Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[NotWorthy]

I think one problem that may keep you from hearing all I am saying is that I do not believe that once someone is saved that they cannot backslide. Thus a person who as an adult commits his life to Christ and comes to me seeking to be baptized is not by virtue of that profession of faith and baptism thereby guarnateed to be saved. What we in the church do is proclaim that God is active in his life and that if he himself remains faithful (matures as a faithful disciple) that he can be assured that God is faithful and will take him/her to God’s self.

Thus, if a child is baptized, once again the church proclaims that God is faithful and has already acted to save this child (at Calvary). The child need only to continue in the faith into which he/she is baptized, i.e. in the teaching Christ commanded us to perform. The child who does this (matures as a faithful disciple) can rest assured that God will take him/her to God’s self.

Now, what if the adult backslides or the child never matures in his/her faith? Well, God’s promises are nonetheless true, but we most continue to grow in them. Hearing the 4 spiritual laws, reciting the sinners, and prayer, and getting baptized does not a disciple make. It is part of the process of identifying one’s self with the discipleship community. When does one become a baseball player, when you first join little lieague but have never picked up a bat before? Or when one has learned to play the game and loves to do so? When does one become a disciple? When one enters the ranks of those who are seeking to grow in their level of discipleship, or when one shows the behaviors of discipleship? I think the answer is both, but they two different understandings of what it means to be a disciple, and most certainly two different levels of discipleship. But if one is doing all one can to faithfully live as a disciple whether infant, child or adult, then that ultimately is what it really means to be a disciple.

You said, And I remember that Jesus recommended that we have childlike faith. So, I think that this undeveloped faith so characteristic of childlike trusting may be all that is needed, and I believe even an infant possesses that. It then is our responsibility, the church community, to be faithful in helping him/her mature as a disciple.

I must say, G S, you have a rather harmonious relationship with Catholic Theology when you talk like this! Good job!!!

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I must say, G S, you have a rather harmonious relationship with Catholic Theology when you talk like this! Good job!!!

See what happens when you don’t attack a person just because you can label them protestant.

 

[NotWorthy]

See what happens when you don’t attack a person just because you can label them protestant.

Yes, I can, as I always do! Just because I’m Catholic doesn’t mean I’m anti-Protestant.

God Bless you, my Brother (or Sister!).

And Phil, by the way, God Bless you, too, my Brother!!!

 

[Phil12123]

I think one problem that may keep you from hearing all I am saying is that I do not believe that once someone is saved that they cannot backslide. Thus a person who as an adult commits his life to Christ and comes to me seeking to be baptized is not by virtue of that profession of faith and baptism thereby guarnateed to be saved. What we in the church do is proclaim that God is active in his life and that if he himself remains faithful (matures as a faithful disciple) that he can be assured that God is faithful and will take him/her to God’s self.

I’m not sure how relevant OSAS or, alternatively, backsliding, is to our discussion of the propriety of infant baptism. The issue is who were the Eleven instructed by Jesus to baptize, and is it to be done before, or only after, they become believers. I also don’t see why the maturity of discipleship is an issue. All believers may be at different levels of maturity, but the question is, are they or are they not saved, or at least believers? Whether they can at some future time be “unsaved” by backsliding or whatever, would not matter now. If they are saved now, or are believers, they should be baptized, right? The real issue is, can nonbelieving infants properly receive baptism. I don’t think they need to, to go to heaven, but most posters here see the need to baptize them as soon as possible after birth, because of original sin or whatever.

But if one is doing all one can to faithfully live as a disciple whether infant, child or adult, then that ultimately is what it really means to be a disciple.

You said, And I remember that Jesus recommended that we have childlike faith. So, I think that this undeveloped faith so characteristic of childlike trusting may be all that is needed, and I believe even an infant possesses that. It then is our responsibility, the church community, to be faithful in helping him/her mature as a disciple.

**How do you see infants “doing all one can to faithfully live as a disciple”? How do you see infants possessing any faith? All infants care about is the physical—getting milk in, gas and poop out, and sleeping. How many infants have you raised lately that have any faith other than the faith or trust that their parents or someone will meet those physical needs or else.

