Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[nonsumd]

There is no such animal in Scripture. Your so-called “baptism of desire” is nowhere taught by Jesus, Peter, James, John, Paul, Jude, in short, by any author of Holy Writ. It is an invention of man which became needed by man’s false interpretation of John 3:5.

What is Baptism? The cleansing of sin (only Original Sin in the case of the newborn, of both Original Sin and actual sin in all other cases) that permits the soul to enter heaven.

The good thief asked (that is, expressed the desire) that Our Lord remember Him when He enters into His kingdom. Our Lord answered, “Today you shall be with me in paradise” (lest anyone should play dumb as to what “remembering me when you enter into your kingdom” means).

The good thief entered heaven. Clearly he was cleansed of his sin. He expressed to Our Lord the desire to enter heaven (and his previous rebuking the bad thief shows his contrition for his sin). Our Lord clearly cleansed the good thief of sin because otherwise the good thief would not see him “that day” in paradise.

If it quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. There is “such an animal” as Baptism of Desire in Scripture.

What is a human invention is any doctrine that portrays God as less merciful than He shows Himself to be in Scripture.

In the light of other evidence from Scripture such as the case of good thief, we see that John 3:5 is properly interpreted to mean the water baptism is the ordinary means by which we gain entry to heaven; it does not exclude that there are other, “extraordinary,” ways.

Jesus would naturally speak to someone in the position to accept water baptism such as Nicodemus in terms and with emphases different from those He would use with someone like the good thief who is not in such a position.

The Bible contradicts itself only if people refuse to interpret a verse in light of all other relevant verses as well as the verse’s own context.

 

[Phil12123]

What is Baptism? The cleansing of sin (only Original Sin in the case of the newborn, of both Original Sin and actual sin in all other cases) that permits the soul to enter heaven.

The good thief asked (that is, expressed the desire) that Our Lord remember Him when He enters into His kingdom. Our Lord answered, “Today you shall be with me in paradise” (lest anyone should play dumb as to what “remembering me when you enter into your kingdom” means).

The good thief entered heaven. Clearly he was cleansed of his sin. He expressed to Our Lord the desire to enter heaven (and his previous rebuking the bad thief shows his contrition for his sin). Our Lord clearly cleansed the good thief of sin because otherwise the good thief would not see him “that day” in paradise.

If it quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. There is “such an animal” as Baptism of Desire in Scripture.

What is a human invention is any doctrine that portrays God as less merciful than He shows Himself to be in Scripture.

In the light of other evidence from Scripture such as the case of good thief, we see that John 3:5 is properly interpreted to mean the water baptism is the ordinary means by which we gain entry to heaven; it does not exclude that there are other, “extraordinary,” ways.

Jesus would naturally speak to someone in the position to accept water baptism such as Nicodemus in terms and with emphases different from those He would use with someone like the good thief who is not in such a position.

The Bible contradicts itself only if people refuse to interpret a verse in light of all other relevant verses as well as the verse’s own context.

**All of which proves nothing. You have not produced a single verse in which Jesus Himself, Peter, James, Paul, John or any other NT writer says, if you just want something that is otherwise absolutely required, you have it.

Let me repeat here what I said elsewhere regarding the “water” of John 3:5:

I also see that if you make it (“water”) water baptism, then no one can enter the kingdom of God without it, and we see that is not true, both from the thief on the cross and Cornelius and his group. In the thief’s case, you cannot make John 3:5 say one thing and then turn around and say the thief can still get into the kingdom because he desired something he didn’t have. Your interpretation of 3:5 does not allow that. Besides, there is no scriptural basis for such a thing. If you want to make 3:5 require water baptism, then everyone has to be water baptized or they don’t get in. Period.

Furthermore, if the “water” is water baptism and it is mandatory for anyone to get into the kingdom of God, don’t you find it a little odd that Paul would say, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect” (1 Cor. 1:17).**

 

[NotWorthy]

There is no such animal in Scripture. Your so-called “baptism of desire” is nowhere taught by Jesus, Peter, James, John, Paul, Jude, in short, by any author of Holy Writ. It is an invention of man which became needed by man’s false interpretation of John 3:5.

Thank you. I resprect your religion’s theology, too!

BTW, where in Scripture does it say it must be in Scripture, or it ain’t theologically true?

