Circumcision? Baptism? Difference?

[Rella]

But per Baptist theology, infants are not part of the Body of Christ spiritually until born again, so the infant getting wet would not alter that fact

I undestand.

But Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Methodists baby baptise. That is a lot of reformed protestants who do what is said to be a nono

I wont go into the RCCs practices but

Presbyterians practice infant baptism, believing it signifies the inclusion of children of believers in God's covenant community, similar to how infants were circumcised in the Old Testament. This practice is based on the belief that baptism is a sign of grace and covenant membership, not solely dependent on personal faith.

Lutherans do baptize babies, believing that baptism is a means of grace that brings infants into the Christian faith and community. They view it as God's work rather than a decision made by the child, emphasizing the importance of nurturing the child's faith through the church and family.

United Methodists practice infant baptism as a sacrament that signifies God's grace and inclusion of children in the church community. This tradition is rooted in biblical teachings and emphasizes the church's responsibility to nurture the faith of children from an early age.

In addition to Lutherans, Methodists, and Presbyterians, other Christian denominations that practice infant baptism include the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches, and Anglican/Episcopal churches. These groups believe that baptizing infants is a way to initiate them into the Christian faith and include them in the covenant community.

Until about 12 or 13 years ago I had no idea it was a problem.... Then I joined a forum and got my ears pinned back.

I will never again repeat those few years following when I sought for an adult immersion and was denied by the church of Christ after then
met with us in our living room.

But looka t how many people world wide have no clue because for some reason not on single church that is against it ever comes out in the open and says it is wrong and this is why.......

And still no one will offer an opinion of what happens when Stephanus, and Crispus, and the Jailer, and Lydia and Cornelius were baptized and their complete households. These baptisms involved the entire household of each individual mentioned. And I have read that back in the day a household could include extended family, servants, and even slaves.

But NO CHILDREN were there were they? So I keep asking what did they do with the children. Especially the infants for if they brought in
a babysitter, what has been written is that that one would have been included and I never read that anyone was included.... so they must have taken the kids and babies to the neighbors.....

It is the incompleteness of things like this that bother me because it has created quite a forum stir on all forums I have been on yet no one will offer a suggestion... and no historian every wrote about it.

But I shall finish with this piece of trivia or two I bet no one here is aware of.

Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John.

Polycarp is believed to have been baptized as an infant, as early Christian tradition supports the practice of infant baptism. This view is reinforced by references from early church figures who were contemporaries or successors of Polycarp, indicating that infant baptism was a common practice in the early church.

So surly being John's disciple he would have known what was expected.... at least I think he should have.

ca. 185 A.D., Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, disciple of Saint Polycarp of Smyrna, Against Heresies
— Infant Baptism; born again through Baptism; remission of sins —
2:22:4 [Jesus] came to save all through Himself,—all, I say, who through Him are reborn in God—infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore He passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age … .

ca. 245 A.D., Origen, disciple of Saint Clement of Alexandria, Homilies on Romans
— Trinitarian formula —
5:8 Perhaps you may inquire even into this: why, when the Lord Himself told His disciples that they should baptize all peoples in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19), does this Apostle employ the name of Christ alone in Baptism, saying, “We who have been baptized in Christ” (Rom. 6:3); for indeed, legitimate Baptism is had only in the name of the Trinity.

— Infant Baptism; remission of sins —
5:9 The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.


Search Assist
In addition to Polycarp, early church figures such as Irenaeus and Justin Martyr mentioned the practice of infant baptism. Historical references indicate that the practice was recognized and supported by church leaders like Origen and Cyprian as well.

Catholic Answers

wolfmueller.co​

Historical Evidence of Infant Baptism​

Early Church Figures​

Several early church figures and historians provide evidence of the practice of infant baptism:

Justin Martyr	100-166 AD	Mentioned baptism as a new circumcision, implying inclusion of infants.
Irenaeus	130-200 AD	Stated that Jesus came to save all, including infants.
Origen	185-254 AD	Wrote that infants are baptized for the remission of sins.
Cyprian	215-258 AD	Argued against delaying baptism for infants, advocating immediate baptism.
Hippolytus	170-236 AD	Instructed to baptize children, allowing parents to speak for them.