**

 

[Phil12123]

Phil, you amaze me. Do you not see the New Israel, the New Covenant Church, in this text you cited?

You apparently are a proponent of what some have called “Replacement Theology” which teaches there are no longer any promises for God’s Chosen People, the Jews, and all promises that were given to them about the land, etc. that God gave to Abraham and his descendants, are nullified or somehow given to the Church. I strongly disagree. To apply a passage that so obviously was spoken by God through His prophet, Ezekiel, to the house of Israel, to the Church, is the one of the worst things I’ve heard yet from the NotWorthy School of Biblical Interpretation.

 

[NotWorthy]

You apparently are a proponent of what some have called “Replacement Theology” which teaches there are no longer any promises for God’s Chosen People, the Jews,

**I don’t rightly know. I’ve heard the phrase used before, but to be honest with you, I don’t know or care if God has any promises left for the Jews. I read Scripture to learn more about God. For example, I’m not concerned with how Revelation tells of the end of the world nearly as much as I’m concerned about my Salvation should I die tomorrow.

I don’t know what “ism” that falls under.

and all promises that were given to them about the land, etc. that God gave to Abraham and his descendants, are nullified or somehow given to the Church. I strongly disagree.

Well, again, I’m not sure what category I’m supposed to fit under, but I think the New Covenant Church is the fulfillment of the promises given to Abraham and Moses and David. Now, again, whether God has any “surprise” in store for the Jewish Faith, I neither know or care too much. I do feel that the Israel of today is not the remnant or old Israel or anything like that. In other words, any promises to the Jews is not going to be fulfilled by the nation of Israel as it is today.

With that being said, the Jews are still the firstborn sons of God and we should protect Israel with every means possible, but is this necessary for any future promises. I simply don’t know (or care at this point, my worries are my and my family’s Salvation)

To apply a passage that so obviously was spoken by God through His prophet, Ezekiel, to the house of Israel, to the Church, is the one of the worst things I’ve heard yet from the NotWorthy School of Biblical Interpretation.

**I understand that all Scripture should be read in the light of Christ. I’m sorry if I was mistaken in that endeavor!

 

[malachi_a_serva]

a) Baptism - notice Ezekiel clearly denotes “sprinkling of water”.

I often wondered why the HS did not use the Greek word for “sprinkle” when referring to Baptism(to plung asunder)

 

[malachi_a_serva]

rantizo = sprinkle

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I often wondered why the HS did not use the Greek word for “sprinkle” when referring to Baptism(to plung asunder)

Well, because He used the word bapto and baptizo meaning “to dip” (and btw, not meaning to plunge asunder).

It could mean to immerse and was often used this way, but not exclusively. It could be any type of dipping, whether to bapto clothes when dying them, or dishes when washing them. Sometimes bapto and baptizo was used of objects just dipped in water but not fully submerged in it, it was even used in ceremonial circumstances when water was just poured over something. What they all have in common is that the object that was “baptized” was changed by the experience.

Today, most people view the NT baptismal experiences to have involved immersion, but the text does not actually make that an explicit statement. It is more an inference people draw from the word. Curiously the first symbol used by the church to indicate baptism was a shell. Perhaps they dipped not the person, but the shell, and then poured the water over the individual with it? We may never know for sure.

 

[NotWorthy]

I understand that Archaeologist have found numerous 1st and 2nd century Greek baptismal fonts. Most of them range between 15-18" deep. Frescoes of the ritual often show the pouring over of water.

 

[nonsumd]

Interesting thread – one can indeed argue infant baptism from Scripture.

If we received Original Sin involuntarily (we did not ask for it), does it not stand to reason that Original Sin could be removed from us without our conscious consent?

In infant baptism, our parents “speak for us,” just as at the Fall our First Parents “spoke for us.”

 

[NotWorthy]

Interesting thread – one can indeed argue infant baptism from Scripture.

If we received Original Sin involuntarily (we did not ask for it), does it not stand to reason that Original Sin could be removed from us without our conscious consent?