Why is there no such Scripture, when Jesus clearly gives an example. Doesn’t Jesus teach by example? Doesn’t he show us that our intercessions are beneficial for others even though there’s no clear instruction on it? Did you ever teach your kids with example?

The Holy Spirit could have come after baptism but did not. He came before baptism to teach us something, namely, that He does not wait for man and his water to move and act and do His sovereign work. It also teaches us that it is not water baptism that produces cleansing and forgiveness of sin, both of which would have been required for that group to receive that extraordinary gift.

And here, again, not only is your teaching not in Scripture, except under extra-ordinary events, but it clearly contradicts what Jesus and the Apostles taught, as well as what the entire Christian Church taught for over 1600 years.

 

[NotWorthy]

**
Furthermore, if the “water” is water baptism and it is mandatory for anyone to get into the kingdom of God, don’t you find it a little odd that Paul would say, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect” (1 Cor. 1:17).**

Phil, if you continue to try to use teachings such as this, which you’ve ripped out of context, to prove your theology, then I’m going to begin to lose respect for your theology, my friend.

You claim we teach stuff that is not clearly in Scripture. We claim it is more implicit than explicit. We look at context.

But you’ve taken the context of Corinthians, thrown it in the trash, and overlaid your baptism heresy over it.

Paul is not talking about the benefits of water baptism here in Corinthians. He’s talking about One Church - One Baptism. Not the Church of Appollos or the Church of Cephas.

 

[Phil12123]

me: ** , just as being IN the ark saved Noah and the others.
**
you: ** … as they passed through the waters, just as baptism saves you now**.

Amazing. Just mention “water,” even flood waters, and you want to connect it with baptism. Who “passed through the waters”? Not Noah and family. They were IN THE ARK and not a drop of water touched them. The only ones “passing through the waters” were the multitudes who were destroyed by it. In the case of Noah, “water” is not a type of baptism but of judgment which will come upon anyone who is not IN the Ark of safety that is Jesus Christ.

me: We are placed IN Christ by the Holy Spirit the moment we repent and trust in the Savior. That is when the Spirit baptizes, or immerses, or places us into the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13).

you: **No, it is after Baptism that the Spirit comes down on us. **Christ showed us this during His Baptism, which pre-figures our baptism. Water - then Spirit.

**What we have here are two contrasting ways of looking at the salvation that God offers sinners. My view places the Gospel (the Good News that Jesus Christ died for sinners and rose again) and its preaching first and foremost. When a sinner hears that Good News, sees himself as a guilty sinner in need of a Savior, repents of sin, and embraces Christ by faith as his own and his only hope for the forgiveness of his sins, he thereby “receives” or “accepts” Christ and in doing so, he receives the free gift of eternal life. He is saved. In obedience as a newly born (again) child of God, he is water baptized to identify with the others believers and their mutual community of faith. That is what I think the Scriptures teach.

Your view and that of all baptismal regenerationists and sacramentalists places on the water baptism an importance that goes beyond the Gospel and beyond faith and repentance. A person, such as an infant, can (1) not hear or understand the Gospel, (2) not believe a word of it, (3) not know he is a sinner, (4) not repent of sin, (5) not embrace Christ as Savior, or anything else for that matter, and yet still (6) be regenerated and receive the Holy Spirit and become a child of God and member of the Body of Christ. Of course, a dozen or so years later, he may still never do any of that, and then what? He is by his own decision NOT a saved person, NOT a regenerated, Holy-Spirit-possessing child of God, NOT a repentant sinner trusting in Christ for his salvation or for anything else, and NOT anything that the water baptism supposedly made him as an infant. I don’t think that view is scriptural. And guess what? I don’t care how many ECF believed it or how long the CC taught it. It is just not scriptural.
**

 

[Phil12123]

me: Furthermore, if the “water” is water baptism and it is mandatory for anyone to get into the kingdom of God, don’t you find it a little odd that Paul would say, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect” (1 Cor. 1:17).
you:

Phil, if you continue to try to use teachings such as this, which you’ve ripped out of context, to prove your theology, then I’m going to begin to lose respect for your theology, my friend.

You claim we teach stuff that is not clearly in Scripture. We claim it is more implicit than explicit. We look at context.