[th]
Name

[/th][th]
Time Period

[/th][th]
Evidence of Infant Baptism

[/th]

Additional References​

• Council of Carthage (254 AD): Affirmed that infants should not be hindered from baptism.
• Augustine (354-430 AD): Supported the practice, stating it was a tradition from the Apostles.

These figures and councils reflect a consistent early church practice of baptizing infants, indicating that it was a widely accepted tradition in early Christianity.

 

[Carbon]

To those who baptize infants...
When an infant is baptized....does it have to be immersion to count?

Immersion is not a requirement in baptism

 

[Carbon]

But per Baptist theology, infants are not part of the Body of Christ spiritually until born again, so the infant getting wet would not alter that fact

Infants of believing parents have as much right to baptism under the NC as infants did in circumcision under the OC

 

[Carbon]

The entry in tto Body of Christ and into the NC would be faith in Jesus, not water baptism

Ha, the way you blend them both together is interesting.
Are you really teaching that one must have faith to be able to enter the NC?
What you are doing also is pushing children of believing parents away from the church (body of Christ)

 

[Carbon]

Ha, the way you blend them both together is interesting.
Are you really teaching that one must have faith to be able to enter the NC?
What you are doing also is pushing children of believing parents away from the church (body of Christ)

@JesusFan
And by the way, “baptismal regeneration” is not supported in scripture. I believe you agree? Just wanted to be sure you know where I’m coming from also.

 

[Carbon]

Under the NC, the stated principle was that its administered to those who had believed and received Jesus as Savior and Lord , as that was outward sign testimonial had already received salvation and was in the NC now

under the NC states it’s only administered to those who had believed and received Jesus?
Who gave you the authority to make such statements? Present scripture proof or admit you made that up.

Now we realize new converts (adults) are to be baptized, but you seem to be making it doctrine that only those who are adults and believe should be baptized. Without proof

 

[fastfredy0]

When an infant is baptized....does it have to be immersion to count?

Assuming one believes in the "age of accountability" ... then any immersion over 2 minutes insures salvation.

 

[Arial]

Infants of believing parents have as much right to baptism under the NC as infants did in circumcision under the OC

I agree. I am going to add my two cents here of what may be a contributing factor to the debate over infant baptism in the post-modern world. I realize that debate arose long before, even in the times of the Reformation. So, I don't know what the theological reasoning and objection was to infant baptism as I have not studied it.

The reasoning today comes as a result of the altar call and the conversion of an individual being connected to an invitational prayer. Say the prayer, you are now a believer, get baptized.

That was not the way in bygone eras. The baptism of infants was in accordance with the Bible's connecting covenant with circumcision. It included infants into the covenant community and under covenant (new covenant) provision and protection by God---but not a substitute for faith. It was understood and practiced that covenant parents and the church itself, would teach that child biblical truths. In place of adult baptism, was the confirmation at an age where the child is able to comprehend the things that have been taught and agree with them (believe). The confirmation itself did not guarantee salvation, any more than adult baptism does. Only God can see a heart and only he can change a heart.

 

[Carbon]

I agree. I am going to add my two cents here of what may be a contributing factor to the debate over infant baptism in the post-modern world. I realize that debate arose long before, even in the times of the Reformation. So, I don't know what the theological reasoning and objection was to infant baptism as I have not studied it.

The reasoning today comes as a result of the altar call and the conversion of an individual being connected to an invitational prayer. Say the prayer, you are now a believer, get baptized.

That was not the way in bygone eras. The baptism of infants was in accordance with the Bible's connecting faith with circumcision. It included infants into the covenant community and under covenant (new covenant) provision and protection by God---but not a substitute for faith. It was understood and practiced that covenant parents and the church itself, would teach that child biblical truths. In place of adult baptism, was the confirmation at an age where the child is able to comprehend the things that have been taught and agree with them (believe). The confirmation itself did not guarantee salvation, any more than adult baptism does. Only God can see a heart and only he can change a heart.

