Thread: Infant Baptism -- Is It Scriptural? Part One
Admin
Infant Baptism -- Is It Scriptural? Part One
Posted : 29 Aug, 2011 09:38 PM
�The Old Testament Points to The New Testament�
We Christians have heard this (or some form of it) many times, because there are many Instances where something in The Old Testament does Point to its Type in The New Testament and there are more still being Revealed to us.
Baptizing of Infants is one them.
In The Old Testament Babies (Infants) were Circumcised when they became eight days old as the way of entering into the Old Covenant.
Genesis 17:12
New International Version (NIV)
12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner�those who are not your offspring.
Notice the Command ��including those born in your household��. It seems that EVERYONE in your HOUSEHOLD that was Male ��must be circumcised,��. Remember this�it is Important�as you will see later.
Leviticus 12:3
New International Version (NIV)
3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised.
For some reason God Chose the Eight Day
Baptism is the �New Circumcision" for All People of the New Covenant.
Colossians 2:11-12
New International Version (NIV)
11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh[a] was put off when you were circumcised by[b] Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
So�Baptism is The �New Circumcision� and that is why Infants are Baptized and have ALWAYS been Baptized since the Beginning of The Church.
Man that is �Born of Woman� is full of Trouble and is Unclean. Baptism is required for all human beings because of our Sinful Nature (Original Sin).
Job 14:1-4
New International Version (NIV)
1 �Mortals, born of woman,
are of few days and full of trouble.
2 They spring up like flowers and wither away;
like fleeting shadows, they do not endure.
3 Do you fix your eye on them?
Will you bring them[a] before you for judgment?
4 Who can bring what is pure from the impure?
No one!
We are Born �Dead in Sin� and in Need of being �Reborn Again� (Born Again) before we can Respond to God�s Word. We are Conceived in the Iniquity of Sin...All of us�not One is Born without Sin.
Psalm 51:5
New International Version (NIV)
5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
This shows the necessity of Baptism from conception. Therefore, Baptism is for Babies as well as for Adults.
God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, Infants and Adults.
Jesus says unless we become �Like Children�, we cannot Enter into Heaven. So why would Children be Excluded from Baptism?
Matthew 18:2-5
New International Version (NIV)
2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: �Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.
Jesus Clearly says The Kingdom of Heaven also belongs to Children. There is no �Age Limit� on entering the Kingdom, and no �Age Limit� for being eligible for Baptism.`
Matthew 19:14
New International Version (NIV)
14 Jesus said, �Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.�
Jesus says to let the Children come to Him for the Kingdom of God also belongs to them. Jesus says nothing about being �Too Young� to come into the Kingdom of God.
Mark 10:14
New International Version (NIV)
14 When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, �Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.
Jesus says, �Let the children come to me,...�. The people brought Infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This Demonstrates that the �Receipt of Grace� is not Dependent upon the �Age of Reason�.
Luke 18:15-17
New International Version (NIV)
The Little Children and Jesus
15 People were also bringing babies to Jesus for him to place his hands on them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, �Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.�
Peter says to the multitude, "Repent and be baptized...". Some Christians use this verse to prove one must be a Believer (not an Infant) to be Baptized. But the Greek translation Literally says,
"If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized�
Greek (�Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.�)
This, Contrary to what some Christians argue, actually proves that Babies are Baptized based on their �Parent�s Faith�. This is Confirmed in the next verse.
Acts 2:38-39
New International Version (NIV)
38 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. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off�for all whom the Lord our God will call.�
The Key Words here are
��for you and your children and for all who are far off��
Peter says Baptism is Specifically given to Children as well as Adults.
��Those far off�� refers to those who were at their �homes� (primarily Infants and Children). God's �Covenant Family� includes Children. The word "Children" that Peter used comes from the Greek word "teknon" which also includes Infants.
The Church has Baptized Infants since �Day One� as Instructed by Christ Himself
I have much More Scripture to Show that Infant Baptism is Scriptural�but I do not want to Overwhelm and so I will Post on another Thread.
aaawwww, Arch you have become as James, taking scriptures to try and make them fit your church doctrine... there is NOT ONE SCRIPTURE in the Old or New Testament wherein a BABY is baptized. And this INCLUDE JESUS!... or any other child that was born including Samuel, and the Bible give us clear account of Jesus' birth as well as Samuels and other births, and when the boy children were circumcised on the eight day, but baptism is not mentioned in one scripture has NOT ONE THING to do with circumcism... sorry!
The Bible tells us that on the eight day, Mary and Joseph took Jesus to the temple to be BLESSED by Simeon the priest and Ana the prophetess, and they prophecied over him, and Mary and Joseph offered up their sacrifice offerings to God that were required by the Mosaic law, but NO WHERE are we told that Jesus was baotized as a baby.
We are told that Jesus was first baptised at the age of 33 years old by John. Therefore, if this what your church teaches was biblical and of God, surely, Jesus being our supereme example God would have made sure it was written along with everything else He wanted us to know.
The scriptures you use to jsutify baptizing a baby are indeed off course biblically.
First a baby has no sins when they are born, just as you and I had no sins. God did not impute Adam sins IN US. but he imputed Adam's sin of disobedience TO US, which means we are NOT responsible for Adam's sin, but we have it charged to our account and is in our NATURE TO SIN.... pre-desposition.
Just as if both parents might have diabetes or alcoholics or a history of drugs or cancer or other diseases, a child born has possibilities. HOWEVER, if the child grows up and with proper diet, there is also the possibility that the child WILL NOT have diabetes, or become an alcohlic, or have cancer or whatever...