But you’ve taken the context of Corinthians, thrown it in the trash, and overlaid your baptism heresy over it.

Paul is not talking about the benefits of water baptism here in Corinthians. He’s talking about One Church - One Baptism. Not the Church of Appollos or the Church of Cephas.

**And why do you suppose the Corinthians were so divided? Because each had their own teacher or baptizer to boast about. I can just imagine the conversation, “Who baptized you? I was baptized by Apollos himself!” It is when you elevate water baptism that you elevate the water baptizer. They should all be boasting of Christ and what HE did for them at Calvary, but instead they elevate men. That can only be because the MEN did something to them or for them.

Nevertheless, if water baptism was as essential for salvation as you say, Paul would never say Christ did not send him to do it, regardless of the foolishness of men. The risk of division is a small matter compared to the risk of an eternity in the Lake of Fire for not being water baptized, if that is what occurs.

And certainly Christ taught by example. Just as we see He did by NOT instructing His disciples to baptize infants when they were brought to Him. His conversation with the thief on the cross teaches us that it is repentance and faith alone that brings forgiveness and eternal life, not some legalistic view of water baptism that supposedly regenerates regardless of whether there is any repentance or faith.
**

 

[NotWorthy]

Me: I follow Scripture, and the Church that Christ left us:

You: I don’t care what the rest of Christianity and the World thought for how long. I know I’m right!!!

Jesus’ last command to the Apostles:Teach and baptize.

Peter’s first command as Pope: Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins.

                Mark 16:16 - Jesus said "***He who believes AND is baptized will be saved***." Jesus                      says believing is not enough. Baptism is also required. This is because baptism                      is salvific, not just symbolic. **The Greek text also does not mandate any                      specific order for belief and baptism, so the verse proves nothing about a                      “believer’s baptism**.”


                Acts 22:16 - Ananias tells Paul, "***arise and be baptized, and wash away your                      sins***," even though Paul was converted directly by Jesus Christ. This proves                      that Paul's acceptance of Jesus as personal Lord and Savior was not enough to                      be forgiven of his sin and saved. The sacrament of baptism is required.further, Ananias' phrase "wash away" comes from the Greek word                      "apolouo." "Apolouo" means an actual cleansing which removes sin. It is not a                      symbolic covering up of sin. Even though Jesus chose Paul directly in a                      heavenly revelation, Paul had to be baptized to have his sins washed away.

                Gal. 3:27 - ***For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Chris***t.  **Whoever is baptized in Christ puts on Chris**t. Putting on Christ is                      not just symbolic. Christ actually dwells within our soul.

                 Heb. 10:22 -  l***et us approach with a sincere heart and in absolute trust, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed in pure water***.

in baptism, our hearts are sprinkled clean from an evil conscience (again, dealing with the interior of the person) as our bodies are washed with pure water (the waters of baptism). Baptism regenerates us because it removes original sin, sanctifies our souls, and effects our adoption as sons and daughters in Jesus Christ.

                 1 Peter 3:21 - ***God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water.******This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God*** ***for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ***.  Peter expressly writes that “baptism, corresponding to Noah's                      ark, now saves you; not as a removal of dirt from the body, but for a clear                      conscience. “

Hence, the verse demonstrates that baptism is salvific (it saves us), and deals with the interior life of the person (purifying the conscience, like Heb. 10:22), and not the external life (removing dirt from the body). Many scholars believe the phrase “not as a removal of dirt from the body” is in reference to the Jewish ceremony of circumcision (but, at a minimum, shows that baptism is not about the exterior, but interior life).

Baptism is now the “circumcision” of the new Covenant (Col. 2:11-12), but it, unlike the old circumcision, actually saves us, as Noah and his family were saved by water.

                 Again, notice the parallel between Heb. 10:22 and 1 Peter 3:21: (1) Heb. 10:22                      – draw near to the sanctuary (heaven) / 1 Peter 3:21 – now saves us. (2) Heb.                      10:22 – sprinkled clean, washed with pure water / 1 Peter 3:20-21 – saved                      through water, baptism. (3) Heb. 10:22 – from an evil conscience (interior) / 1
                 Peter 3:21 – for a clear conscience (interior).

BTW, some of this was lifted from ScriptureCatholic.com

 

[nonsumd]

All of which proves nothing. You have not produced a single verse in which Jesus Himself, Peter, James, Paul, John or any other NT writer says, if you just want something that is otherwise absolutely required, you have it.