In infant baptism, our parents “speak for us,” just as at the Fall our First Parents “spoke for us.”

[sign]Bingo!!![/sign]Give that person a dollar!

BTW, what’s the image on your signature? It’s beautiful!

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Interesting thread – one can indeed argue infant baptism from Scripture.

If we received Original Sin involuntarily (we did not ask for it), does it not stand to reason that Original Sin could be removed from us without our conscious consent?

In infant baptism, our parents “speak for us,” just as at the Fall our First Parents “spoke for us.”

I concur, but I do think we have to recognize that this is not something that we should draw battle lines about between different Christian camps. Rather, I understand that there are also Christians who in good faith and seeking to follow what they understand to be the teaching of scripture who believe different than me in this regard. They are not crazies, blown by every wind of doctrine. They are sincere believers doing their best to follow the commands of God as they best understand then, and have reached their conclusions after diligent research. I don’t want to be so quick to say that I’m right and they are wrong. We have different views, and those differences are important. But they ought not drive wedges between us.

In the final analysis our goals are the same – to make disciples for Christ. Rather than foucing on what divides us, I prefer to focus on what unites us, and even if our practice of baptism is not identical, we still share a common faith in Jesus Christ as both Lord and Savior. To all such people, I extened the right hand of fellowship and bid them welcome as my brother and my sister in Christ. To paraphrase a line from another famous ritual of the church: Now may those whom God has joined together, not let doctrine put asunder.

 

[Phil12123]

…but to be honest with you, I don’t know or care if God has any promises left for the Jews. I read Scripture to learn more about God. For example, I’m not concerned with how Revelation tells of the end of the world nearly as much as I’m concerned about my Salvation should I die tomorrow.

Generally speaking, you have your priorities right. Your salvation and that of your family and friends is much more important than prophecy or if God has any promises left for the Jews. Nevertheless, God’s Word is true and if it says He will save you and you can believe it, you can also believe Him when He says He will save them (Rom. 11:26).

I think the New Covenant Church is the fulfillment of the promises given to Abraham and Moses and David. Now, again, whether God has any “surprise” in store for the Jewish Faith, I neither know or care too much. I do feel that the Israel of today is not the remnant or old Israel or anything like that. In other words, any promises to the Jews is not going to be fulfilled by the nation of Israel as it is today.

That is the essence of Replacement Theology, with which I totally disagree. Though the nation of Israel “as it is today” is by no means the completed fulfillment of God’s promises to the Jews, that fulfillment will come in God’s own timing, whether we believe it or not.

With that being said, the Jews are still the firstborn sons of God and we should protect Israel with every means possible, but is this necessary for any future promises. I simply don’t know (or care at this point, my worries are my and my family’s Salvation)

Agreed, we should protect Israel even in their present unbelief, for they are part of the seed of Abraham and God has said, “I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you” (Gen. 12:3), and “Whoever touches you touches the apple of my eye” (Zech. 2:8).

I understand that all Scripture should be read in the light of Christ. I’m sorry if I was mistaken in that endeavor!

Hey, you meant well. I don’t fault you for seeking to understand all Scripture in the light of Christ. The Ezekiel passage is something that reminds us of what He can do for the nation of Israel, which we might otherwise consider “goners” when it comes to God. And I can see how the portion that you lifted out would appear to be fulfilled in the church. Some would say it finds at least partial fulfillment in the church. But in the Phil12123 School of Biblical Interpretation, context must always be considered in understanding any Scripture.

 

[Phil12123]

In the final analysis our goals are the same – to make disciples for Christ. Rather than focusing on what divides us, I prefer to focus on what unites us, and even if our practice of baptism is not identical, we still share a common faith in Jesus Christ as both Lord and Savior. To all such people, I extend the right hand of fellowship and bid them welcome as my brother and my sister in Christ. To paraphrase a line from another famous ritual of the church: Now may those whom God has joined together, not let doctrine put asunder.