We are born in sin a sinful world, and have a sin nature to sin.Adam is the father of the human race, so we have the
sin nature, possibilities of sinning because it is in our natural birth genes (not Calvin kline jeans) lol...that as we grow up from children we will sin... but a child is innocent until such time the child knows right from wrong... this is why God commands us to write His word on the foreheads of our chldren, as Hannan did when she carried Samuel, and he grew up loving the love with all his heart, mind, souls and spirit... we DO NOT take on our parents sins, nor does God pass them on to us this is Bible as recorded in Ezekiel chapter 18. And when Jesus came He broke the sin curse with His death on the cross, and has imputed His righteousness ot our account, so what sins does a baby have?
C'mon man, now you've gotta do better than this or else get your penny jar ready to buy lunch:eat::laugh:
You Discount what The Early did if you cannot find it in Scripture�such as Infant Baptism. You say I don�t care how long they�ve done it�because it is not in Scripture. That makes you a Hypocrite�because She was The Church that Gave you The New Testament! She was The Church that Decided what was or was not Inspired by God!
Do you think that this Same Church�that Christ Created�that Christ Empowered�that Christ Entrusted with The Full Deposit of FAITH�is going to do something that Christ
�Told Her Not to do�?
or do you think that She will do what Christ
�Told Her to do�?
The Church was just Beginning when The New Testament was being Written. Concepts like �The Trinity� or �The Nature of Christ� or �Original Sin� and others were not yet Defined.
The Authors of The New Testament did not Write about certain things because it was either commonplace and understood by all Christians or the Concept did not come up such as The Trinity.
Infants were being Baptized�there is no reason as to why they would not be and there is nothing in Scripture that says it was forbidden. If you read the Threads the Scriptures pertaining to this are there.
There are several Scripture Verses that Speak of �Whole Households� being Baptized. While it does not say that Infants �Were In� those households�it does not say that they �Were Not In� those households.
Acts 10:47-48 Peter Baptized the �Entire Household� of Cornelius.
Acts 16:15 - Paul Baptized Lydia and her �Entire Household�. The word "household" comes from the Greek word "Oikos" which is a household that includes infants and children.
Acts 16:33 - Paul Baptized the Jailer (an Adult) and his �Entire Household� (which had to include Children)
1 Cor. 1:16 - Paul Baptized the Household ("Oikos") of Stephanus
The Concept of �Age of Reasoning� is a New One started recently. Where in Scripture does it say that you have to be of a certain age to be Baptized.
I gave you Scripture stating my points. Would you think it fair for you to Dispute me�by using Scripture? Where are your Verses?
This essay is intended to set forth a biblical and coherent case for infant baptism, beginning with an understanding of roots in the Old Testament practice of circumcision and its parallels with a theology of baptism. This issue is not an issue for which proof-texts can be cited and then the issue decided. In many ways, the debate rests on (1) the matter of burden of proof and (2) which underlying theology best explains all Biblical passages. It will be argued that the theology behind infant baptism best expresses the Biblical passages that address the subject. Furthermore, it will be argued that the issue of �burden of proof� ought to rest on those who would seek to overturn the structures of the Old Covenant. It is my opinion that there is enough evidence in the New Testament for the Church to practice infant baptism.
Old Testament Background
The Structure of Old Testament Covenants
Old Testament covenants follow a pattern that is very similar to treaty documents and royal annals found in the Ancient Near East in the second millennium B.C. When a suzerain (king) captured or threatened to capture another state, the suzerain would many times offer a treaty to the king of that state. If the treaty was accepted, that state would become a vassal to the suzerain. In this case, stipulations would be given as to how the vassal state would serve the suzerain. Usually, there was a tribute and loyalty to be given to the suzerain in exchange for protection from enemies. A list of sanctions would be given to determine what would happen in the case of covenant fidelity or infidelity. If the vassal state was loyal to the suzerain and the stipulations of the covenant, that state would receive blessings, including protection from enemies, etc. If the vassal state was disloyal to the suzerain and the stipulations of the covenant, that state would receive curses, including the possibility of invasion and destruction of the vassal state.
In Ancient Israel, Yahweh was the great Suzerain and Israel was the vassal state. After God redeemed her from slavery in Egypt, Israel became a vassal state to Yahweh (Deut. 5:6ff). Stipulations were therefore given to set out exactly how Israel was to loyal to her suzerain (Deut. 5�26). Sanctions were also set down to explain the blessings and curses that Israel would receive for her covenant fidelity or infidelity (Deut. 27�30). If Israel obeyed the stipulations of the covenant, she would be allowed to remain in the land of Israel and would be protected from her enemies (Deut. 30:15-16, 18-20). If Israel disobeyed, she would eventually be exiled from the land of Israel (Deut. 30:1-2, 17-18). All this is not to say that in the Old Testament the Israelites received salvation because of their works. On the contrary, salvation was a promise given to them to be accepted by faith (Gen. 12:1-3; 15:1-6). Rather, the Mosaic covenant had to do with whether or not the Israelites would keep the privilege of living in the land of Israel, not whether or not they were saved.
One dynamic that is consistent throughout all the Old Testament covenants (as well as the treaty documents and royal annals of the ancient near east[1]) is that these covenants extended to the children of believers. This can be demonstrated by a brief perusal of the passages dealing with the various covenants of the Old Testament:
� Adam: In Genesis 1:28, God commanded Adam, �be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it�� Part of the way God structured the covenant with Adam was the command for Adam to produce offspring. Also, in Rom. 5:12-21, Paul contrasts Adam and Christ. Sin and death entered the world through Adam, salvation and life come through Christ. What is implicit in this passage (particularly in verse 12) is that it is the descendents of Adam were effected by his disobedience.
� Noah: In Genesis 9:1, God reiterated the same command He had previously given to Adam in Gen. 1:28, �Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.� Also, in Gen. 9:8-9, God clearly states that He is going to establish a covenant with Noah and his descendents.