I think you nailed it!

Amen!

 

[CrowCross]

Immersion is not a requirement in baptism

Where does the bible teach how to be baptized?

I ask because I never see how to do it talked about in the bible.

 

[Carbon]

Where does the bible teach how to be baptized?

I cannot recall anywhere where the Bible teaches how to perform it

I ask because I never see how to do it talked about in the bible.

 

[Carbon]

I cannot recall anywhere where the Bible teaches how to perform it

@CrowCross

At least not a specific way.

 

[JesusFan]

I undestand.

But Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Methodists baby baptise. That is a lot of reformed protestants who do what is said to be a nono

I wont go into the RCCs practices but

Presbyterians practice infant baptism, believing it signifies the inclusion of children of believers in God's covenant community, similar to how infants were circumcised in the Old Testament. This practice is based on the belief that baptism is a sign of grace and covenant membership, not solely dependent on personal faith.

Lutherans do baptize babies, believing that baptism is a means of grace that brings infants into the Christian faith and community. They view it as God's work rather than a decision made by the child, emphasizing the importance of nurturing the child's faith through the church and family.

United Methodists practice infant baptism as a sacrament that signifies God's grace and inclusion of children in the church community. This tradition is rooted in biblical teachings and emphasizes the church's responsibility to nurture the faith of children from an early age.

In addition to Lutherans, Methodists, and Presbyterians, other Christian denominations that practice infant baptism include the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches, and Anglican/Episcopal churches. These groups believe that baptizing infants is a way to initiate them into the Christian faith and include them in the covenant community.

Until about 12 or 13 years ago I had no idea it was a problem.... Then I joined a forum and got my ears pinned back.

I will never again repeat those few years following when I sought for an adult immersion and was denied by the church of Christ after then
met with us in our living room.

But looka t how many people world wide have no clue because for some reason not on single church that is against it ever comes out in the open and says it is wrong and this is why.......

And still no one will offer an opinion of what happens when Stephanus, and Crispus, and the Jailer, and Lydia and Cornelius were baptized and their complete households. These baptisms involved the entire household of each individual mentioned. And I have read that back in the day a household could include extended family, servants, and even slaves.

But NO CHILDREN were there were they? So I keep asking what did they do with the children. Especially the infants for if they brought in
a babysitter, what has been written is that that one would have been included and I never read that anyone was included.... so they must have taken the kids and babies to the neighbors.....

It is the incompleteness of things like this that bother me because it has created quite a forum stir on all forums I have been on yet no one will offer a suggestion... and no historian every wrote about it.

But I shall finish with this piece of trivia or two I bet no one here is aware of.

Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John.

Polycarp is believed to have been baptized as an infant, as early Christian tradition supports the practice of infant baptism. This view is reinforced by references from early church figures who were contemporaries or successors of Polycarp, indicating that infant baptism was a common practice in the early church.

So surly being John's disciple he would have known what was expected.... at least I think he should have.

ca. 185 A.D., Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, disciple of Saint Polycarp of Smyrna, Against Heresies
— Infant Baptism; born again through Baptism; remission of sins —
2:22:4 [Jesus] came to save all through Himself,—all, I say, who through Him are reborn in God—infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore He passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age … .

ca. 245 A.D., Origen, disciple of Saint Clement of Alexandria, Homilies on Romans
— Trinitarian formula —
5:8 Perhaps you may inquire even into this: why, when the Lord Himself told His disciples that they should baptize all peoples in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19), does this Apostle employ the name of Christ alone in Baptism, saying, “We who have been baptized in Christ” (Rom. 6:3); for indeed, legitimate Baptism is had only in the name of the Trinity.

— Infant Baptism; remission of sins —
5:9 The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.


Search Assist
In addition to Polycarp, early church figures such as Irenaeus and Justin Martyr mentioned the practice of infant baptism. Historical references indicate that the practice was recognized and supported by church leaders like Origen and Cyprian as well.

