Infant Baptism is not given in scripture.

[Mr GLee]

Need to see and comprehend what Christ said...
Matthew 3:15
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.

Yes it is a ceremonial shadow a baptism a sign to the unbelieving word not to their own dying flesh.

Aaron two sons added to it, they were consumed. It was is called strange fire (adding to the word )

Not a sign someone has repented .There is no outward sign.. . .to include one reads the Bible

.

 

[Carbon]

Yes it is a ceremonial shadow a baptism a sign to the unbelieving word not to their own dying flesh.

Aaron two sons added to it, they were consumed. It was is called strange fire (adding to the word )

Not a sign someone has repented .There is no outward sign.. . .to include one reads the Bible

.

I think you do not understand biblical doctrine. Baptism does not regenerate. There is no fear of someone getting saved by accidentally being baptized. It's the New Covenant, Jesus ushered in baptism and the Lord's supper. There is no longer circumcision. Study these things.

 

[Mr GLee]

I think you do not understand biblical doctrine. Baptism does not regenerate. There is no fear of someone getting saved by accidentally being baptized. It's the New Covenant, Jesus ushered in baptism and the Lord's supper. There is no longer circumcision. Study these things.

I agree it does not regenerate .No ceremonial law as a shadow does

 

[Carbon]

You see @Hobie It wasn't only the Anabaptists who opposed infant baptism it was also the Mennonites. They believed one had to be born again to qualify for baptism. Baptists also rejected it because in their view only baptism subsequent to the profession of faith and through immersion was in line with the bible. Plus there were others who opposed infant baptism also who said it should be by personal decision etc...
Also, with the increase of the Pentecostal movement brought with it the increased doubt about infant baptism.

Some theologians disagreed also. Barth is the most prominent opponent of infant baptism. He became more and more critical of it. Hre even though the church should revisit the question of whether the baptism of children was even justified. Barth did not want to promote the idea of rebaptism either. So he eventually ceased to see baptism as a sacrament, for he no longer saw an act of God in it. But instead an act of man, a human response to what God has achieved in Jesus Christ. This did not simply invalidate infant baptism but made it highly questionable.
Concise Reformed Dogmatics.
J. Van Gerderen
W.H. Velema

 

[Carbon]

Grounds for infant baptism

Our confession gives an unambiguous reply to the question of whether infants ought to be baptized or not. Lord's Day 27 of the Heidelberg Catechism refers to the covenant and God's promise. Infant baptism indeed stands or falls with this perspective.

Lord's Day 27​

Topics: Baptism, Christ, Holy Spirit, Blood, Forgiveness, Infant Baptism, Covenant, Church

72.	Q.	Does this outward washing with water itself wash away sins?​
A.	No, only the blood of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit cleanse us from all sins. 1
	1.Mt 3:11; 1 Pet 3:21; 1 Jn 1:7.

73.	Q.	Why then does the Holy Spirit call baptism the washing of regeneration and the washing away of sins?​
A.	God speaks in this way for a good reason. He wants to teach us that the blood and Spirit of Christ remove our sins just as water takes away dirt from the body. 1 But, even more important, he wants to assure us by this divine pledge and sign that we are as truly cleansed from our sins spiritually as we are bodily washed with water. 2
	1.1 Cor 6:11; Rev 1:5; 7:14. 2.Mk 16:16; Acts 2:38; Rom 6:3, 4; Gal 3:27.

74.	Q.	Should infants, too, be baptized?​
A.	Yes. Infants as well as adults belong to God's covenant and congregation. 1 Through Christ's blood the redemption from sin and the Holy Spirit, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to adults. 2 Therefore, by baptism, as sign of the covenant, they must be incorporated into the Christian church and distinguished from the children of unbelievers. 3 This was done in the old covenant by circumcision, 4 in place of which baptism was instituted in the new covenant. 5
	1.Gen 17:7; Mt 19:14. 2.Ps 22:10; Is 44:1-3; Acts 2:38, 39; 16:31. 3.Acts 10:47; 1 Cor 7:14. 4.Gen 17:9-14. 5.Col 2:11-13.

 

[Carbon]

I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations as an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. Genesis 17:7.

God established His covenant with believers and their children.

 

[Carbon]

I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations as an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. Genesis 17:7.

God established His covenant with believers and their children.

He confirmed the promises and demands of the covenant with a sign and a seal. Under the old dispensation, this was circumcision and now it is baptism. Under the new dispensation of the covenant it continues to hold: For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far away, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” Acts 2:39.

It is not intended to be a restriction but indicates that the circle of the covenant will now be much wider.

 

[atpollard]

He confirmed the promises and demands of the covenant with a sign and a seal. Under the old dispensation, this was circumcision and now it is baptism. Under the new dispensation of the covenant it continues to hold: For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far away, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” Acts 2:39.

It is not intended to be a restriction but indicates that the circle of the covenant will now be much wider.

So the infant is part of the COMMUNITY ... part of the BODY ... presumed In Christ ... entitled to vote on Church matters?

Which is it? Are they part of the CHURCH, or not?

 

[atpollard]

It is? Where?