� Abraham: In Gen. 15:18, God says that it is to Abraham�s descendents that he has given the land. In Gen. 17:1-4, God says that part of the covenant between God and Abraham was that He would multiply Abraham exceedingly. In Gen. 17:7, God explicitly states that the covenant is an everlasting covenant between God, Abraham, and his descendents.
� Moses: In Deut. 29:10-15, God states that the covenant extends to the �little ones,� and �wives.� Deut. 29:29 states that �the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever.�
� David: In 2 Sam. 7:12-16, God clearly tells David that the benefits of the covenant with David will be extended to his children. Furthermore, Ps. 89:3-4 says that God will establish David�s seed forever.
These verses, to name a few, demonstrate the fact that within the Old Testament framework, children were to be considered members of the covenant. Children were thus to receive the covenantal sign of circumcision, since they were covenant members.
The Nature of Circumcision
In order to properly understand baptism, it is imperative to first understand the nature of circumcision in the Old Testament.
Sign of the Covenant
When God established His covenant with Abraham, He mandated that His covenant be accompanied by a sign (Gen. 17:9-14). In verse 11, God says, �And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your fore skin; and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you.� In verses 10 and 12, God also says that Abraham�s descendents were to be circumcised as well. What is important is that circumcision was considered to be a sign of the covenant God had established with Abraham. This covenant consists of God�s promise to Abraham that He would bring him and his descendants into the land of Canaan. Thus circumcision was a sign of the promise God had made to Abraham and his descendents. It was God�s pledge to His covenanted people that He would fulfill the promise He had given to Abraham.
As a consequence to being a sign of the covenant, circumcision was also a sign of the blessings and curses of the covenant. As Meredith Kline explains, circumcision in the Old Testament symbolized an oath of allegiance to Yahweh. The cutting of the fore skin was only a token cutting. Should the covenant-child grow up and become a covenant breaker, he would receive the curses of the covenant. He was to be �cut off��that is, circumcised�from his people by death (Gen. 17:14; Ex. 4:24-6; Num. 15:30; Eze. 14:6-8). Of course, the hope was that the child would be faithful to the covenant. As such, the circumcision oath was also an act of consecration. This fact is evident in the �circumcision of the heart� passages in the Old Testament (Lev. 26:41; Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 6:10; 9:24; c.f. Rom. 2:29). Jeremiah exclaims in an effort to spare the people of Judah from judgment, �Circumcise yourselves to the LORD; circumcise your hearts!� (Jer. 4:4).[2]
This is ultimately fulfilled in Christ, for Christ was �circumcised� on our behalf by His death on the cross (Col. 2:11-12). Here the phrase �circumcision of Christ� ought to be seen as an �objective genitive��that is, the circumcision done to Christ when he was crucified on our behalf. Note Paul�s use of the phrase �body of death� in Col. 1:22 and 2:11. In Col. 1:22, it is by Christ�s �body of flesh through death� that God reconciled us. In parallel fashion, in Col. 2:11, it is by �stripping away [Christ�s] body of flesh� in His circumcision (i.e., crucifixion) that we are �circumcised� to Him. Meredith Kline calls it �the mystery of a divine circumcision�the circumcision of God in the crucifixion of his only begotten.�[3] It is also worth noting the verbal parallels when Paul�s baptismal expression in Col. 2:11-12 is compared to Rom. 6:3-4. Here, the individual is to identify with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection. Likewise, in Col. 2, the believer is identified with Christ in His burial and resurrection, with �the circumcision of Christ� functioning in a parallel manner to Christ�s death in Rom. 6.[4]
By His death on the cross, Christ took upon Himself the curses of the covenant for His own (Gal. 4:10-13) so that we might receive the blessings of the covenant�eternal life with Him in the promise of the Spirit (Gal. 4:14). In the present age, those who are circumcised are seeking to be justified by works of the law instead of by faith in Christ. Therefore, Paul says they are bound to keep the whole law (Gal. 5:3). However, no one can perfectly keep the law, so those who seek justification through the law rather than by faith receive the curse�i.e., they are �cut off� (i.e., �circumcised�) from Christ (Gal. 5:4).
Sign of Faith
Not only is circumcision a sign of the covenant, but it is a sign of faith. Romans 4:11 states that Abraham �received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised.� Paul describes circumcision as a sign of faith. This concept is quite consistent with the Old Testament understanding of circumcision. In the Old Testament, circumcision symbolized purification from defilement.[5] Furthermore, the Old Testament routinely makes use of circumcision imagery to describe a change in the attitude of the heart towards serving and worshipping the living God. In Deut. 10:16, God�s covenanted people are commanded, �Circumcise your heart and stiffen your neck once more.� Jer. 4:4 exclaims, �Circumcise yourselves to the Lord and remove the foreskins of your heart� (see also Lev. 26:41; Deut. 30:6; Jer. 9:26; Eze. 44:7, 9; Acts 7:51; Rom. 2:28-29). As mentioned before, the outward sign of circumcision was a symbol of an inward �conversion� and consecration to serve the living God. The true Israelite in the Old Testament was the one who had circumcised his heart as well as having been circumcised in the flesh (Rom. 2:28-29).