The good thief was granted salvation, Our Lord gave him the equivalent of baptism, when he asked for it in a situation where water baptism was not available (the one being baptized and the one baptizing both hanging on a cross).

In another situation (Acts 26-40), the Ethiopian eunuch, having received instruction on how to interpret scripture from the Apostle Philip, sees a body of water and asks for water baptism. Clearly, the eunuch understands that water baptism is necessary, understands because he has just been instructed by the Apostle.

One passage shows what can be nothing other than a “baptism of desire,” while another passage indicates the necessity of water baptism. The only way not to have the Bible “contradict itself” is to accept a distinction between “ordinary” (i.e., “specifically ordained”) and “extraordinary” (i.e. “outside the usual circumstances”) baptism, between water baptism and baptism by desire.

By making too much of certain verses and ignoring others altogether, it is you who are making the Bible say what you want it to say.

Unfortunately for your purposes, the Bible did not drop out of the sky full-formed in order that people could pick it up and interpret it without the guidance of a teaching authority in apostolic succession. The NT does not contain precise guidelines about many things because when its books were being written the the Apostles or their immediate successors were still alive, still teaching, still guiding. The teaching authority of the Church preceded the written NT, and there is no evidence that the early church differed with the current teaching of the Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, and most other pre-20th c. Christian churches on the necessity of water baptism.

Furthermore, if the “water” is water baptism and it is mandatory for anyone to get into the kingdom of God, don’t you find it a little odd that Paul would say, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect” (1 Cor. 1:17).

Right before these words, Paul says that he has baptized a number of people, so he has been baptizing even though he seems to be saying that his specific mission was preaching rather than baptizing. When other NT passages clearly show Jesus comissioning the Apostles to baptize (Matthew 28:19 – the language clearly indicating a dipping in water and not a non-sacramental, intellectual “autobaptism”), you cannot use Paul’s statement here to refute the necessity of water baptism.

 

[onenow1]

Hi,Phil

QUOTE= NotWorthy.
I follow Scripture, and the Church that Christ left us:

You: I don’t care what the rest of Christianity and the World thought for how long. I know I’m right!!!

Jesus’ last command to the Apostles:Teach and baptize.

Peter’s first command as Pope: Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins

Quote= OneNow1,Over and over again we are told that is incorrect to allow infants to be baptized because the Scriptural order is to first believe, and then to be baptized (Mark 16:16). The error in this thinking is not that it is incorrect to have an adult believe before he is baptized, but that one cannot apply a command intended for adults to infants. The Bible was not written to infants and is therefore not going to direct them to do anything. They are under the care of their parents who can hear, understand, and believe. Additionally, there is an important distinction to be made between baptizing an infant and an adult believer-one has the need to repent, the other does not.

Phil, why would you put your child in jeopardy by waiting for some suspected age of reason to accept Jesus, when you have the faith of the parents to reply for them to wash away original sin not personal sin. Thats why confession is necessary after baptism, a constant renewing and acceptance of the mercy of God through the cross of Jesus Christ.

Peace and Love, OneNow1

 

[nonsumd]

And why do you suppose the Corinthians were so divided? Because each had their own teacher or baptizer to boast about. I can just imagine the conversation, "Who baptized you? I was baptized by Apollos himself!" It is when you elevate water baptism that you elevate the water baptizer. They should all be boasting of Christ and what HE did for them at Calvary, but instead they elevate men. That can only be because the MEN did something to them or for them.

Since Christ Himself commissions the Apostles to baptize, then, if some people focus on the water baptizer rather than on Christ, their doing so does not make water baptism unnecessary. If people focus more on the preacher in front of them than on Christ, that does not make preaching unnecessary.

And certainly Christ taught by example. Just as we see He did by NOT instructing His disciples to baptize infants when they were brought to Him. His conversation with the thief on the cross teaches us that it is repentance and faith alone that brings forgiveness and eternal life, not some legalistic view of water baptism that supposedly regenerates regardless of whether there is any repentance or faith.