**Well said. And having said that, can you, in 26 words or less, summarize for me what your understanding is that the disciples would have done to follow Jesus’ command to go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them…etc.? How and when, in your opinion, would they know they’ve made a disciple they can baptize, so they can move on to the next group of hearers of the Gospel message?
**

 

[Phil12123]

Well, because He used the word bapto and baptizo meaning “to dip” (and btw, not meaning to plunge asunder).

It could mean to immerse and was often used this way, but not exclusively. It could be any type of dipping, whether to bapto clothes when dying them, or dishes when washing them. Sometimes bapto and baptizo was used of objects just dipped in water but not fully submerged in it, it was even used in ceremonial circumstances when water was just poured over something. What they all have in common is that the object that was “baptized” was changed by the experience.

Today, most people view the NT baptismal experiences to have involved immersion, but the text does not actually make that an explicit statement. It is more an inference people draw from the word. Curiously the first symbol used by the church to indicate baptism was a shell. Perhaps they dipped not the person, but the shell, and then poured the water over the individual with it? We may never know for sure.

**If baptism is a picture of our total cleansing of sin, would it not be a total submersion, rather than leaving any portion not under? Doing the latter would picture part of us not being cleansed.

Also, if baptism is a picture of our being buried with Christ, would it not be a total submersion, rather than leaving any portion not buried? How many graveyards have you walked through with a leg or arm sticking out of a grave?

Would there be any need for “much water” (John 3:23), if a few drops sprinkled, or pouring with a shell, would suffice?

**

 

[nonsumd]

BTW, what’s the image on your signature? It’s beautiful!

Hi, NW!

My sig pic is from the tomb of Galla Placidia, the daughter of Theodosius I, the emperor who made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire (Constantine had not gone quite that far – he only legalized it and patronized it massively).

The tomb is in Ravenna, Italy. I’d seen the Good Shepherd mosaic any number of times, but I was dazzled when I saw that scene with the vault of the corridor leading to it.

 

[NotWorthy]

That is the essence of Replacement Theology, with which I totally disagree. Though the nation of Israel “as it is today” is by no means the completed fulfillment of God’s promises to the Jews, that fulfillment will come in God’s own timing, whether we believe it or not.

I’m not sure if I agree with this analysis. The promises to Abraham have not been replaced with the New Covenant Church, they have been fulfilled in the New Covenant Church. When Christ came, the Jews were supposed to become part of the New Covenant (which many did). This is the fulfillment of all the promises (well, maybe not ALL).

Replacement Theology claims that God through away the Jewish people and all the Covenants of the OT and replaced them with the New Covenant Church. Sort of like, “I don’t like you anymore, so I’m going to play with someone else”. Instead, I think of it as “I knew you would become this fine man (the new Church) when you finally grow up, my son (the Jews).”

 

[NotWorthy]

My good friend Phil, I’m going to be out all day as I have to travel for a business school. Although I won’t be able to post, I’ll be able to study. I’m going to study Ezekiel on the plane, and see if I was close in my initial assessment.

But I gotta ask you, the similarities between Ezekiel and Peter’s sermon are striking. Do you seriously feel that this is a coincidence?

As you mentioned, there are partial fulfillments of Scripture (ex. Isaiah 7:14) as well as complete fulfillments of the same Scripture. You owed up to the fact that the Pentecost may be a partial fulfillment of Ezekiel. What does that tell you?

 

[NotWorthy]

Hi, NW!

My sig pic is from the tomb of Galla Placidia, the daughter of Theodosius I, the emperor who made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire (Constantine had not gone quite that far – he only legalized it and patronized it massively).

The tomb is in Ravenna, Italy. I’d seen the Good Shepherd mosaic any number of times, but I was dazzled when I saw that scene with the vault of the corridor leading to it.

Wow! I have GOT to go to Italy!!!

Interesting note: While on one of my excursions to CARM.org, I came across the story of Mary’s tomb at Loretto. I was fascinated at the story. This is one of the reasons that I have to go to Italy. What’s funny is that the poster that showed me this link was trying to showing me how whacko the Catholic Church is. All he did was light a fire under me to go see this place. God does work in mysterious ways!