SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Infant Baptism

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 Next Page )
PosterThread
theopenlife
Member



Joined: 2007/1/30
Posts: 926


 Re:

Taylor, I agree. I used to dismiss the issue with little more than a hand wave, apparently being more profound in my understanding than the very Puritans I considered giants of sound biblical learning. While I have not come to their conviction on this point, I cannot make believe it is as plain as I used to.

Miccah, you said, "just because everyone is doing it, doesn't mean it should be done."

Of course, that goes without saying, and I agree with you. My argument was not that infant baptism ought to be done, or that we should not confront age-old errors if so we perceive them to be, but that we should tame our language to be more charitable when addressing subjects not directly attacking the gospel of grace alone, through faith in Christ alone. It is not as if this doctrine is an attack on the merit of Christ, or a foisting of some idol, or an enticement to gross immorality.

My plea is for irenic language when at all possible. "As much as lies in you, live at peace with all men."

 2009/5/9 23:29Profile
savannah
Member



Joined: 2008/10/30
Posts: 2265


 Re: infant baptism

Credobaptist John Bunyan, said:

“I will not let water baptism be the rule, the door, the bolt, the bar, or the wall of division between the righteous and the righteous, between Christian and fellow Christian.”

Paedobaptist John Owen, said:

“Though they (credobaptists) may differ from us in some things of less moment, we are obliged not only to forbear but also to communion with them. For who shall refuse those whom Christ hath received. This and no other is the rule of our evangelical love. To require more is an unwarrantable imposition on their consciences.”

The subject of this thread being "Infant Baptism", I'd recommend the following to any inquirers who care to listen who are of a contrary mind.

1) A Case for Infant Baptism - Confessions of a Former Baptist

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=831051405

2) Unto You and Your Children

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=51902152443

Again, I have posted the above for those who may have an interest and for the originator of this thread.

I purposely began this post with the quotes I did from Bunyan and Owen to clarify my intent of posting on this thread.

I am confident that at the most very few and even the more so I am hopeful that none, paedo or credo, who frequent S.I., believe that God's grace in salvation through His Son Jesus the Christ is secured in or by being water baptized.

NOTE: Re: Acts 2:38

I have not known nor have I found any who'd argue that this verse is not referring to a water baptism as one poster has erroneously implied.

Thanks for this thread and to all who've participated.

 2009/5/9 23:47Profile
ChrisJD
Member



Joined: 2006/2/11
Posts: 2895
Philadelphia PA

 Re:

HI everyone,


Michael, you said,

"We must recognize that after over one-thousand years of virtually universal acceptance of infant baptism in the Church, it was the baptists who created schisms, albeit we might say for the better."


As was pointed out, whatever practice that is not of God that becomes "universally practiced" is still not of God. The prophets did not justify the Israelites that practiced idolaltry because their fathers did so also, no matter how long they did so. We do not need to recognise any such thing.



About this,


Quote:
I ask you, "how ancient?"




I consider the Apostles and those that they taught as the ancient Church that is trustwrothy as to their practices.



About this,


"Before brandishing the word 'heretic', the very implication of the term being someone intentionally injurious and malicious; consider how one might come to this position from scripture."


As far as I know, my intention was neither to injure or was it with malice. I could be wrong about that. The word 'heresy', as I understand it, means 'a choice'. I think that those who practice infant baptisim in contrast to the clear testimony of scripture are heretics and are using a God commanded ritual according to their own choice and practice.



About this,


"In Rom. 5, circumcision is called "a sign of the faith which Abraham had," and yet this sign, which represented the "cutting away of the flesh," that is, regeneration, was given to his sons, as well as millions of infants who descended from him."


It was [b]given to Abraham[/b] [u]and commanded by God[/u] to be administered to his descendants(Gen 17:9-14).


"For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him."


- Genensis 18:19



The commandment of water Baptisim in contrast is given [b]to those who believe[/b](John 4:1, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 8:25-29).


Because some men have found a similarity between their practice and something that God commanded elsewhere to Abraham and his physical descendants, doesn't mean their practice is supported by the Bible but could be that they have wrongly divided the word of God.



About this,


"Again, circumcision was a sign of the faith of the father of the covenant, and stood as a promise to the one who took it..."


What are you talking about Michael, who was taking the sign, the infant?



"For this reason, paedo-baptists may reasonably argue, water baptism is a sign of faith and should be administered to adults who profess faith, as well as to children of professed believers."