Catholic Answers

wolfmueller.co​

Historical Evidence of Infant Baptism​

Early Church Figures​

Several early church figures and historians provide evidence of the practice of infant baptism:

Justin Martyr	100-166 AD	Mentioned baptism as a new circumcision, implying inclusion of infants.
Irenaeus	130-200 AD	Stated that Jesus came to save all, including infants.
Origen	185-254 AD	Wrote that infants are baptized for the remission of sins.
Cyprian	215-258 AD	Argued against delaying baptism for infants, advocating immediate baptism.
Hippolytus	170-236 AD	Instructed to baptize children, allowing parents to speak for them.

[th]
Name

[/th][th]
Time Period

[/th][th]
Evidence of Infant Baptism

[/th]

Additional References​

• Council of Carthage (254 AD): Affirmed that infants should not be hindered from baptism.
• Augustine (354-430 AD): Supported the practice, stating it was a tradition from the Apostles.

These figures and councils reflect a consistent early church practice of baptizing infants, indicating that it was a widely accepted tradition in early Christianity.

I am not seeing this as a dividing issue, but would suggest also that if we take into account JUST inspired apostolic teachings in the inspired sacred scriptures, would seem to support Believers water Baptism , as infant mode would be forcing upon it either the theology of identifying circumcision corresponding to water baptism, or else by impose upon text the Covenant view of the OT "community of faith"

 

[Eleanor]

. . .

 

[JesusFan]

Infants of believing parents have as much right to baptism under the NC as infants did in circumcision under the OC

Is water baptism seen then to be the entry way into the Kingdom, or as saving them, washing away original sin, giving to them the Holy Spirit, or exactly what spiritual blessings to the babe?

 

[JesusFan]

Ha, the way you blend them both together is interesting.
Are you really teaching that one must have faith to be able to enter the NC?
What you are doing also is pushing children of believing parents away from the church (body of Christ)

Yes, to be actual in the Body of Christ and found to be now in Jesus, one must receive him thru faith

 

[JesusFan]

@JesusFan
And by the way, “baptismal regeneration” is not supported in scripture. I believe you agree? Just wanted to be sure you know where I’m coming from also.

I would see that view as being heretical

 

[JesusFan]

under the NC states it’s only administered to those who had believed and received Jesus?
Who gave you the authority to make such statements? Present scripture proof or admit you made that up.

Now we realize new converts (adults) are to be baptized, but you seem to be making it doctrine that only those who are adults and believe should be baptized. Without proof

The spiritual blessings granted to us by now being found in Christ comes thru saving faith in Him, not thru the water baptism , and the Great Commission is directed to making disciples and baptizing them in the blessed Trinity, and its hard to disciple babies

 

[CrowCross]

I cannot recall anywhere where the Bible teaches how to perform it

That's one way of several that I know baptism isn't a requirement for salvation. If baptism was a requirement for salvation the bible certainly would have had a chapter or two explaining it.

 

[JesusFan]

I agree. I am going to add my two cents here of what may be a contributing factor to the debate over infant baptism in the post-modern world. I realize that debate arose long before, even in the times of the Reformation. So, I don't know what the theological reasoning and objection was to infant baptism as I have not studied it.

The reasoning today comes as a result of the altar call and the conversion of an individual being connected to an invitational prayer. Say the prayer, you are now a believer, get baptized.

That was not the way in bygone eras. The baptism of infants was in accordance with the Bible's connecting faith with circumcision. It included infants into the covenant community and under covenant (new covenant) provision and protection by God---but not a substitute for faith. It was understood and practiced that covenant parents and the church itself, would teach that child biblical truths. In place of adult baptism, was the confirmation at an age where the child is able to comprehend the things that have been taught and agree with them (believe). The confirmation itself did not guarantee salvation, any more than adult baptism does. Only God can see a heart and only he can change a heart.

We Baptists do not see that though as included in infant water baptism, as we hold to baby dedication, pledging before God and Assembly to raise and nurture them up in the fear and admonition of the Lord. My inquiry is that I just do not see any spiritual difference between babies sprinkled with water or being dedicated