This concept is wonderfully illustrated by Paul in the New Testament. In Romans 9:6-8, Paul claims that not all of Abraham�s physical children are his true descendents. Rather, he claims �it is not the natural children who are God�s children, but it is the children of promise who are regarded as Abraham�s offspring.� In Gal. 3:7-8 Paul claims that it is really �those who believe who are children of Abraham.� These statements do not reflect a truth that had just become true in the New Testament. Rather, they reflect a dynamic that has been operative throughout the Old Testament. This is precisely Paul�s argument in Galatians. Those who seek justification through the law are not even being faithful to their Old Testament Scriptures (let alone to Christ), for the promise of salvation was given to Abraham apart from works (Rom. 4:11) and was received by faith (Gen. 15:6; Gal. 3:6), and the giving of the Law under Moses did not do away with that promise (Gal. 3:17). It was only those who had faith who would receive the promised salvation. Because of this, the children of Abraham by natural birth were circumcised in the flesh in anticipation of the time when those children would circumcise their hearts to become children of Abraham by faith. The following diagram illustrates this principle.
New Testament Baptism
The Question of Burden of Proof
There are no explicit passages in the New or Old Testament which either affirm or deny the practice of infant baptism in the New Testament. Therefore, the question of infant baptism, in many ways, boils down to one of burden of proof. The credo-baptist (one who believes in believer�s baptism) says that the burden of proof is on the paedo-baptist (one who believes in infant baptism), because there is no explicit warrant in the New Testament for baptizing infants. The paedo-baptist, on the other hand, claims that the credo-baptist needs to find warrant from the New Testament to overturn the structures of the covenantal structures in the Old Testament.
One thing that must be understood when discussion baptism in the New Testament s that the New Covenant extends to children of believers. This is prophesied in Jer. 32:38-40 and indicated by Acts 2:39��The promise is for your and for your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself.� This concept is entirely consistent with the covenants of the Old Testament. In all the covenants described in the Bible, there is an explicit statement that the covenant extends to the children of believers. This is also inferred in 1 Cor. 7:14, where the children of one believing parent are called �holy��that is, we must infer, set apart from the world by the child�s relationship to the church by virtue of the believing parent.[6]
Another thing that must be understood is that baptism in the New Testament serves the same function as circumcision in the Old Testament. In the same way that the Lord �s Supper is the New Testament expression of the Passover meal,[7] baptism is the New Testament expression of circumcision. Intuitively, this is seen to be true, for in the book of Acts, new converts are not told to be circumcised as they would have been in the Old Testament. Instead they are told to be baptized (Acts 2:38). Furthermore, Col. 2:11-12 makes this connection clear: �and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.� In this passage, circumcision and baptism are clearly linked�baptism is considered the New Testament expression of circumcision.
These two considerations make one thing clear: the New Testament believers would have presumed that they should baptized their children unless there was a change effected in the New Covenant which would reverse the structures of the Old Covenant. In other words, the burden of proof is actually on the credo-baptist, not on the paedo-baptist. If the structure of the New Covenant is the same as the Old such that the covenant extends to the children of believers, and baptism serves the same function that circumcision once held, then the subjects of baptism should be considered the same unless explicitly told otherwise in the New Testament. This truth can be stated another way. It was a good thing that infants were circumcised in the Old Testament. The sign of circumcision was given to those who were in the Old Covenant, and it was a good thing to be in the covenant. In fact, it was a gracious thing to be in the covenant and receive the covenant sign. Why would this gracious thing be taken away in the New Testament? Why would grace diminish under the New Covenant? The credo-baptist ought to justify how it is that children are now excluded from the covenant and therefore no longer suitable recipients of the covenant sign.
Continuity and Discontinuity in the Book of Acts
There are three areas in which one might expect either continuity or discontinuity in the book of Acts regarding the practice of baptism. These are: (1) the baptism of both males and females, (2) the baptism of Jews and Gentiles, and (3) the baptism of believers and their children. On the first two, we have explicit statements of discontinuity with the Old Testament. On the third, we have none.
Baptism of Both Males and Females
In Acts 2:17,18, Peter quotes a passage from Joel in which it is prophesied that in the New Testament times, God would pour out His Spirit on men and women alike (baptismal language) and both sons and daughters will prophesy. Furthermore, in Acts 8:12 we find that it was the common practice to baptize �men and women alike.� In Acts 16:15, we are told that Paul and his companions baptized a Philippian woman named Lydia, along with all those in her household. Under the Old Covenant only male children were circumcised; therefore, Luke explicitly makes known this discontinuity between the Old and New Covnenants. Under the Old Covenant only males were circumcised, while in the New Covenant, both men and women are to be baptized.
Baptism of Jews and Gentiles
In Acts 2:38-39, Peter states that the promise is not only for Jews and their children, but �for all who are far off� as well. Gentiles were to be baptized along with Jews upon conversion to Christ. This was the practice of the Apostles throughout the book of Acts, though not without some controversy. In Acts 8:38, Phillip baptized an Ethiopian eunuch. In Acts 10:44-48, Luke records how it became the policy of the apostles to baptized Gentile converts along with Jews, for the Spirit had been given to them as well as to the Jews. Under the Old Covenant, male, Gentile converts to Judaism were to be circumcised; however, circumcision still remained a large barrier between Jews and Gentiles (Eph. 2:11-18). Under the New Covenant, however, this barrier was taken out of the way. Both Jews and Gentiles can and should be baptized together. Luke was careful to make clear the nature of this discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants.
Baptism of Believers and their Children
When it come to the question of whether or not the children of believers are to be baptized, however, we find no hint from Luke that there is any discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants. In stead, Luke records Peter�s words in Acts 2:39: �The promise is for you and for your children.� Certainly there are many accounts of new believers being baptized as adult converts, yet this is to be expected when missionary activity is taking place. Paedo-baptists believe that adult converts ought to be baptized, since they are now included in the covenant.[8] What is striking in the book of Acts is that Luke records several accounts of �household baptisms.�[9] For instance, in Acts 16:15, Lydia and all those in her household were baptized. In Acts 16:33, Paul baptized the Philippian jailor along with everyone in his household. In neither of these instances is there any record that anyone in the households of these believers were converted before being baptized. Nor is there any statement that anyone preached the gospel to those in the household before they were baptized. In fact, in Acts 16:33, Luke records that in the very hour the Philippian jailer was converted, he washed their wounds and then immediately he was baptized along with his household. It does not appear that anyone even had time to preach the gospel to the household.[10] It seems that the family did come to believe, but we are not given any clear indication that they believed before they were baptized.