Not so. What God commanded Abraham to do and what He commanded the Apostles to do are two different things. Instead of reading Genesis to find out how to administer the rite of Baptism we should read the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles.


This isn't difficult to grasp.




'To the adult baptism is a confirmation of Christ's promise - "do this for [that you have received] remission of sins"'


The Aposlte Peter didn't use that language. Instead, when he was asked what they should do in response to what they had just heard, he told them:


"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."


Peter said [b]they would[/b] receive.




"...whereas to the child it is an especial promise that through the like-faith which their parents professed, they too can be saved."

"Rather, infant baptism is ordained of God as a gracious pledge to evangelize the child, for the sake of the parent."

These statements are not Biblical for the reasons given above.





"The baptism is itself evangelistic, in so much as it prophetically and pictorially describes what must occur if they are to be saved."



Water baptisim in the New Testament is a commandment given to those who are being told the Gospel, not a prophecy or picture for an infant to one day look back upon:



"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."


- Romans 6:3-4(KJV)




"The child is encouraged to look back on their baptism and to believe that God has made a loud call to them, "believe and be washed!", "die with Christ and be buried with Him!" which has not been made to all the heathen of the world."


Paul the Apostle said,


"And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:"


- Acts 17:30(KJV)



[i]edited to correct errors in spelling[/i]


_________________
Christopher Joel Dandrow

 2009/5/10 0:09Profile
ChrisJD
Member



Joined: 2006/2/11
Posts: 2895
Philadelphia PA

 Re:

Savannah,


"NOTE: Re: Acts 2:38

I have not known nor have I found any who'd argue that this verse is not referring to a water baptism as one poster has erroneously implied."


I'm not sure if you are referring to what I had written or not. The promise in Acts 2:38 is very definitely not of being water baptised.

Water Baptisim is a commandment, not a promise. Recieivng the Holy Spirit after they repented and beleived was what Peter said was promised.




[i]edited to correct errors in spelling and typing[/i]


_________________
Christopher Joel Dandrow

 2009/5/10 0:13Profile
TaylorOtwell
Member



Joined: 2006/6/19
Posts: 927
Arkansas

 Re:

The main struggle I had with infant baptism was the following. I completely agree that the sign of the covenant (baptism) should be given to the seed of Abraham as it was in times past, however, I believe the children of Abraham are described in the New Testament as those who have the faith of Abraham. So, I believe I am still applying the sign to the seed of Abraham, I just understand the seed in a different way than paedo-baptists.

However, I think as a credo-baptist, there are some important lessons I need to learn from paedo-baptists. One being adopting a more God-centered view of baptism. In many churches, baptism is simply the individual's pledge to live a "better" life. In other words, a pledge to God to be more moral. I find it is seldom emphasized the baptism is a visible demonstration of God's promises to us, namely, to wash us from our sins as we rest in the propitiation that Christ has made for us.

I have also learned from them to adopt a much more family-integrated view of Christianity. We have to be careful we are not overwhelmed by the narcissistic, individualistic culture of the day. I believe it is important to raise a family with a Christian identity from the very beginning.

Since more often than not, baptisms are rooted in the person's moral commitment, they desire re-baptism a second (and third, fourth, etc.) time every time they have a moral awakening and become convinced they have just become truly saved. Of course, multiple rebaptisms is something that has no precedent in the Scripture.

With care in Christ,
Taylor


_________________
Taylor Otwell

 2009/5/10 0:21Profile
ChrisJD
Member



Joined: 2006/2/11
Posts: 2895
Philadelphia PA

 Re:

"It is not as if this doctrine is an attack on the merit of Christ, or a foisting of some idol, or an enticement to gross immorality."


Altering the commandment of God is not a small thing.


_________________
Christopher Joel Dandrow

 2009/5/10 1:49Profile









 Re:

I was raised Catholic, so my shock at this practice at my present church went rather deep, to where I did not attend a Sunday service if I knew ahead that there would be a baptism that morning.
I had to get to know these Christians for a year or so to know how they taught their children.
I still do not endorse it - but I cannot consign those in the Reformed theology camp to hell over this - far from it.

Here are just two of their defense papers.
________________________________________________

[b]A Reformed Defense of Paedobaptism (4)[/b]
March 28, 2009

What is Reformed Theology
RC Sproul thoughtfully explains the tenets of Reformed Theology
www.ligonier.org

Circumcision was the sign given to Abraham. 36 The covenant and the sign were so closely identified that the Lord called the sign of circumcision, “My covenant.” Anyone who did not take the sign would be “cut off” from the covenant people. 37 In the old covenant Scriptures the phrase “to make a covenant” was expressed with the words: “to cut a covenant,” that is, to perform the cutting away of the foreskin of the penis of the uncircumcised adult male or the eight-day old Hebrew infant. 38To be circumcised was to be identified with God and to be “cut off” from the world and to be included with God’s visible covenant people.