Baptism by immersion comes from the actual word ... it means TO PLUNGE UNDER. There is a word for "sprinkle" but "baptizo" is not it.

 

[Carbon]

So the infant is part of the COMMUNITY ... part of the BODY ... presumed In Christ ... entitled to vote on Church matters?

Which is it? Are they part of the CHURCH, or not?

You do get types and shadows?
Were the Jewish babies entitled to voting and ceremonial laws as the adults? Were they part of the nation or not?

 

[Carbon]

@atpollard
Hey brother
Also to my understanding there is only one body of Christ. The church; which is also spiritual Israel. To the old was introduced circumcision. Which symbolizes the cutting away of the flesh. Which is pretty much the same for baptism. Is it not,

Christ ushered in a New and better covenant. He introduced to sacraments. Baptism and the Lords Supper. Still the same church. Same body.

 

[Mr GLee]

Baptism by immersion comes from the actual word ... it means TO PLUNGE UNDER. There is a word for "sprinkle" but "baptizo" is not it.

It mean to wash with the water of the word, the Holy Spirit of Christ our husband . Christ washes his bride the church with doctrine that fall like rain .Water H20 baptism ceremonial gospel showtime as a shadow to the whole world

Ephesians 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

 

[CrowCross]

It is? Where?

Where do you get this from? Scripture? Where?

It is? Where in scripture does it teach baptism is a public statement, and thats what it's all about?

Ok, from where then? Please give the answer.

Who said an infant can? Why does an infant have to?

Before you go any further, you have a lot of work to do to back up your (as far as I am concerned) false accusations. Show the evidence.

So, that is what "you" have found and obviously accepted and now agree with? So, it's basically your opinion.

Still no proof.

Are you an anabaptist?

I understand your point as there is no chapter in the bible that tells us how to be baptized.
But, the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 seems to have been fully immersed.

There is also no instance in the bible where an infant is baptized.

 

[Carbon]

I understand your point as there is no chapter in the bible that tells us how to be baptized.
But, the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 seems to have been fully immersed.

Seems to have been?
Seems isn’t proof. Therefore, why make it doctrine.

There is also no instance in the bible where an infant is baptized.

Well, when it says whole households were baptized, it’s difficult to reject an infant if there is no biblical proof against it.

Besides that. There is much writing about it through the history of the church in the 1st 2end 3erd centuries

 

[CrowCross]

Seems to have been?
Seems isn’t proof. Therefore, why make it doctrine.

The bible tells us the Eunuch came out of the water...which could mean he was submerged or left the pool of water.

39 And when they came up out of the water,...

 

[David1701]

I understand your point as there is no chapter in the bible that tells us how to be baptized.
But, the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 seems to have been fully immersed.

There is also no instance in the bible where an infant is baptized.

Actually, the Greek word often transliterated (not translated) as "baptism", means "immersion", which is a proper translation of the word. We are also told, in Acts 8:37 (at least, in Bibles that have not excised that verse) that a profession of faith in Jesus Christ is necessary, in order to be baptised; clearly, infants cannot do this.

The infant-sprinklers often point to OT circumcision and say that that was done to infants (well, male infants); but, entry to the Old Covenant people was by natural birth (and a few proselytes); whereas, entry to the New Covenant is by spiritual rebirth; so, "infants" in the faith (new believers) should indeed be immersed.

 

[CrowCross]

Actually, the Greek word often transliterated (not translated) as "baptism", means "immersion", which is a proper translation of the word. We are also told, in Acts 8:37 (at least, in Bibles that have not excised that verse) that a profession of faith in Jesus Christ is necessary, in order to be baptised; clearly, infants cannot do this.

The infant-sprinklers often point to OT circumcision and say that that was done to infants (well, male infants); but, entry to the Old Covenant people was by natural birth (and a few proselytes); whereas, entry to the New Covenant is by spiritual rebirth; so, "infants" in the faith (new believers) should indeed be immersed.

I believe baptism is best described as full immersion associating the immersion and coming up out of the water with Christ death, burial and resurrection.

When it comes to babies I know the Presbyterians "sprinkle" as a way of associating it with circumcision. Like the baptist, this is also a form of dedication.

 

[Carbon]

The bible tells us the Eunuch came out of the water...which could mean he was submerged or left the pool of water.

39 And when they came up out of the water,...

Very well can mean, he left the pool of water,

 

[CrowCross]

Very well can mean, he left the pool of water,

It could mean that....but as David1701 pointed out baptism means immersion.

One video I watched tried to make the case Philip baptized himself also as the bible says "39 When they came up out of the water,"

 

[atpollard]

You do get types and shadows?
Were the Jewish babies entitled to voting and ceremonial laws as the adults? Were they part of the nation or not?

I do get "types and shadows".

Moses was a TYPE and SHADOW pointing to Christ. A better one would be the lifting of the Bronze Serpent on a pole in Exodus or the story of the PASSOVER LAMB.

My question to you is:
Are you attempting to place NEW WINE into Old Wineskins (that will burst under the strain)?

I really enjoy and respect COVENANT THEOLOGY ... I simply disagree with it.
Thus each must answer to his own master for his own conscience.
YOU a "Presbyterian" (or whatever) and ME a "Particular Baptist".