Christian Baptism, does it include infants?

[Carbon]

Let's look at one argument in Mark 16.
KJV :16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Now we all know (or most of us anyway) that this is verse not found in the earlier manuscripts, so it may be best not to make a doctrine of it, however, it is one passage that has been used for this argument. So, let's look at it.

If this verse teaches that no one should be baptized who has not believed, then it also clearly teaches that no one can be saved who has not believed. It's obvious, that logic demands such an answer. Yet, many a baptists would be the first to insist that infants who die before reaching the age of accountability are saved. Go figure.
These infants who die before the age of accountability, these infants have never believed; so the Baptist argument against infant baptism here does not hold.

It is obvious if one cares to look, at this argument (believers' baptism), the solution to the problem is simply the recognition of the fact this verse is clearly speaking only to those who are themselves capable of personal faith. If the verse allows for the salvation of infants without their believing, it certainly allows for their baptism.

 

[Carbon]

Another,

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. If this verse does not does not deny the possibility of any infant incapable of repenting and believing being saved, then it assuredly does not deny his right to baptism.


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.

 

[Carbon]

Covenant theology believers are not in no such contradictory position.

 

[Carbon]

I believe God's work makes it quite clear that salvation is a gift of God in which He exercises grace in behalf of an individual entirely in and through the sacrificial work of His Son on Calvary. God is perfectly free because of the work of Christ on the cross to save infants as well as adults. Scripture teaches us, at least to those who are capable of personal faith, that salvation is dispensed upon the basis of faith,
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast. Eph 2:8-9.
But nowhere does it teach in scripture that infants who are incapable of personal faith cannot be saved.

Besides, can parents' faith save an infant? And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing "their faith" said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee. Mark 9:2. Scripture does show, in certain places where the faith of another brought, healing, blessing, and seems salvation to another.


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.

 

[Carbon]

Many arguments become silly. (No offense intended to anyone here) So many argue that there should be a credible, intelligent, and personal profession of faith before one should be baptized. And of this, infants are not capable. This argument is obviously very weak if you ask me. Many assume that when whole households in the bible were baptized there were no infants. But no one questions whether or not everyone in the household, assuming they were all adults, made a credible, intelligent, and personal profession of faith. Where are we assured of that?

All the preaching in the bible assumes there were adults hearing it. Why would Paul and anyone preach, for example, repent and believe? infants wouldn't understand that, but adults would. So, how or why would someone get out of that, infants in the nature of this case are not capable of making such a confession and, therefore are ineligible for baptism. It no more follows that infants are excluded than does it follow that they are excluded from salvation.

 

[Carbon]

Another point of consideration.

It's obvious that we have no way of knowing if infants are regenerate. God just does not give us the ability to check into the spiritual state of an infant. But no baptism is based upon our knowledge of anyone's spiritual state. This is true even of adults, is it not? Adults have fallen away from the faith, long after being baptized. Have they lost their salvation? Were they never saved, to begin with?

 

[Carbon]

Another argument that really gets me is, that circumcision was administered to only males in the OT, why that was administered in that way, I believe we all know the answer. But in the NT baptism, such discrimination between males and females is obliterated. Therefore, it proves infants should not be baptized? Though circumcision was a divine institution in the OT that could be dispensed only to males, of course. And with the extension of grace in the NT a sign will be given that will be dispensed to females as well as males. Isn't it one of the glories of the NT that there is now in Christ no longer male or female, just as there is no longer Jew or Gentile, bond or free, barbarian or Scythian?

 

[JIM]

Then it isn't by grace.

You have a really strange view of grace. There is nothing about grace that precludes the need to meet certain conditions. The fact is that even if God required that you cut off your right hand in order to be saved, salvation would still be by grace.

Those are only conditions if God is not causal.

That is really quite silly. In my state you must show proof of citizenship in order to vote in state elections. Showing such proof is clearly not causal to voting. Proving citizenship is not what causes anyone to vote.

Those things then would be things that man must do before God saves them rather than things they do because God saves them. If conditions must be met, then it is the conditions being met that are casual. You contradict yourself again. And you contradict the Bible that says we are saved through faith.

And just another really silly comment. Clearly you don't understand causality very well.

We have been over all that before. If the necessary faith is generated from us, then faith is causal, not God. And
there is no grace involved.

Not only do you not understand causality, you clearly do not understand grace.

A discussion already had.

And one for which you are clueless.

I doubt anyone thinks that.

That is your stated view of regeneration. In the Calvinist/ Reformed Theology one second before regeneration, one is clueless to understand anything written in the scriptures and is at enmity with God and then in the instant after regeneration one is able to "see" and "hear" and truly loves God. Pure nonsense.

No one says that either.

Again, the very Calvinist/Reformed Theory definition of regeneration

No one has said otherwise.

Yeah, they really have.

Because they have heard it all along. It was being lived. But there are also many in that same situation who never believe it. Did you just have better parents, a better upbringing? Were you just smarter and wiser than those who reject what they grew up with. Did God have nothing to do with it? Perhaps your lack of experience outside the bubble has also left you unable to see the the realities that the Bible puts forth concerning mans fallen nature and his inability without regeneration to see and understand the things of God? Maybe you have grown comfortable and complacent?