Yes, Jesus taught by example. He submitted to water baptism Himself in order that “all righteousness be fulfilled.” One may argue that this applies only to righteousness under the Old Covenant, but why then does Jesus commission the Apostles to baptize? And, moreover, did John “exalt himself” and do we understand him to be exalted over Jesus when John obeyed Jesus and baptized him? How much less exalted than John the Baptist those who baptize as the present-day successors of the Apostles!

Baptism cleanses us of both Original Sin and actual sin. As I have said on this thread before, we did not consciously choose to inherit Original Sin, so we need not consciously choose to be cleansed of it (our First Parents “spoke for” us when it came to accepting Original Sin, and so our immediate parents speak for us in the cleansing of it).

When you dismiss the sacraments as “legalism,” you show that you have gone far from an essential emphasis of Christianity, you show despite yourself the influence of the Gnostic horror of the world: the human being is a union of body and soul, and it is that union which is saved, not merely the soul.

God became flesh so that the flesh might be saved. The Incarnated God underwent physical torture and death in order to share and redeem our physical nature, suffering and mortal after the Fall, not just our spiritual nature. Grace is bestowed not merely intellectually but through the physical means of the sacraments.

And none of this makes repentance and conversion any less necessary for those who have commited sin – physically, sacramentally conferred grace is God’s ordained means to empower us to repent and to convert.

 

[Phil12123]

Over and over again we are told that is incorrect to allow infants to be baptized because the Scriptural order is to first believe, and then to be baptized (Mark 16:16). The error in this thinking is not that it is incorrect to have an adult believe before he is baptized, but that one cannot apply a command intended for adults to infants. The Bible was not written to infants and is therefore not going to direct them to do anything. They are under the care of their parents who can hear, understand, and believe. Additionally, there is an important distinction to be made between baptizing an infant and an adult believer-one has the need to repent, the other does not.

Phil, why would you put your child in jeopardy by waiting for some suspected age of reason to accept Jesus, when you have the faith of the parents to reply for them to wash away original sin not personal sin. Thats why confession is necessary after baptism, a constant renewing and acceptance of the mercy of God through the cross of Jesus Christ.

**Of course infants are not directed to do anything, because they don’t NEED to do anything, not for personal sins and not for their inherited sin nature. Being under the care of their parents, they will be taught, presumably, all that they need to be taught until they reach an age when they can understand they are sinners and need a Savior. Until then, they are NOT “in jeopardy” of anything! So why baptize them and do something that Christ never commanded to be done?

In a previous discussion in this thread, concerning the proper candidates for baptism, I said the following, which relates to the above:

In either case, whether “disciples” or “he who believes,” there is no thought of infants. Infants are just not ready for that. They cannot hear the message or respond to it yet. So why are we making them do that, through the proxy of their parents? Are parents anywhere commanded or encouraged to do that? The children are already “connected” to the community by virtue of being children of believing parents. But we cannot truly connect them to the faith of that community until they have it themselves. Certainly the parents would teach them from a young age all that they have the capacity to receive, but why not leave it at that? Do what we can do as parents and leave the rest to the Holy Spirit, Who in God’s own timing will woo the child to the Savior. It seems like we don’t want to allow that process to occur, probably from some perceived fear that their little souls are in danger without man performing some ritual that God did not command. We are impatient and fearful, almost wanting to play the role of the Holy Spirit and do things in our own timing.**

 

[Phil12123]

Where does any Scripture teach that baptism washes away “Original Sin”? The effect of Adam and Eve’s sin is that we are all born with a sin nature or an inclination to commit actual, personal sin. That will never be eradicated until “the redemption of the body” when we receive our new resurrection bodies (Rom. 8:22-23; Phil 3:21). So what do you think is accomplished by baptizing a baby? It does not remove its sin nature and it does not have any personal sins to be washed away.

 

[Singinbeauty]

Matt.28:
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

#1 - make disciples of all nations
Ask them to follow Christ ONLY. Show them that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Light

#2 - Baptize them in the process
The word ‘baptizing’ would suggest that this is a process within making them disciples. But one cannot be a disciple until they choose to be. So within the journey of becoming a disciple you are baptized.

20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

I love this verse.

Anyways. Again the word ‘teaching’ would indicate a process. I think that there is a reason that both ‘baptizing’ and ‘teaching’ were used here because it indicates a never ending process. Through the teaching comes obeying (baptism).