Nevertheless, it is certainly possible that the households of these believers contained no infants and were converted before being baptized. Therefore, there is no ironclad proof of the practice of infant baptism in these passages. However, this is more than an argument from silence. Luke has been careful to delineate areas of discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants with regard to the practice of baptizing women and Gentiles. Yet when it comes to the practice of baptizing the children of believers, Luke has not delineated any areas of discontinuity. In fact, if Luke was not a paedo-baptist, then he was somewhat careless when he wrote about these household baptisms. These passages in Acts 16 would have provided him with a perfect opportunity to make known any discontinuity on the practice of infant baptism. Luke could have written, �and when the household of Lydia [or the Philippian jailor] believed in the Lord Jesus, they were baptized along with Lydia [or the Philippian jailor].� Since there is no indication of any discontinuity in the practice of infant baptism, and since we have evidence of household baptisms in the book of Acts, it would certainly seem more likely that Luke understood that there was continuity between the Old and New Covenants on the practice of infant baptism. After reading the book of Acts, we are left to conclude that the subjects of baptism include the children of believers, in continuity with the practice of circumcision in the Old Testament.
Objections to Infant Baptism
Baptism is a sign of Faith
Some object to infant baptism on the basis of passages such as Rom. 6:3-4, 1 Cor. 12:13, Gal. 3:27-28 and Col. 2:11-12. These objections usually center around the idea that baptism is closely linked with the faith of believers, so that only believers are the proper recipients of this sign of faith. This objection may take one of four forms:
Objection #1��Baptism is a sign of the faith already existing in the believer. It is an outward expression of an inward commitment. If that inward commitment is not present, the sign should not be given.� Such a theology of baptism is in many ways a man-centered theology. It invests the sign only with a meaning generating from an inward conversion, not God�s grace. In fact, as we have already noted, the covenant signs are signs of the covenant of grace. They are gracious signs, not human commitment signs. As with circumcision (see above), baptism is a sign of God�s faithfulness to His covenantal promises in Christ. He promises in the sacrament that He will save the believer. The flip side of this reality is that should the child never ratify the covenant with his faith, he will receive the curses of the covenant. Furthermore, covenantal signs are communal signs, not individual signs. Baptism does not symbolize one person�s commitment to God as much as it consecrates the person to God by virtue of being included within the covenant family, the family of believers. Paedo-baptism is thus a much-needed correction to the rampant individualism that has influenced American churches.
Objection #2��Baptism symbolizes union with Christ. This union with Christ is only achieved by faith; therefore, only believers should be baptized.� It is certainly true that baptism symbolizes union with Christ; this is entirely correct. In fact, the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches and affirms this fact.[11] However, the conclusion that only believers are to be baptized does not follow from the premise. We must not confuse the sign with the thing signified. The sign symbolizes union with Christ is given to the children of those who believe and have been united with Christ by faith. The children of believers are part of the covenant Christ has established with His people; therefore, the sign of the covenant is to be given to the children of believers.
Objection #3��In these passages, baptism symbolizes purification from sins. This forgiveness and purification is only achieved by faith; therefore, only believers should be baptized.� Certainly it is also true that baptism symbolizes purification from sins (see also Titus. 3:5; Cor. 6:11). Yet once again, the conclusion that only believers should be baptized is unwarranted, for again, the sign is not to be confused with the thing signified. Children of believers are baptized in anticipation of the day when they will come to faith and receive purification from sins. Furthermore, this objection would also negate the validity of circumcision in the Old Testament. As stated before, circumcision in the Old Testament symbolized purification from sins and circumcision imagery was used to describe that inward �conversion� and consecration to serve and worship the living God. Yet circumcision was administered to infants; therefore, it is not inconsistent to baptize infants as well.
Objection #4��It is presupposed that those who are reading these passages were baptized as believers. Therefore, only believers should be baptized.� For the sake of argument, let us assume that this is true. Even if this is the case, it is to be expected that the original recipients of these letters were baptized as adults. We must remember that these letters were written to missionary churches, and the recipients of these letters were often the first generation of Christians in these churches. Certainly, therefore, most of the leaders of these churches were baptized as adult converts. It is not surprising, therefore, that Paul would assume that the readers were baptized as adults.
Ultimately, since baptism is merely the New Testament expression of circumcision, any theological argument against baptism works equally well against circumcision. However, we have clear indication of the practice of infant circumcision. Therefore, credo-baptists ought to be extremely careful about how they question the practice of infant baptism, for many times they disallow the practice of infant circumcision on the same grounds.
The Mode of Baptism
Some argue that the Greek word baptizō (βαπτίζω) meaning �baptize� actually means �immerse� and therefore baptism ought to be given only to those who are believers. However, Greek dictionaries give many meanings for the word βαπτίζω, and while some do include the meaning �immerse� or �dip,� they also include other meanings. The Baur-Arndt-Gingrich lexicon, for instance, notes that it can be used �of Jewish ritual washings� (Mk 7:4; Lk 11:38).[12] Similarly, the Louw-Nida lexicon writes that the word means �to wash (in some contexts, possibly by dipping into water), with a view to making objects ritually acceptable��to wash, to purify, washing, purification,��[13] clearly implying that other contexts involved washing without dipping in water. In Acts 8:38, we are told that both Phillip and the Ethiopian Eunuch �went down in the water� but this does not appear to be a statement about the mode of baptism, for Phillip went down in the water with the Ethiopian. The phrase simply means that they both walked into the water so that Phillip could baptize him; they didn�t perform the baptism at the shoreline. In other words, βαπτίζω in the New Testament simply means �baptize� pure and simple�it does not convey a mode of baptism.