I am sure that in many respects I had better parents and a better upbringing. But the final key is that I chose to believe. Of course God had something to do with it. He was the author of the Scriptures which in the end is what convinced me. But in no way would I think, as you do, that God forced me through election and regeneration to believe. What an insecure being you present God to be in not even having the ability to communicate effectively the opportunities He offers, leaving the choice up to that individual.

And of course, your entire theology rests upon the idea that God so dimmed the mind of mankind, because of Adam's sin, that he can't even think straight. All the talk about the fall and man's fallen nature and yet those terms are never uttered in God's word. That entire perception is a construct driving every aspect of your soteriology. It is a slap in the fact of God.

It is in fact impossible. But of course that would not apply to one such as yourself. No amount of hard work and many hours reading and studying will do it unless God regenerates the heart and mind. He must open the deaf ears and open the blind eyes and remove the heart of stone and give a new heart that loves God instead of hates him. You simply lack experience. Those of us on the outside, who were born and raised and lived on the outside, we are the ones who recognize that power and personal love of God for us. We are the ones who recognize the magnitude of the rescue that took place by the mIghty Rescuer.

In your theology, you recognize no such thing. In your theology, your mind is altered such that you have no ability to think otherwise. In your theology you have no choice whatsoever; instead, you have been forced to, obviously against your own intentions, to think that you recognize that power and person love of God and the magnitude of the rescue.

What amazes me is the pure depth of arrogance and pride inherently expressed by those who think, in your theology, that they, above the mass of the rest of humanity, have been so chosen. The totally deceitful humility involved in claiming such a position is astounding.

 

[JIM]

Nonsense.

What is nonsense is the contrasting and sometimes contradicting views presented by individuals who think that they have been directly and personally enlightened by the Holy Spirit.

 

[JIM]

Huh? What baptism are you talking about? Surely not water baptism.

Clearly water baptism.

 

[JIM]

The teaching is explicit throughout.

Never explicit in any sense. It is always implicit in the mind of the misguided Calvinist.

 

[JIM]

It seems he just resorts to playing games once he is asked something which he knows he cannot prove with scripture.

There is no one who plays more games than the Calvinist with the implicit redefining of terms and interjecting concepts not in scripture.

 

[Red Baker]

It seems he just resorts to playing games once he is asked something which he knows he cannot prove with scripture.

I know Jim, he does not play games with the scriptures, he firmly believes that sins are forgiven through being baptized in water.

 

[Red Baker]

There is no one who plays more games than the Calvinist with the implicit redefining of terms and interjecting concepts not in scripture.

Jim that's not a fair statement. Even though I do not consider myself a Calvinist, since among Calvinism there are a few teachings I do not agree with, such as infant baptism and gospel means, etc., yet, I have found them the most God-fearing, sincere and honest people and the most advance teachers of the scriptures in my many years of serving God~I consider them my brothers and sister in the faith., I believe you do as well.

 

[JIM]

Let's look at one argument in Mark 16.
KJV :16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Now we all know (or most of us anyway) that this is verse not found in the earlier manuscripts, so it may be best not to make a doctrine of it, however, it is one passage that has been used for this argument. So, let's look at it.

If this verse teaches that no one should be baptized who has not believed, then it also clearly teaches that no one can be saved who has not believed. It's obvious, that logic demands such an answer. Yet, many a baptists would be the first to insist that infants who die before reaching the age of accountability are saved. Go figure.
These infants who die before the age of accountability, these infants have never believed; so the Baptist argument against infant baptism here does not hold.

It is obvious if one cares to look, at this argument (believers' baptism), the solution to the problem is simply the recognition of the fact this verse is clearly speaking only to those who are themselves capable of personal faith. If the verse allows for the salvation of infants without their believing, it certainly allows for their baptism.

Infants who die before the age of accountability do not need to be saved; these infants have never sinned. They have not yet sinned and are therefore not dead in trespasses and sins such that they need saving. It is only the believer in the false doctrine of Original Sin and the even worse doctrine of Total Depravity that thinks God would eternally condemn the unaccountable child. The unaccountable child is not lost, the unaccountable child is not a sinner.

And by the way, it does not teach that no one should be baptized who has not believed. It teaches nothing one way or the other about baptizing one who doesn't believe. It is not even a concept.

 

[JIM]

Jim that's not a fair statement. Even though I do not consider myself a Calvinist, since among Calvinism there are a few teachings I do not agree with, such as infant baptism and gospel means, etc., yet, I have found them the most God-fearing, sincere and honest people and the most advance teachers of the scriptures in my many years of serving God~I consider them my brothers and sister in the faith., I believe you do as well.

Red, I do not think that you are playing games. I think you sincerely believe what you teach and preach even though I think it is wrong. My statement was in direct response to being accused of playing games. If I am playing games, then so also is the one accusing me of it.

 

[JIM]

I know Jim, he does not play games with the scriptures, he firmly believes that sins are forgiven through being baptized in water.

