstance, that does not mean that the Greek word eis has similar properties.

The Greek word "eis" is found in the NT over 1500 times. It always is prospective (forward looking), and is never retrospective (backward looking) in its direction.

 

[JIM]

With all due respect, Jim, eis can also logically imply, "because of", when used to demonstrate intent. Meaning is, in part, dependent on use.

That is simply not true. The phrase "because of" has a backward-directed intent. It looks back at something that has already happened. The Greek word "eis" always has a forward-directed intent. See previous post.

 

[Carbon]

Col 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

The limiting of that supplanted circumcision to being through faith in the powerful working of God would necessarily preclude infants.

 

[Carbon]

I firmly believe in the position/doctrine of Credobaptism. Yet, l always read all opposing views carefully to make sure I'm not missing any truth, which a child of God can do, though I believe never purposely will they do so ~nevertheless, other reasons can cause them to do so. I will consider your post carefully and ask the same from you.


Baptism is not a sacrament, a false position of RCC/EOC. I believe the Eastern Orthodox Church was before the RCC, and fight they are still engaged in~big sister fighting little sister. Nevertheless water baptism is not a sacrament let's make that very clear.

Well, first of all. It seems to me you do not understand what a sacrament is. You should look it up.

 

[Carbon]

Proven wrong above.

You have proven nothing wrong.

I want to come back and address #5 in a separate post.

Oh, please do.

 

[Carbon]

Is this wrong. We agree in regeneration man is passive.

...

but no so in water baptism.

Really? Please explain.

This really is not even debatable.,

Your right about that, but not for what your thinking.

or. at least it should not be. Jesus was certainly was not passive at his baptism and knew exactly what he was doing and why he was baptized.

Let me ask, why was Jesus baptized?