Lets see : Vs.19, make students [disciples] of all nations,

Agree’d

Vs.20, Apostles teach after baptism not before.

Wait, where’d you get this? To become a disciple you have to at least know enough to about the job to accept it. I see - teach them, they decide to become a disciple, then they are baptized while they are still being taught.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Children growing up with Christian parents are already disciples - this is not a “some day” thing, since they are already being taught the Gospel; they are already attending Sunday School, their names are being added to the wait list of the local Catholic school, and so on. There is no reason not to baptize them as infants, this being the case.

Keep in mind, we are not baptizing every infant in the world, but only those who are being brought up in faithfully devout Catholic homes, who are already being taught to pray to Jesus and to give their hearts to Him - this began while they were still in the womb, and continues as their mothers talk to them, sing to them, and pray with them, often many times a day.

It astounds me, though, that people who consider themselves faithful Christians, and even call themselves “Evangelical” would not want their children to be Christians while living in their homes, and would not want to have them baptized, so as to begin to teach them the ways of Christ. Why should any Christian parent wish his or her child to be a pagan, and “choose later” for himself or herself what religion to follow, without allowing the child to receive the graces of Baptism that would allow him to be able to receive the Gospel?

I have no problem with infant baptism (see my earlier posts in this thread), but if one puts on another shoes for a moment, and thinks about this from something other than a Catholic persepctive, you would see that those who elect NOT to baptize their children are not saying that they don’t want their children to be Christians. Indeed they do. But they don’t think that baptizing them will accomplish that in their lives. For that matter, even though I support the concept of infant baptism, I don’t think that baptism actually effects regeneration in anyone merely by the imposition of water and appropriate words. If I did, I would be hiring crop dusters to fly over every large city loaded with the waters of baptism.

 

[Singinbeauty]

It astounds me, though, that people who consider themselves faithful Christians, and even call themselves “Evangelical” would not want their children to be Christians while living in their homes, and would not want to have them baptized, so as to begin to teach them the ways of Christ. Why should any Christian parent wish his or her child to be a pagan, and “choose later” for himself or herself what religion to follow, without allowing the child to receive the graces of Baptism that would allow him to be able to receive the Gospel?

Just because you are baptized doesn’t make you christian. So the bolded statement doesn’t make any sense. Of course I would want my child to be a follower of Christ! But until they make that decision they are not christian. No matter what I do. They have to ultimately accept or deny Christ. Does God have mercy on children too young to make that call. I believe He is a merciful God and does. But that is opinion. It is up to Him on that subject.

 

[Phil12123]

Children growing up with Christian parents are already disciples - this is not a “some day” thing, since they are already being taught the Gospel; they are already attending Sunday School, their names are being added to the wait list of the local Catholic school, and so on. There is no reason not to baptize them as infants, this being the case.

Keep in mind, we are not baptizing every infant in the world, but only those who are being brought up in faithfully devout Catholic homes, who are already being taught to pray to Jesus and to give their hearts to Him - this began while they were still in the womb, and continues as their mothers talk to them, sing to them, and pray with them, often many times a day.

Everything you say that the children are experiencing (being taught the Gospel, attending SS, taught to pray to Jesus and give their hearts to Him, etc.) is the sort of thing I was saying good parents will do, and then leave the results to the Holy Spirit, Who will do His work. After all that, if the child in fact believes the Gospel, repents of sin and accepts Jesus as Savior and Lord, then, but only then, baptize them as disciples. Certainly that would not occur with infants. What you describe is children, even very young children, but not infants in the womb, or just out of the womb. No baby is a disciple. He or she may become one, but until that occurs, no baptism is scriptural.

t astounds me, though, that people who consider themselves faithful Christians, and even call themselves “Evangelical” would not want their children to be Christians while living in their homes, and would not want to have them baptized, so as to begin to teach them the ways of Christ. Why should any Christian parent wish his or her child to be a pagan, and “choose later” for himself or herself what religion to follow, without allowing the child to receive the graces of Baptism that would allow him to be able to receive the Gospel?

Grace Seeker already commented on the above, and I heartily agree with his comments. Singinbeauty also spoke the truth. People who call themselves “Evangelical” do not consider anyone a Christian, whether their own small children or anyone else, unless they have had a life-changing, salvation experience and have thereby become a Christian. By that I mean, they have heard and believed the Gospel that Jesus died for their sins and rose again, have repented, and accepted Him as Savior and Lord of their life. Then, and only then, should they be baptized to identify with the other believers and their mutual faith community.

