I've hit a BIG Baptism stumbling block with a Baptist

[DVIN_CKS]

Keep in mind though that the Old Testament prophets who were indeed filled with the Holy Spirit were NOT washed clean of their sins – specifically original sin. The best they could do was to offer an imperfect sacrifice for their sins. Getting baptized in the name of the Trinity means that our sins are completely washed away and our souls are re-born. The sacrament of Baptism is more than just receiving the Holy Spirit…it also involves being cleansed of original sin and any other sin that may be on the soul. The soul has to be spotless before it can ever enter heaven. We begin at Baptism and continue to keep it clean through the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Your friend will have a hard time with this logic because he doesn’t believe that the soul is actually washed clean at a water baptism. He believes that the soul remains filthy, and is only “covered over”. I think Luther used the analogy of pure white snow covering a pile of dung.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Keep in mind though that the Old Testament prophets who were indeed filled with the Holy Spirit were NOT washed clean of their sins – specifically original sin. The best they could do was to offer an imperfect sacrifice for their sins. Getting baptized in the name of the Trinity means that our sins are completely washed away and our souls are re-born. The sacrament of Baptism is more than just receiving the Holy Spirit…it also involves being cleansed of original sin and any other sin that may be on the soul. The soul has to be spotless before it can ever enter heaven. We begin at Baptism and continue to keep it clean through the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Your friend will have a hard time with this logic because he doesn’t believe that the soul is actually washed clean at a water baptism. He believes that the soul remains filthy, and is only “covered over”. I think Luther used the analogy of pure white snow covering a pile of dung.

Hello DVIN,

Do you agree with Jesus that unbaptized Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are in heaven?

NAB MAR 12:18

Then some **Sadducees who hold there is no resurrection **came to him with a question …\…12:24 Jesus said: “You are badly misled, because you fail to understand the Scriptures or the power of God. When people rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage but live like angels in heaven. As to the raising of the dead, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush, how God told him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob’? He is the God of the living not of the dead, You are very much mistaken.” **NAB LUK 20:37 **

Moses in the passage about the bush showed that the dead rise again when he called the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. God is not the God of the dead but of the living. All are alive for him.

 

[Anima_Christi]

Hello everyone, I tried to get an answer from the Apologist forum but they haven’t used my question (it was only a couple days ago but I need an answer fairly quickly…)

I’m involved in my first serious apologetics discussion with someone who has seriously studied the bible for years. It has been going very well - no arguments and actually very enjoyable.

Our discussion is centered on Baptism. He recently brought up Acts 10:44-48 and I told him I would have to look into this passage more. Specifically verse 47: *“Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people, who have received the holy Spirit even as we have?.”
*
He said these verses, and particularly verse 47, show that Peter and others received the Holy Spirit prior to baptism - therefore the Holy Spirit does not come to dwell in us as a result of baptism. He does admit, though, that other verses seem to link belief, repentance, and baptism very closely and people could get confused - but this verse should clear up any of that confusion.

I remember asking a similar question last year on this forum, and someone said that in the early Church, the Holy Spirit was poured out on many in an ‘un-normative’ manner to help spread God’s message. I presented this as a possible explanation, but he said there is nothing in Scripture to support that rationalization for this particular passage. *

Can anyone help me explain this verse? Thank you!!
*

Ask him if the passage says ANYTHING about salvation or remission of sins??

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

I’m not sure what you’re getting at with your two questions…canyou help me out a little? Sorry!

Ok, being filled with the Holy Spirit is not equal to salvation. The filling of the Holy Spirit is God working in a persons life. The Holy Spirit through the filling, empowerment if you will grants spiritual gifts to Chrisitans ( I Cor 12 ). Usually, the filling of the Holy Spirit occurs after one becomes a Chrisitan. But, in the case of Acts 10, the flow of the chapter is Peter having a vision where he learns that salvation is open to the gentiles too, then the Holy Spirit fills the gentiles giving them the gift of tongues. Peter and the Apostles witness this out pouring of God’s Holy Spirit on these gentiles. At that point water baptism is made avilable to the gentiles.

Now, when one is born again, that is called the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which is often a seperate event from the filling of the Holy Spirit. For example, the apostles recieved the Holy Spirit in John 20:22, “And with that he Jesus ] breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”” One can only be indwelt with the Holy Spirit one time to my knowledge which is when they become born of the Spirit. The filling of the Holy Spirit ( read the book of Acts look for fill, full, upon ) can occur many times.

So, Acts 10 is an unusual case where gentiles were filled before they were indwelt or recieved water baptism.

In Pentecostal circles there is a doctrine called “baptizism with the Holy Spirit” it is based on these texts,

Luke 3:16
John answered them all, "I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. **He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit **and with fire.

I think this baptism of the Holy Spirit could be either the indwelling or filling.

I see the baptizism of the Holy Spirit in Acts as referring to the filling of the Holy Spirit, and maybe in some cases the indwelling.

Acts 1:5
For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

filling,

Acts 2:38
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.

Both, water baptism with indwelling of the Holy Spirit followed by filling of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 8:16
because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.

These recieved water baptism and thus indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but have not been filled with Holy Spirit.

Acts 10:47
Then Peter said, “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”

They were filled first which is unusual, but it was as a sign to the apostles that God was indeed working among the gentiles for salvation in Christ.

Acts 11:16
Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’

filling with Holy Spirit.

Eph 5:18 is a command given to chrisitans to be filled with the Holy Spirit.

The reason you should ask if they beleive that those in the OT were indwelt with the Holy Spirit is to find out if they believe in dispensationalism. Many dispensationalists teach that those in the OT were not indwelt with the Holy Spirit.

So, you are looking at two events that are called baptism.

The First is the “indwelling” of the Holy Spirit which is the born again thing. Catholic theology if I understand correctly says this happens at water baptism. The image is that of being baptised, through Christ’s death and Resurrection, submerged under the water. Think of this one as a cup to is washed under, in the water of the Holy Spirit, a cleansing. This is the stage of joining the Body of Christ.

The Second is an event that can be repeated daily called being “filled” with the Holy Spirit and in the book of Acts is figuratively called baptism of the type where the Holy Spirit is **poured **on a christian. Think of this one as being a cup that is filled with water ( Holy Spirit ) from a pitcher of water.

1 Corinthians 12:13
For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

This text speaks of both events, being baptized into the body of Christ ( indwelling ) and being filled with the Holy Spirit ( drinking ).

So, one can say in the initial water Baptism one is both indwelt, cleaned inside, becomes a new being and one is empowered, filled with the Holy Spirit. After that, one can be empowered by choice everyday ( Rom 12, Eph 5:18 ).

 

[mercygate]

Ok, being filled with the Holy Spirit is not equal to salvation. . . . . . . . . filled with the Holy Spirit. After that, one can be empowered by choice everyday ( Rom 12, Eph 5:18 ).

Thanks for this excellent effort!

 

[cobracop]

:twocents: I find it somewhat ironic that someone from the “Baptist” tradition has an issue with baptism… Lets hope that through these discussions the thread starter continues to have with this baptist Christian, the Holy Spirit moves us into a closer union as fellow Christians.

 

[allischalmers]

In the New Testament there are four different baptisms.

1; the Jews
a) They were first told to repent
b) They were then told to be baptized
c) After that, they received the Holy Spirit(Acts 2:38)

2;the Samaritian
a) They received the Word Of God (Acts 8;14)
b) They were baptized (v16)
c) The apostles Peter and John laid their hand on them (v 17)
d) then they received the Holy Spirit (v 17)

3: Gentiles
a) They first of all heard the Word of God and beleived (Acts 10 ;44
b) They received the Holy Spirit (v 44)
c They were baptized ( v 48)

4: Johns Disciples
a) They heard Paul’s meessage concerning Christ (Acts 19; 5) and accepted it.
b) They were baptized (v.5)
c) Paul laid his hand on them (v. 6)
d) They received the Holy Spirit (v.6)

 

[jfreak64]

I only have a short statement to make. We are saved by faith, and faith alone. It is not of works, lest any man should boast. The rite of baptism is an outward demonstration of what took place on the inside of a person, the person who has recognized his position before a holy GOD, realized his need (inability to do anything beneficial on his own) of a Savior and accepted GOD’s offer of reconciliation, therefore becoming a new creature in CHRIST. The thief on the cross was not baptized; yet JESUS stated to him, that today thou shall be with me in paradise. He did not do any works! He did take mass. He did not complete confirmation classes. He was a criminal, who just before meeting JESUS on the cross, was on his way to eternal punishment. He did not even have to go to purgatory, JESUS said that TODAY thou shall be with me in paradise. He was not going to have to spend time being prayed for by family members to be redeemed from purgatory or spend time being cleaned up in purgatory. Again, JESUS said TODAY!

 

[Jean_Anders]

Baptism is an outward expression of something that has taken place within us. We have it as a sacrament because Jesus let John The Baptist baptise him when he came upon John asking people to repent of their sins and turn their lives around because the time was near. This is why baptism is Holy. Because Jesus did it. Jesus had no sin and didn’t need to do this. We all have a change of heart about our lives and this comes from the Holy Spirit working in us and we wan’t to change. The first Christians to be baptised did it as households and when new children were born they past that gift onto their newborns. The acceptance of Jesus Christ and washing away original sin which we all have. We are baptised into The Family of God with our parents vow to raise us as Christians. Baptist don’t baptise infants so the child at an older age would receive the Holy Spirit which would cause this child to make a decesion to accept the Lord and be Baptised. If you die and never been baptised but had the desire to know the Lord I would think He would accept that. But to have the desire you would already have The Holy Spirit working in you.
So back to Acts I would say they received the Holy Spirit first and their baptism was an outward sign of what happened and their acceptance into the Church.

Jean

 

[sodak]

I only have a short statement to make. We are saved by faith, and faith alone. It is not of works, lest any man should boast. The rite of baptism is an outward demonstration of what took place on the inside of a person, the person who has recognized his position before a holy GOD, realized his need (inability to do anything beneficial on his own) of a Savior and accepted GOD’s offer of reconciliation, therefore becoming a new creature in CHRIST. The thief on the cross was not baptized; yet JESUS stated to him, that today thou shall be with me in paradise. He did not do any works! He did take mass. He did not complete confirmation classes. He was a criminal, who just before meeting JESUS on the cross, was on his way to eternal punishment. He did not even have to go to purgatory, JESUS said that TODAY thou shall be with me in paradise. He was not going to have to spend time being prayed for by family members to be redeemed from purgatory or spend time being cleaned up in purgatory. Again, JESUS said TODAY!

Not quite. First of all, accepting Christ is a work in and of itself. Second of all, what about people who have never heard of Christ? What about babies that die very young? Are they doomed? (Of course not, but your theology says they are).

Keep reading your Bible, there’s a lot more about salvation than a couple of verses.

PS - If Christ spent 3 days in Hell, how could the good thief have been with him TODAY in paradise?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Our discussion is centered on Baptism. He recently brought up Acts 10:44-48 and I told him I would have to look into this passage more. Specifically verse 47:

“Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people, who have received the holy Spirit even as we have?.”

He said these verses, and particularly verse 47, show that Peter and others received the Holy Spirit prior to baptism - therefore the Holy Spirit does not come to dwell in us as a result of baptism.

They certainly did receive the gift of forgiving sins via the Holy Spirit prior to the day of pentecost. I would consider this a “different” gift of the Holy Spirit than the gift of “removng the stain of orignal sin” given by Holy Spirit in baptism. But I think that would be for another thread.

He does admit, though, that other verses seem to link belief, repentance, and baptism very closely and people could get confused - but this verse should clear up any of that confusion.

I think others here have presented extremely valid thoughts.

I guess I would also note that many can be “moved by the Holy Spirit” even without a valid baptism.

Indeed, how would come to repentance and receive bapstism without the motion of the Holy Spirit moving them in that direction?

A good example of where God can move someone by the Holy Spirit even though they are not baptised in the “proper manner” can be seen in Acts 18:24-26…

Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.

The baptism, however, leaves and indellible mark on the individual which effectively ingrafts their soul to God’s family (removing the stain of original sin and adopting them into the family of God) whereas those who are not baptized are simply moved by the Holy Spirit so long as they do not resist.
Mark 16:16:

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

I remember asking a similar question last year on this forum, and someone said that in the early Church, the Holy Spirit was poured out on many in an ‘un-normative’ manner to help spread God’s message. I presented this as a possible explanation, but he said there is nothing in Scripture to support that rationalization for this particular passage.

Actually, I think his claim is wrong.

Balaam was actually moved by the Holy Spirit back in the Hebrew Scriptures to prophesy the coming of Christ. I will note that Balaam’s prophesying via the Holy Spirit did not guarantee his salvation-- as Balaam nonetheless later appears to have blasphemed the very Holy Spirit which moved him to prophesy in the first place.
Numbers 24:1-3:

Now when Balaam saw that it pleased the LORD to bless Israel, he did not resort to sorcery as at other times, but turned his face toward the desert. When Balaam looked out and saw Israel encamped tribe by tribe, the Spirit of God came upon him and he uttered his oracle…

Of course, once could argue that this “Spirit of God” is not the Holy Spirit.

But, if this is true, then why is the Holy Spirit also called the “Spirit of God” in the Christian Scriptures?
Ephesians 4:30:

And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

Likewise, why do we consider the “Spirit of God” hovering over the waters in Genesis to be the Holy Spirit but not the “Spirit of God” over Balaam?
Genesis 1:2:

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

In addition to this, since we know that prophecy is…

a) a “gift of the Holy Spirit” in the Christian Scriptures, and since we know that

b) no one can truly prophesy unless they are “moved by the Holy Spirit” to do so, and since we also know that

c) Balaam’s prophesies did actually come true therefore verifying them as “truly inspired of God”,

…why one would suggest that this was not the Holy Spirit moving Balaam to prophesy would be hard to explain-- unless they simply didn’t want to see it in the first place because it disagrees with their theology.

Balaam is probably the most striking example of the Holy Spirit being poured out in an ‘un-normative’ manner to help spread God’s message.

Can anyone help me explain this verse? Thank you!!

I hope this helps.

 

[JPatton]

Our Lord would not have us play games with ceremonies. Truly, the ceremonies of our faith, in faith, must be as Real and as effective as he is.

This is a great statement. I gotta use it when debating my wife, if you don’t mind.

Jamie

 

[jfreak64]

To: Not quite.
I believe that unto whom much is given much is required. Therefore if a baby or even a young person has not reached an age of accountability for their faith then they are deemed innocent. But on the other hand concerning adults who have never heard the scriptures or never even heard of GOD, there is accountability. The Scriptures prove it. In Romans 1:20 -For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:. The very creation of GOD cries out that there was a divine creator. Will these people, lets say a primative culture, be as accountable as you and me who have access to church and scriptures, no. However GOD has made provision for His creation to recognize Him as the divine creator. When JESUS died he went to paradise. There was upper paradise and lower paradise (Luke 16: 19-31). The righteous dead went to upper paradise and those who died outside of faith went to lower paradise. In Ephesians 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. 4:9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? 4:10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) In John 3:3- JESUS answered and said unto him, Verily, Verily, Isay unto thee, Except a man be born again, he can not see the kingdom of GOD. These righteous dead had not yet received the good news of the gospel of JESUS CHRIST. That is why JESUS went to upper paradise, to bring captivity, cative to heaven. Then in Isaiah 5:14 it says that hell has enlarged itself. There was no longer a need for a holding place of the righteous dead, whose sins had only been covered by the blood of animals, The righteous lamb had been slain, now their sins could be removed as far as the east is from the west, making them blameless.

 

[Zooey]

I only have a short statement to make. We are saved by faith, and faith alone. It is not of works, lest any man should boast. The rite of baptism is an outward demonstration of what took place on the inside of a person, the person who has recognized his position before a holy GOD, realized his need (inability to do anything beneficial on his own) of a Savior and accepted GOD’s offer of reconciliation, therefore becoming a new creature in CHRIST. The thief on the cross was not baptized; yet JESUS stated to him, that today thou shall be with me in paradise. He did not do any works! He did take mass. He did not complete confirmation classes. He was a criminal, who just before meeting JESUS on the cross, was on his way to eternal punishment. He did not even have to go to purgatory, JESUS said that TODAY thou shall be with me in paradise. He was not going to have to spend time being prayed for by family members to be redeemed from purgatory or spend time being cleaned up in purgatory. Again, JESUS said TODAY!

We are saved by grace.
The normative means by which God imparts this [prevenient] grace to us, is through the waters of baptism.
Now, God is not limited by the means which He has set up for us to use; He can save whomever He wishes. But what you are talking about is rebellion, which was, you may recall, the reason for the fall of the devil & his angels.
It is one thing, for Jesus Christ Himself, hanging in agony on a Roman cross, to suspend the rules for a particular person who rolleyes: obviously!) could not fulfill the command to “repent and be baptized”.
It is quite another for any of us to say, "Well, Jesus did it for the thief on the cross, so, dagnabbit, I’m going to dig in my heels and refuse to follow the proper order of things as Jesus set them up during His life on earth! I want to get the same privilege extended to me, or I’m not having any of it"…
I mean, do you really want to talk to the King of all creation, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, with that kind of attitude???

You’ve gotta think these things through, yean.

 

[jfreak64]

I was just stating that baptism is, or should not be a mandate for salvation. Should believers be baptized, of course. This would line up with scripture. Our walk with our Creator while serving His Son, JESUS CHRIST and being led by His HOLY SPIRIT must line up with scripture; which is the guidelines that we have been given to live by.

 

[sodak]

To: Not quite.
I believe that unto whom much is given much is required. Therefore if a baby or even a young person has not reached an age of accountability for their faith then they are deemed innocent.

Please show me the chapter and verse of this in the Bible. As far as I know, the Bible is silent on unbaptised babies. This is an important issue, and no guidance is in the Bible. This is exactly why we need Christ’s Church - for guidance and interpretation for the areas where the Bible is unclear.

We are saved by God’s grace, and His grace alone. Nothing else. Believers access his Grace through faith, but those who are not believers can still have access to his Grace through extraordinary means. That includes unbaptised babies. While we may be bound to God’s Grace through faith, God can bestow his Grace upon whomever He wishes.

Thank God for his Church to take us through troubled waters, so we don’t have to try and figure this all out alone!

 

[jfreak64]

I hope that these scriptures and comments help to clarify the scriptures intentions on infant baptism.
Matthew28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mark28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Mark16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Matthew 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added [unto them] about threethousandsouls. Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Acts 8:36 And as they went on [their] way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, [here is] water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Acts 19:5 When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Galatians 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

 

[jfreak64]

*Before Baptism One Must Hear and Understand the Gospel. `John 6:44,45 - No one can come to Jesus without being taught from the Father. This does not just mean simply hearing sounds. One must “learn”; he must understand the meaning of what is being taught. Can babies do this (cf. 1 Cor. 14:20)? *God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34,35; Rom. 2:11), so there are not two sets of prerequisites for baptism - one for babies and one for adults. Whatever the Bible requires of some people to be baptized, it requires the same of all people.
*Before Baptism One Must Hear and Understand the Gospel. *Before Baptism One Must Believe the Gospel. *Before Baptism One Must Repent of Sins. *Before Baptism One Must Confess Christ. *Each Individual Is Responsible to Serve God from Proper Motives.
Romans 6:17,18 - To be freed from sin, one must obey from the heart the teaching delivered. This includes obedience in baptism (v3,4). God is pleased only when we serve Him from the willing choice of our own hearts. Our acts of service are valueless if someone else forces them upon us against our will or without our consent.
Acts 2:40,41 - People were commanded to be saved, and they responded by being baptized. Each individual personally made his own decision. No one else can obey God for us, and no one else can make that choice for us.
Other people may teach and encourage us to obey God, but they cannot decide for us whether or not we will obey. This includes obedience in baptism. Since a baby cannot possibly make this decision and cannot communicate any such decision to us, to baptize it anyway would violate God’s law of personal responsibility.
*A Baby Cannot Be Baptized to Receive Forgiveness, because It Has No Sins to Be Forgiven. Since baptism must be done for the purpose of receiving forgiveness of sins, a baby could Scripturally be baptized only if it was guilty of sins and needed forgiveness. But is a baby guilty of sin? How could a baby become guilty of sin? We become sinners when we transgress God’s law (1 John 3:4; James 1:13-15; Isa. 59:1,2). But a baby cannot understand God’s law, so how could it be held accountable for violating it? Some people believe that babies need baptism because they have inherited guilt from Adam. But consider: Ezekiel 18:20 - The child does not bear the iniquity of the father, but the wickedness of the wicked is upon himself. The only person held accountable for Adam’s sin is Adam, not his descendants.
2 Corinthians 5:10 - Each one will be judged according to what he has done in the body, good or bad. This means no one will be condemned for Adam’s sin, except Adam!
*If a baby is guilty of sin, what happens if it dies before it is baptized, or if its parents refuse to baptize it? If babies are guilty of sin, if one dies without baptism, then wouldn’t it follow that he is eternally lost? Almost no one will accept this conclusion, yet to deny the conclusion is to admit that babies really are not guilty of sin. Further, since baptism is essential to salvation, if a baby is a sinner, then its salvation from sin must depend entirely on the actions of others. It must rely entirely on its parents to choose to baptize it. It has no choice in the matter, and cannot possibly influence its own destiny. This contradicts all the scriptures we have quoted showing that salvation is a matter of individual choice (2 Cor. 5:10; etc.). Since salvation is a matter of individual choice, and since a baby cannot choose or express a choice to be baptized, we conclude that the baby is not lost to begin with. Therefore it does not need baptism.

 

[Schabel]

I hope that these scriptures and comments help to clarify the scriptures intentions on infant baptism.

Well, they do present part of the story. Just not all of it.

Matthew28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

If you prove anything by this, you prove too much. This says, literally, that “nations” should be taught and baptized. Well, AFAIK, there are no nations that are solely comprised of adults.

Yes, you present many examples of adults being baptized, but that was quite necessary when the Church was itself in its infancy. You don’t seem to show any place where infant baptism was prohibited, though.

And here’s one reason why that is important: the understanding of the Jewish people at the time was that one entered into the covenant (in the case of male children) at the age of eight days. So, IF the New Covenant was introducing a novelty, THAT would need to be spelled out explicitely.

IF you were a convert to Judaism, you had to be circumcised upon conversion. So, since nearly ALL Christians were converts, it follows that they had to be baptized upon conversion.

 

[sodak]

*A Baby Cannot Be Baptized to Receive Forgiveness, because It Has No Sins to Be Forgiven. Since baptism must be done for the purpose of receiving forgiveness of sins, a baby could Scripturally be baptized only if it was guilty of sins and needed forgiveness. But is a baby guilty of sin? How could a baby become guilty of sin? We become sinners when we transgress God’s law (1 John 3:4; James 1:13-15; Isa. 59:1,2). But a baby cannot understand God’s law, so how could it be held accountable for violating it? Some people believe that babies need baptism because they have inherited guilt from Adam. But consider: Ezekiel 18:20 - The child does not bear the iniquity of the father, but the wickedness of the wicked is upon himself. The only person held accountable for Adam’s sin is Adam, not his descendants.
2 Corinthians 5:10 - Each one will be judged according to what he has done in the body, good or bad. This means no one will be condemned for Adam’s sin, except Adam!
*If a baby is guilty of sin, what happens if it dies before it is baptized, or if its parents refuse to baptize it? If babies are guilty of sin, if one dies without baptism, then wouldn’t it follow that he is eternally lost? Almost no one will accept this conclusion, yet to deny the conclusion is to admit that babies really are not guilty of sin. Further, since baptism is essential to salvation, if a baby is a sinner, then its salvation from sin must depend entirely on the actions of others. It must rely entirely on its parents to choose to baptize it. It has no choice in the matter, and cannot possibly influence its own destiny. This contradicts all the scriptures we have quoted showing that salvation is a matter of individual choice (2 Cor. 5:10; etc.). Since salvation is a matter of individual choice, and since a baby cannot choose or express a choice to be baptized, we conclude that the baby is not lost to begin with. Therefore it does not need baptism.

Not lost to begin with? Have you ever heard of Original Sin? How about verses where God shows his mercy by only holding men’s children responsible for the sins of their fathers to the seventh generation?

You seem to really like to selectively quote the Bible. There are instances also of men converting, and having their entire households baptized, including slaves.

If the baby was not lost to begin with, what do we need Jesus for? At what point do we become lost? Age 15?

Salvation is a gift from God, not a choice. We can choose to accept it, but we don’t choose to be saved. We choose to accept a gift called grace.

Your reasoning is leading you into dangerous heresy.