Just a slight correction. I believe that sins are forgiven by grace through faith. I believe the instant when that happens to the repentant believer is in water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

 

[JIM]

Another point of consideration.

It's obvious that we have no way of knowing if infants are regenerate. God just does not give us the ability to check into the spiritual state of an infant. But no baptism is based upon our knowledge of anyone's spiritual state. This is true even of adults, is it not? Adults have fallen away from the faith, long after being baptized. Have they lost their salvation? Were they never saved, to begin with?

Just another fallacy arising from the heresy of Original Sin and Total Depravity. Of course, we know that infants are not regenerated. There is no need for them to be regenerated. They have committed no trespasses and sins in which they are dead and in need of being regenerated.

And I won't address the question of OSAS here now.

 

[Red Baker]

Let's look at one argument in Mark 16.
KJV :16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

I would love to consider Mark 16:16. But, let's briefly consider a couple of things you said.

Yet, many a baptists would be the first to insist that infants who die before reaching the age of accountability are saved. Go figure.

The is no such doctrine as the age of accountability, for all men were held accountable in Adam~and all received the same judgment. Romans 5:12-14; 1st Corinthians 15:22. A subject for another time, not now.

Now we all know (or most of us anyway) that this is verse not found in the earlier manuscripts, so it may be best not to make a doctrine of it,

Every scriptures we have in our English bible is inspired of God and part of the holy scriptures, if we cannot truth one part to be the inspired word of God, we cannot trust any of it. God has exalted his word above his name and has protected his word for his children from Moses until now from being corrupted~Psalm 12 is one of his promises to us concerning this. Enough on this for now.

Now, to Mark 16:16~I want to ask a few questions and then answer them.

Question#1~How does the scriptures used the word saved/save/salvation in the NT?

#2~Is it used in the same sense every time?

#3~When are we saved?

#4~Without adding our personal opinions~Base upon Mark 16:16, what condemns a person~not believing, not being baptized, or both?

#5~Base upon the Spirit's witness,~what is the evidence of one that is born of God, more than any other thing given in the scriptures?

#6~Are OT saints and NT saints born the same way?

The first question will be the one that I want to consider the most, since understanding the proper sense of the word as it is used in Mark 16:16, will determine who has the truth on this verse and who does not. It will take me the greater part of today to address this scripture, in the manner in which it should be addressed.

 

[Red Baker]

I believe we all will confess that all scriptures must flow in perfect harmony, or else, we have not arrived at its truth as far as what we are trying to understand, agree?

By my doctrine overall consider would make me a Baptist by others account, yet, I do not consider myself of any main stream line, just because the word Baptist is a misnomer, at yeast to me, since there are several different types of Baptist. And, besides, I have not been part of any Baptist churches for almost fifty years. That hardly qualifier's me being a Baptist, other than, I believe in immersion only, and I believe in once loved, always loved! Which is so much better than saying: once saved, always saved, since I do know that we as God's children can lose our practical salvation of peace, joy and fellowship~but never our sonship. But that's enough on that point.

I said that, to say this~Most folk who call themselves Baptist, have no clue whatsoever what Mark 16:16 means, and really do not care. They are very content using religion as a insurance policy to give them somewhat peace of mind concerning death when it comes. Many will be disappointed.

There are others of different faith, that reject water baptism as a means to enter into life, yet do not do interpret Jesus' words properly or even try, they are no different from the Baptist, they too, are very contend believing that their religion that they have chosen to fit their lifestyle should be enough to make God accept them in that day, if there is really a day of Judgment coming.

There are some who seem very sincere, yet try to make being baptized to mean something other than being baptized in water~yet, we know that they are in error as well, yet more so from just not being able to see the truth, that they seem to love. God is indeed very merciful and longsuffering to our ignorance, if we are at least sincere in seeking for truth, as we all have learned from past experience, at least, I have.

Question #2 above~"Is it used in the same sense every time?" The answer to this question is no, it (saved/save/salvation) is not used in the same sense throughout the scriptures. We must establish and prove this point, so that when we read such scriptures as Mark 16:16 then its meaning will become clear, base upon the scriptures overall considered. So many folk have a agenda, system, or a particular church that they want to defend instead of the truth of the scriptures~and when they come to such scriptures as Mark 16:16, then their agenda, system, or church, has more of a drawing power, than a love for the truth of the scriptures, which are God's testimony concerning truth. We should only be concern with pleasing God, not ourselves, or anyone or anything, be that it may.

Question #1~"How does the scriptures used the word saved/save/salvation in the NT?" Is it used only in being saved from sin and condemnation to being saved to eternal life?

It is used in that sense, but to many surprise, very little. Yet, when people hear of being saved, whether or not they know any truth, their minds can only think of being saved from "hell fire". They cannot even consider anything else, that's just how shadow our society is! They spend their precious time in doing useless things that cannot profit their souls. How sad, but very true.

Let us look at many scriptures and see how the Spirit use the words save/saved/salvation and so that when we read the scriptures, we can read them with understanding.