 

[Phil12123]

It astounds me, though, that people who consider themselves faithful Christians, and even call themselves “Evangelical” would not want their children to be Christians while living in their homes, and would not want to have them baptized, so as to begin to teach them the ways of Christ. Why should any Christian parent wish his or her child to be a pagan, and “choose later” for himself or herself what religion to follow, without allowing the child to receive the graces of Baptism that would allow him to be able to receive the Gospel?

**We obviously view baptism and its purpose differently. From the above, I assume you think that a baby should be baptized so he will receive “the graces of Baptism that would allow him to be able to receive the Gospel,” without which he may not make that decision on his own, and instead remain (or become) a pagan. I see baptism as something done after one becomes a believer, not something done before that time to help one become a believer. I think my view is supported by everything seen in Acts in terms of what the apostles and others (like Philip) did----preach the Gospel and baptize those who believed it. It wasn’t done the other way around—baptize people and it will help them become believers.

The other thing I see about what you say is, you almost don’t want your child to make a decision on his own, because he may make the wrong decision. I understand that very real concern, and sympathize with it (every parent does), but none of us can get a person (our child or anyone else), who has his own free will, to do or decide what we want, unless he does it on his own. It has to be HIM doing it, not us. That is why I cannot agree with the idea that any adult can believe for the child, who is an infant, and thereby legitimate an infant baptism. Jesus said, “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved,” not, “He whose parent believes and is baptized shall be saved.”**

 

[NotWorthy]

Phil, do you need some Scripture that shows that Baptism washes away Original Sin, preparing our souls to receive His Graces?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Phil, do you need some Scripture that shows that Baptism washes away Original Sin, preparing our souls to receive His Graces?

I’m sort of getting in the middle here, but what would be the point of that. Let’s say that one concedes that, the washing away of Original Sin still does not make one a Christian. Phil said rather plainly, that for him, baptism is something that should be done after one has made a confession of faith. For Phil, this is also the definition of a disciple, one who believes and has decided (past tense) to follow Jesus. It is not someone who is in the process of coming to faith or that other Christians are teaching about Jesus, but one who has already reached at least a enough maturity of faith to claim it for his/her own.

I suppose I will get attacked from both sides for my next comment, but I don’t think the differences being expressed here are primarily about interpretation of scripture, but rather a whole philosophy (not theology) of what it means to be a disciple and the purposes of baptism that goes even deeper.

 

[NotWorthy]

I’m sort of getting in the middle here, but what would be the point of that. Let’s say that one concedes that, the washing away of Original Sin still does not make one a Christian. Phil said rather plainly, that for him, baptism is something that should be done after one has made a confession of faith. For Phil, this is also the definition of a disciple, one who believes and has decided (past tense) to follow Jesus. It is not someone who is in the process of coming to faith or that other Christians are teaching about Jesus, but one who has already reached at least a enough maturity of faith to claim it for his/her own.

Grace, I certainly see your point. I brought this up “umpteen” pages ago, and I realize that our differences in the necessity of baptism are ultimately the crux of the matter.

I figured I was wasting my time posting the Original Sin quotes, which is why I asked Phil before doing the leg-work, so to speak.

I suppose I will get attacked from both sides for my next comment, but I don’t think the differences being expressed here are primarily about interpretation of scripture, but rather a whole philosophy (not theology) of what it means to be a disciple and the purposes of baptism that goes even deeper.

I think that is what is causing all this dialog. We all have lenses that we look at Scripture through. Those lenses are shaped and colored by our beliefs. These pre-conceived beliefs are what causes the same Scripture to be interpreted more than one way, as has been evidenced numerous times on this thread.

But there is one big difference in our lenses, GraceSeeker, and you know what it is?.. My lenses are 2000 years old, and Phils are brand-spankin’ new!!!

I know, I know, I’m just teasin’. But seriously, I think you are dead right, and I think these lenses that we use are the biggest hindrance to reconciling our biblical teaching. That’s why I’d never Pass the “Phil12123 Biblical Interpretation 101” Class!

Thanks for your calming and insiteful effect on this thread, GS!