Implied in the act of circumcision is the taking of an oath: “If I do not keep the covenant, may the destruction which is illustrated by the cutting of the foreskin, actually happen to me.”39 This is why the Lord spoke of covenant breakers being “cut off” in Genesis 17:14. In Exodus 4:25, 12:15,30:33,38; Leviticus 7:20-25; Psalm 37; Ezekiel 14:8-17, 25:7-16. Scripture used the same verb for “cutting off” of covenant breakers as it did for the “cutting” of a covenant in Genesis 15:18.

The Lord placed himself under this curse in Genesis 15:17-21. He sealed his promise to Abraham by passing between the pieces as a sign that he would keep his promise. He received the curse upon himself in the Lord Jesus Christ who was “stricken by God, smitten by him and afflicted…cut off from the land of the living.”40 Galatians 3:13,14; 2 Corinthians 5:21 clearly teach that Jesus became sin and endured the curses of covenant breaking for those who believe.41

Since the covenant of grace was made by God, it is he who gets to set its terms. God’s Word says that before we were “in Christ” we were dead in sins and trespasses. As dead people we could no more save ourselves than Israel could get herself out of Egypt.42 Because God is sovereign, he has the final say about who receives Baptism and the Lord’s supper and how they receive it.

[b]What are the Relations Between the Covenants?[/b]

The Lord Jesus has fulfilled the bloody signs and types of circumcision and has replaced them with bloodless signs.43 Christ’s death was the reality to which the old signs and seals pointed.

Now, Christ having died, there is no need for the old sacraments and feasts. Scripture teaches that, by faith, all believers died with Christ.44 If Christ died an accursed death and we died with Christ, then by faith in Christ we have undergone the curse implied by circumcision. Colossians 2:20; Philippians 3:3 explicitly say that by faith, in Christ’s death, all believers have undergone circumcision.

Romans 6:2-10 says that we are baptized into Christ’s death. That is, when the sign of the covenant is applied, the recipient is identified with Jesus’ death and the cursedness of Christ.

The main difference between the old and new covenants is that what the old covenant promised through ceremonies and sacrifices, have been fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus. The New Covenant Scriptures refer constantly to the Old Covenant. Romans 3:21, 9:27, 11:13-32; Luke 24:27; Hebrews 9:15, and the whole of chapter 11 all teach that the covenant of grace instituted by God through Abraham continues into the new covenant. God’s Word clearly teaches that new covenant believers are the new covenant Israel.45 Everyone who believes is the true son of Abraham.46 Romans 9:6-9 teaches that a Jew is one who loves the Messiah Jesus and trusts him only for salvation.47

Thus we cannot say that there are two completely different “churches” or peoples of God. Paul teaches clearly in Romans 2:29; 4 [all]; 9:6-9 and Jesus teaches explicitly in John 8:31-58 no one is saved by being Jewish.48

[b]What is the Connection Between Circumcision and Baptism?[/b]

The connection between baptism and circumcision is quite clear in Colossians 2:11-12. The connection is not direct, but indirect and the point of contact between them is Christ and baptism is the sign and seal of that circumcision. In v.11 Paul says “in him [i.e. in Christ] you were also circumcised with the circumcision done by Christ” and in v.12 he says exactly how it is that we were circumcised in and by Christ: “having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith….”49 For Paul, in the New covenant, our union with Christ is our circumcision. In baptism, we are identified with Christ’s baptism/circumcision, as it were, on the cross. Neither baptism nor circumcision effects this union (ex opere operato), rather God the Spirit unites us to Christ, makes us alive and gives us faith.

The point not to be missed is that, in Paul’s mind, baptism and circumcision are both signs and seals of Christ’s baptism/circumcision on the cross for us. By faith, we are united to Christ’s circumcision and by union with Christ we become participants in his circumcision/baptism. Because circumcision pointed forward to Christ’s death and baptism looks back to Christ’s death, they are closely linked in Paul’s mind and almost interchangeable. Paul’s point here is to teach us about our union with Christ, but along the way we see how he thinks about baptism and circumcision and his thinking should inform ours.