Beyond this, many passages use the word βαπτίζω in a way that conveys a mode other than immersion. In 1 Cor. 10:2 and 1 Peter 3:20-21, βαπτίζω is used, but in neither case is the baptism by immersion. In 1 Cor. 10, the baptism was by the glory cloud and the sea, and the Israelites were not immersed in either. In 1 Peter 3, Noah and his family were baptized in the ark precisely because they were not immersed in the flood waters. Romans 6:1-4 describes our baptism in terms of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, but Jesus was not immersed in the ground; he was placed in a tomb above ground. In John 3:23, John describes the location (Aenon near Salim) where John the Baptist chose to baptize as a place with �plenty of water� (literally, �many waters�). This location cannot be identified with certainty, but it is likely to be a place about �seven miles south of Besian,� where there are �seven springs within a radius of a quarter of a mile.�[14] If this is the case, the phrase �many waters� refers to the seven springs found there. These springs are not deep enough to immerse a person. However, there is plenty of water there to baptize by sprinkling or pouring. It is therefore impossible, if the location of John�s baptism has been identified correctly, that John baptized by immersion.
Col. 2 and Rom. 6 teaches us that the bloodless rite of baptism in the New Testament era symbolized the Christian�s union with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection and served in the place of physical circumcision. This identification is not made superficially by the mode of baptism, being somehow immersed in and raised out of water. The reason for this identification is that water itself is indicative of judgment and death. Noah was baptized and saved though the waters of judgment surrounding him (1 Pet. 3:20-22). Moses was baptized and saved by crossing through the waters of judgment in the Red Sea (1 Cor. 10:1-5). In neither of these examples were those saved immersed in water; the waters surrounded them, bringing death as judgment on others, though God�s people were saved. Just as the Israelites were baptized �into Moses� as he led them through the waters (1 Cor. 10:2), so we are baptized �into Christ� and spared the judgment of eternal death (Rom. 6:3; Col. 2:12). Our baptism �into Him� thus consecrates us to Him (like circumcision of old) as the One who is sufficient to lead us through the waters of death into eternal salvation. It expresses the union between Christ and His covenanted community.[15]
There is no instance in the Bible where a mode of baptism is prescribed for us. While immersion is a possibility, so is sprinkling and pouring. For instance, in Ezekiel 36:26-28, God speaks of what the New Covenant times will be like. He says, �I will sprinkle clean water on you and you will be clean.� In Hebrews 10:22, we are told, �let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.� For pouring, there is a connection in the Gospels between the �baptism of the Holy Spirit� and the �outpouring of the Holy Spirit� (Jn. 1:33; Lk. 3:16; Acts 2:17; Titus. 3:6). While possible examples of sprinkling and pouring can be found in the Bible, none of these passages provide us with a prescribed or commanded mode of baptism. There simply is no mode of baptism commanded in the Bible. All three forms�immersion, sprinkling, and pouring, therefore appear to be acceptable modes of baptism.
The mode of baptism cannot be used as a case against infant baptism. A strong case can be made for modes other than immersion and it is entirely possible to immerse infants.[16]
Conclusion
Certainly there is no proof-text for the practice of infant baptism that would produce an iron-clad case for the practice. If there were, there would be no debate. Yet I believe that a coherent and biblical case for infant baptism can be made. The burden of proof in this debate appears to be on the credo-baptist who seeks to deny that the children of believers are worthy recipients of the covenant sign any longer and introduce a discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants. However, credo-baptists appear to be unable to demonstrate this discontinuity. Paedo-baptists believe that there is continuity with the Old Covenant in the baptism of infants. There are no passages which teach any discontinuity in this area and there is some confirming evidence that infant baptism was practiced in the book of Acts. Therefore, the practice of infant baptism in the Church today appears to be warranted by Scripture.
This argument for infant baptism is not a Roman Catholic argument. Presbyterians do not believe in baptismal regeneration or that baptism in any sense saves. Presbyterians and Reformed Christians believe that baptism is a sign to be given to those who are part of the covenant of grace. A person is not part of the covenant because of baptism; baptism is a sign given to those who are part of the covenant. Those who are part of the covenant are not necessarily saved; rather, children are brought up in the covenant so that they might be raised in the context of the family of believers, so that the church may provide the child with a �climate of plausibility� that would make the Christian faith seem real and vibrant and true. Baptism is administered in anticipation of that time when they will come to faith and receive the forgiveness of their sins and be normal, communing members of Christ�s church.
The law of works is the law to be done, that one may be saved; the law of faith is the law to be believed, that one may be saved; the law of Christ is the law of the Saviour, binding his saved people to all the duties of obedience, (Gal 3:12, Acts 16:31).
The term law is not here used univocally; for the law of faith is neither in the Scripture sense, nor in the sense of our author, a law, properly so called. The apostle uses that phrase only in imitation of the Jews' manner of speaking, who had the law continually in their mouths. But since the promise of the gospel proposed to faith, is called in Scripture "the law of faith," our author was sufficiently warranted to call it so too. So the law of faith is not a proper preceptive law.
The law of works, and the law of Christ, are in substance but one law, even the law of the ten commandments�the moral law�that law which was from the beginning, continuing still the same in its own nature, but vested with different forms. And since that law is perfect, and sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of it, whatever form it be vested with, whether as the law of works or as the law of Christ, all commands of God unto men must needs be comprehended under it, and particularly the command to repent, common to all mankind, pagans not excepted, who doubtless are obliged, as well as others, to turn from sin unto God; as also the command to believe in Christ, binding all to whom the gospel revelation comes, though, in the meantime, this law stands under different forms to those who are in a state of union with Christ by faith, and to those who are not so. The law of Christ is not a new, proper, preceptive law, but the old, proper, preceptive law, which was from the beginning, under a new accidental form.
The distinction between the law of works and the law of faith cannot be controverted, since the apostle doth so clearly distinguish them, (Rom 3:27).
The distinction between the law of works and the law of Christ, as above explained according to the Scriptures, and the mind of our author, is the same in effect with that of the law, as a covenant of works, and as a rule of life to believers, and ought to be admitted, (Westm. Confess. chap. 19, art. 6). For, (1.) Believers are not under, but dead to the law of works, (Rom 6:14), "For ye are not under the law, but under grace."�(7:4), "Wherefore my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law, that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead."�(1 Cor 9:21), "Being not without law to God, but under the law of Christ." Some copies read here "of God," and "of Christ"; which I mention, not out of any regard to that different reading, but that upon the occasion thereof the sense is owned by the learned to be the same either way. To be under the law to God is, without question, to be under the law of God; whatever it may be judged to import more, it can import no less; therefore to be under the law to Christ, is to be under the law of Christ. This text gives a plain and decisive answer to the question, "How is the believer under the law of God?" namely, as he is under the law to Christ. (2.) The law of Christ is an "easy yoke," and a "light burden," (Matt 11:30); but the law of works, to a sinner, is an insupportable burden, requiring works as the condition of justification and acceptance with God, as is clear from the whole of the apostle's reasoning, (Rom 3). [and therefore it is called the law of works, for otherwise the law of Christ requires works too,] and cursing "every one that continues not in all things written in it to do them," (Gal 3:10). The apostle assures us, that "what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law," (Rom 3:19). The duties of the law of works, as such, are, as I conceive, called by our Lord himself, "heavy burdens, and grievous to be borne," (Matt 23:4).�"For they," viz: the Scribes and Pharisees, "bind heavy burdens, and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers." These heavy burdens were not human traditions, and rites devised by men; for Christ would not have commanded the observing and doing of these, as in this case he did, (verse 3), "Whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do"; neither were they the Mosaic rites and ceremonies, which were not then abrogated, for the Scribes and Pharisees were so far from not moving these burdens with one of their own fingers, that the whole of their religion was confined to them, namely to the rites and ceremonies of Moses' law, and those of their own devising. But the duties of the moral law they laid on others, binding them on with the tie of the law of works, yet made no conscience of them in their own practice: the which duties, nevertheless, our Lord Jesus commanded to be observed and done.
"He who hath believed on Jesus Christ, [though he be freed from the curse of the law,] is not freed from the command and obedience of the law, but tied thereunto by a new obligation, and a new command from Christ. Which new command from Christ importeth help to obey the command."�Practical Use of Saving Knowledge, title, The Third Warrant to Believe, fig. 5.
What this distinction amounts to is, that thereby a difference is constituted betwixt the ten commandments as coming from an absolute God out of Christ unto sinners, and the same ten commandments as coming from God in Christ unto them; a difference which the children of God, assisting their consciences before him to "receive the law at his mouth," will value as their life, however they disagree about it in words and manner of expression. But that the original indispensable obligation of the law of the ten commandments is in any measure weakened by the believer's taking it as the law of Christ, and not as the law of works; or that the sovereign authority of God the Creator, which is inseparable from it for the ages of eternity, in what channel soever it be conveyed unto men, is thereby laid aside,�will appear utterly groundless, upon an impartial consideration of the matter. For is not our Lord Jesus Christ, equally with the Father and the Holy Spirit, JEHOVAH, the Sovereign, Supreme, Most High God, Creator of the world? (Isa 47:4, Jer 23:6, with Psa 83:18, John 1:3, Rev 3:14). Is not the same [or sovereign authority] of God in Christ? (Exo 23:21). Is not he in the Father, and the Father in him? (John 14:11). Nay, doth not all the fullness of the Godhead dwell in him? (Col 2:9). How, then, can the original obligation of the law of the ten commandments, arising from the authority of the Creator, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, be weakened by its being issued unto the believer from and by that blessed channel, the Lord Jesus Christ?
As for the distinction betwixt the law of faith and the law of Christ, the latter is subordinated unto the former. All men by nature are under the law of works; but taking the benefit of the law of faith, by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, they are set free from the law of works, and brought under the law of Christ.�(Matt 11:28,29), "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden�take my yoke upon you."
[2] The law of the ten commandments, being the natural law, was written on Adam's heart on his creation; while as yet it was neither the law of works, nor the law of Christ, in the sense wherein these terms are used in Scripture, and by our author. But after man was created, and put into the garden, this natural law, having made man liable to fall away from God, a threatening of eternal death in case of disobedience, had also a promise of eternal life annexed to it in case of obedience; in virtue of while he, having done his work, might thereupon plead and demand the reward of eternal life. Thus it became the law of works, whereof the ten commandments were, and are still the matter. All mankind being ruined by the breach of this law, Jesus Christ obeys and dies in the room of the elect, that they might be saved; they being united to him by faith, are, through his obedience and satisfaction imputed to them, freed from eternal death, and become heirs of everlasting life; so that the law of works being fully satisfied, expires as to them, as it would have done of course in the case of Adam's having stood the time of his trial: howbeit it remains in full force as to unbelievers. But the natural law of the ten commandments [which can never expire or determine, but is obligatory in all possible states of the creature, in earth, heaven, or hell] is, from the moment the law of works expires as to believers, issued forth to them [still liable to infirmities, though not to falling away like Adam] in the channel of the covenant of grace, bearing a promise of help to obey, (Ezek 36:27), and, agreeable to their state before the Lord, having annexed to it a promise of the tokens of God's fatherly love, for the sake of Christ, in case of that obedience; and a threatening of God's fatherly displeasure in case of their disobedience. (John 14:21), "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me; and he that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father; and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him."�(Psa 89:31-33), "If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments; then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless, my loving kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail." Thus it becomes the law of Christ to them; of which law also the same ten commandments are likewise the matter. In the threatenings of this law there is no revenging wrath; and in the promises of it no proper conditionalty of works; but here is the order in the covenant of grace, to which the law of Christ belongs; a beautiful order of grace, obedience, particular favours, and chastisements for disobedience. Thus the ten commandments stand, both in the law of works and in the law of Christ at the same time, being the common matter of both; but as they are the matter of [i.e. stand in] the law of works, they are actually a part of the law of works; howbeit, as they are the matter of, or stand in, the law of Christ, they are actually a part, not of the law of works, but of the law of Christ. And as they stand in the law of Christ, our author expressly asserts, against the Antinomian, that they ought to be a rule of life to a believer; but that they ought to be a rule of life to a believer, as they stand in the law of works, he justly denies, against the legalist. Even as when one and the same crime stands forbidden in the laws of different independent kingdoms, it is manifest that the rule of life to the subjects in that particular is the prohibition, as it stands in the law of that kingdom whereof they are subjects respectively, and not as it stands in the law of that kingdom of which they are not subjects.
by Edward Fisher with Must-Read Footnotes by Thomas Boston
DLJ SAID: yeah arch you have come to the other side.
ELLA SAYS::ROFL:...DLJ, you are too funny! You know, the old folks use to say, all you have to do is just sit on the sit of the road long enough and sooner or later the same people who refused you a ride will come back around needing your help...:ROFL:
This is why Jesus warns us about UNRIGHTEOUS JUDGING AND CONDEMNING OTHERS WRONGFULLY. Many people misuse the passage about judge not for you shall be judge. But hear what the whole passage has to say:
God says in Matthew chapter 7:1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a PLANK in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
If you notice nowhere is Jesus teaching that we should not RIGHEOUSLY judge others, but what He is saying is, that we make very sure you have no sins or fault by which YOU might be judged by others.
In other words as the song goes, sweep aorund your OWN front door FIRST, before you go sweeping around somebody else's front door, and you've got trash all over your front yard.lol
And Paul say in Romans chapter 2, you judge and condemn others for their sins and faults, yet you don't judge yourself and in not being fair in your judging, you condemn yourself for your own sins and faults. You are without excuse.
Arch has been on full blast judging and condemning James about Calvin's teachings and doctrines, and twisted interpretations of scriptures, and questioning me about my beliefs as being a Calvin follower, YET Arch follows the false teachings and doctrines of his Catholic church about baptizing babies, and baptism regeneration which none of this teachings in in scriptures, but are the false teachings and doctrine that JOHN CALVIN also taught and believed, and is of the Catholic church which Calvin came out of... and NOT ONE PERSON WHO FOLLOW SUCH TEACHINGS OR BELIEVE IN SUCH FALSE LIES, can produce NOT ONE SCRIPTURE wherein EVEN JESUS was baptized as an infant.
Arch, I don't have to produce any scriptures to prove what I says, the burden of proof is on YOU, becasue you says this false practice is biblical. YOu follow the traditions and doctrine of MEN NOT GOD!
I would care less what the early church did, they still were not following what God has to speak about baptism, out of their OWN IGNORANCE and not by the leadership of the Holy Spirit, they have made up THEIR OWN DOCTRINE AND TEACHING. God ain't told the church council no such lie, yet Jesus Himself was nto baptized as an infant, nor were any child born throughout the Bible baptized as babies.
All the scriotures you used has NOT ONE THING ABOUT BAPTIZING BABIES... OUT OF CONTEXT AND CONTENT!
I would care less how far back this practice goes, and if grandma siad this is right back in 1AD, granny is DEAD WRONG!...
God says be as a child meaning with the innocence and faith of a child who will trust a rat to lead them, He wants that we should have the same heart as a child as we did when we were children freedom in our faith and trust in God, and receiving the gosple without doubt. Children don;t doubt and have great faith and trust. this is how God would that we should receive His holy word and His kingdom.
Romans chapter 2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment?
How can YOU find fault, judge an dcondmening James for his twisting the scriptures and following after a man, when you yourslef are following after the same teachings and practices A MAN has put into the church. IT SHOOOO AINIT NOTHING GOD HAS SAID!:nahnah:
Arch, I declare you this day as a FIRST CALSS HYPOCRITE!:yay:... so pay up! and instead of taking me to lunch at Whataburgers, I think I would rather go all out and have lunch and have a quarter pounder at MacDonalds with fries, and a large coke, and apple pie, and whatever else is on the menu! Now! thata learn ya!
:rocknroll::yay::ROFL::eat:
OH, yeah, and what about baptizing for the dead and praying for souls of people who HAVE AREADY DIED? where in scripture does Jesus or Paul teach on this fales lie? For even Paul writes against such... how can you baptize or pray for a person who is already DEAD and gone?... BEFORE death the person should have repented of his/her sins and receievd Christ into their life, then you wouldn't have to wonder if the peron stand righly before God AFTER DEATH! You can save a soul AFTER death, this should have happened in witnessing about salvation BEFORE DEATH...no such lie written in the Bible! ALL MAN MADE TEAHCINGS AND DOCTRINES, not of God!