One of the reasons that Paul so strongly opposed the imposition of circumcision upon Christians by the Judaizers is that, by faith, we have already been circumcised in Christ, of which baptism is the sign and seal.50 We were already identified as belonging to God and we have undergone the curse in Christ. So actual physical circumcision is, in the new covenant, unnecessary. Paul tells those who wish to circumcise themselves, to go the whole way and emasculate themselves.51

Acts 2.38,39 equates circumcision and baptism. In Acts 2.38 the Apostle Peter calls for repentance, faith in Christ and baptism by Jews who are hearing his preaching. In v.39 he gives the reason for this action: “the promise is to you and to your children, and all who are far off….” The Apostle Peter consciously uses the same formula in his preaching as the LORD himself used when he instituted the sign of circumcision in Genesis 17, which the Jews listening understood precisely.



http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/03/28/a-reformed-defense-of-paedobaptism-4/ - 78k -



Another lengthy defense on [url=http://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/horne_welty_response.html]Reformed. org[/url]

 2009/5/10 8:50
ChrisJD
Member



Joined: 2006/2/11
Posts: 2895
Philadelphia PA

 Re:

Hi again everyone,

The following is from the article below posted before this:


Quote:
Because God is sovereign, he has the final say about who receives Baptism and the Lord’s supper and how they receive it.






The Lord Jesus Christ said to the Apostles:


"Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; [i]and[/i] whose soever [i]sins[/i] ye retain, they are retained."


- John 20:23(KJV)

See also Matthew 16:19, 18:18.

Peter the Apostle in giving the command to be Baptised to those who heard him said


"...be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins"



Paul the Apostle, after having seen the Lord Jesus, calling Him Lord, and being instructed as to what to do following(Acts 22:10), was told by Ananias:



"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."


- Acts 22:16(KJV)



When Peter the Apostle saw that gentiles had recieved the Holy Spirit in the same manner as he and the others had, he asked them:



"Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?"


- Acts 10:47(KJV)






When Peter the Apostle was asked by Simon, who himself had been water baptised(though appearantly had not recieved the Holy Spirit(Acts 8:12-16), to be given the the ability to lay his hands upon others that they would recieve the Holy Spirit, he refused him(Acts 8:20-23).





Paul called water baptisim the baptisim of repentance(Acts 19:1-6).


So again, from the article:


Quote:
Because God is sovereign, he has the final say about who receives Baptism and the Lord’s supper and how they receive it.




His Apostles gave it to those who expressed repentance and in the remission of sins.


_________________
Christopher Joel Dandrow

 2009/5/10 10:03Profile
ChrisJD
Member



Joined: 2006/2/11
Posts: 2895
Philadelphia PA

 Re:

Again from the article:



Quote:
The connection between baptism and circumcision is quite clear in Colossians 2:11-12.




There are two baptisims in view in the passage:both water and Spirit.



EDIT: and both are mentioned in connection with [b]faith[/b]


_________________
Christopher Joel Dandrow

 2009/5/10 10:08Profile
roadsign
Member



Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3777


 Re:

Quote:
The question is, "Is infant baptism honoring the Lord, or is it dishonoring the Lord?"



Is this really the question? It seems that Jesus was much more interested in what was going on in the heart, than in their rituals. If we attempt to answer this black-and-white question we will inevitably set ourselves up as judge over just about all church people, because some form of baptism is typically practiced.

Let’s admit, there are countless who have been baptized by immersion as adults who, as it becomes apparent later, show no evidence of salvation. Conversely, there have and are many who practice infant baptism who are godly, redeemed, and preach the gospel.

From my Reformed background, I understand that infant baptism has its root in Covenant Theology. It is equated with circumcision in the OT. I would challenge the reliance on this tradition as a marker of spiritual status by quoting from Hebrews – where we read that Israel did not enter his rest because of unbelief. Heb. 3:19 Covenant heritage was not enough. Belief was still required for them – and that is true for the New Covenant.

The challenge for us is to avoid letting baptism become a red herring – that is, an issue that steers us off the main track. When it comes to issues in the church, we must choose our battles, there are so many! If we make baptism our battleground, we may actually find ourselves engaged in a counterproductive division in the church. What do we accomplish? The “other” side simply reinforces their position - and views us as the one in error (or trouble makers).

I have resolved the issue this way: It is not the ritual in itself that is our main concern, but it is the question of evidence of life that has truly been transformed by the Spirit through regeneration: baptized in Christ's death and resurrection by the Spirit.

Life-evidence speaks far louder than our baptismal records.


Diane



_________________
Diane

 2009/5/10 13:09Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy