Why do some non-cathloics not have Baptism for infants

[Dokimas]

The basic idea, Dokimas, is that God has given us a directive and it is our resonsibility to follow that Great Commission as best we can. Let’s take a look at Matt 28:18-20

Sure, let’s look at the Great Commission from Matt 28.

18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 “teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

Note the progression: make disciples (can **infants **be discipled?); then baptism; then teaching them to observe all things Jesus commanded (can infants be taught about what Jesus commanded?)

18
Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
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,
20
teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

Note: there is no age restriction in the Great Commission.

The restrictions seem to be to those that can be made disciples and be taught.

The view you have presented appears to presume on God’s mercy, “I will keep to my view and not follow God’s order and hope for the best.”

I disagree with your opinion; I’m sure you’re not surprised.

The Catholic Church - the one founded on Peter in Matt 16 - has always baptized infants. The Catholic Church prays for God’s mercy on the unborn and infants (actually, it prays for everyone) who dies without the Sacrament of Baptism. These people were not baptized through willful refusal, but because no one could baptize them before they died.

Thanks for sharing the opinion of the CC. I disagree with it.

The rest of your post is so condescending it doesn’t deserve a response.

 

[Dokimas]

Yes, you are right–I can see how that could be hurtful coming from a friend.

I apologize. It was indeed a little disrespectful. :flowers:

No big deal. However, I think I’m allergic to those flowers.

 

[dyluck]

Yes, those who did not feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the imprisoned, etc did sound rather surprised.

ummm actually it was ones who practiced lawelessness (sin). Ones who called him Lord Lord, did all the things they were “supposed to do”, and yet lived a life of sin. They were fakers, lukwarm, illigitimate children, however you want to put it. You can help widows, give to the poor all you want but it won’t buy/earn your way to be with God.

Wellllllllllllllllll… I guess I just misunderstood ya. Personally, I am delighted that you do not deny water baptism. But, nat a, “…saving act…” and a “…public declaration…” eh? Just what do you think Christ was telling Nicodemus that he must be born again - Christ did not offer this as an option or some type of add-on accessory.

I think i need to keep my answers short cause I answered this. Baptism of holy spirit = neccissary for salvation but brought on by the holy spirit not water.

Early on (Matt 16) He gave the command to Peter to keep the Keys and that whatever Peter (and his successors) bound was bound and if they reversed a binding that

I believe CC favor this passage a lot and i completely disagree with Peter only having these keys. IMO the context was addressing the group of deciples.

and He wants a big Family.

He wants everyone to come to repentance but that is not necisssairly his will.
(a whole other discussion).
Matt 7 specifically addresses believers. So ye who sits in mass every week, look around you my friend. Jesus says - in context paraphrased - Of those who call me Lord Lord FEW of those will enter the kingdom of heaven. ref: wide gate / narrow gate ~ / false believers / true believers ~ good tree / bad tree ~ sandy foudation / rock foundation . Ther eis definitely a theme of untrue believers and true believers throught. Then there is what Christ will do with the fake ones. There is no unbelievers being addressed in this entire chapter.

God gave us the Catholic Church and this this Church has the Power of God to make law and policy as to what is proper and appropriate.

Ummmm how do you know what is proper and appropriate. If the Church made a law that you had to worship a graven image, would you worhship it. I mean food for thought right?

You are off on a tangent. We have already established that Christ has Universal Power - He is God. Christ commanded that all be baptized - and brought into the Family of God. This right has been given (re-read the last chapter of Matthew) and is known as the Great Commission.

The great comission at its core is to Mark 16:15-18 “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation”. Spread the True Gospel. This is the #1 most important thing one can do… Baptizing and making more deciples yes! I still believe this is holy spirit baptism.

I did want to point out “believes and is baptized” will enter. If they do not belive they will be condemmned. Both go together; yet babies can get the baptizm part out of the way. What about the belief part?

Hardly. The point of a law is to either identify what is to be done or what is forbidden. The Great Commission did not set age limits on who God wants in His Family.

Again, what about the belief part of the part that says whosover doens’t believe will be condemned. It doesn’t say whosoever is not baptized is condemned.
I believe with true conversion is first initiated by a change of heart by God. An opening of eyes and ears through the Gospel. A removal of the heart of stone and replaced with a heart of flesh in which the law of God is no longer written on tablets but on our very hearts. Does this not indicate a change? a baptism? a new life?

If Jesus says that if He starts a good work in you he will finish it, do you believe him?

Now ask yourself how many people are water baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit yet life lives like the devil and die completely unchristian. Lots turn away completely. Many “baptized” Christians and CCs are “easter bunny religious folks” either go on holidays or “do it on Sunday” and the rest of the week/year they are different people. Come on man.

Think about that please. I don’t believe the bible contridicts itself. Therefore, we cannot attribute water baptism to our salvation. I just doesn’t make sense. Its like guaranteeing someone salvation if you are water baptized and thats obviously not true.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dokimas,

The idea was to have a scriptural basis for the formulation of an opinion. Merely brushing off the position of CC as something you don’t agree with lacks substance. Here are some excerpts from an article on Infant Baptism. You may want to check out the scripture.

God bless.

Note the progression: make disciples (can **infants **be discipled?); then baptism; then teaching them to observe all things Jesus commanded (can infants be taught about what Jesus commanded?) The restrictions seem to be to those that can be made disciples and be taught.

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him” (2:39). We also read: “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults.

Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: “Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

But the historic Christian Church has always held that Christ’s law applies to infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:14).

More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads: “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’” (Luke 18:15–16).

Now Fundamentalists say this event does not apply to young children or infants since it implies the children to which Christ was referring were able to approach him on their own. (Older translations have, “Suffer the little children to come unto me,” which seems to suggest they could do so under their own power.) Fundamentalists conclude the passage refers only to children old enough to walk, and, presumably, capable of sinning. But the text in Luke 18:15 says, “Now they were bringing even infants to him” (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means “infants”—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious decision to “accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior.” And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: “to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven.” The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom.

Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ”—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.

But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that “She was baptized, with her household” (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that “the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family” (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas” (1 Cor. 1:16).

In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that “he and his wife were baptized,” but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.

 

[jlhargus]

I like your insurance analogy. That’s why I believe children are ‘grandfathered’ in by the love and grace of God without baptism until they can deside for themselves.

JL: What is your scripture evidence for this belief? If you say infants are auto saved then there is no reason to forbid water that they be baptized. After all doesn’t God will that all be saved and isn’t salvation a FREE gift, GIVEN by God, it cannot be earned, infants can’t earn anything. [Titus3:5 **Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, BY the WASHING of REGENERATION, and RENEWING OF THE HOLY GHOST;]

What do we use when we wash? Water and a cleansing agent (soap), it is the Holy Spirit who is the cleansing agent, we are born again by water AND of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit brings about the circumcision, made without hands, of the heart by indwelling and regenerating the spiritually dead soul releasing the soul from slavery to the flesh…

Those who do not baptize children leave their child in OLD ADAM. Depriving the child of the indwelling life of God, the Holy Spirit, and bringing the child into NEW ADAM, CHRIST. [Jn3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, **EXCEPT a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. …4… 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, EXCEPT a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.] ALL children are born of flesh only, unless they are baptized, where they are born again by water AND of the Spirit.

 

[jlhargus]

Also, of the thousands that were baptized in the NT, only 5 households are mentioned where all were baptized. The odds are very good that those 5 households did not have children at the time of the baptism.

JL: The odds are far greater that there were children in SOME of those households. In those days people didn’t have two children and say that’s enough. And a household would also include married children living in the same household with their children also. The odds that there was at lest ONE of those households with at lest ONE child would be overwhelming.

There aren’t thousands of EXAMPLES of baptism given in scripture. If you are speaking of the three thousand on Pentecost, there is no reason to believe whole families with young children were not also baptized. The scripture do not specify. In fact the odds whole families were baptized including infants are better than not.

[Acts2:37 Now WHEN THEY HEARD this, THEY WERE PRICKED IN THEIR HEART, AND SAID unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, WHAT SHALL WE DO? 38 Then PETER SAID unto 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. 39 For THE PROMISE IS UNTO YOU, AND TO YOUR CHILDREN, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.]

Peter is speaking to adults, telling THEM what ADULTS must do, REPENT, BE BAPTIZED, FOR REMISSION OF SINS, RECEIVE THE HOLY GHOST. Peter also tells those ADULTS, the PROMISE is to YOU and YOUR CHILDREN. The word here for children includes infant and up. Infants have no sins of which to REPENT, of such is the kingdom. They have been born of flesh and are still in OLD ADAM, they have NOT been BORN AGAIN. Their soul needs to be REGENERATED to bring them into the NEW ADAM and the kingdom.

The Infants of beleivers are clean, acceptable so who can forbid water that they be baptized? Children of unbeleiver’s are unclean. [1Cor7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: **ELSE were YOUR CHILDREN UNCLEAN; but NOW ARE THEY HOLY.] They are holy by merit of the faith of the believer and acceptable to God for baptism.

Lk18:15 And THEY BROUGHT UNTO HIM ALSO INFANTS that HE WOULD TOUCH THEM: but when HIS DISCIPLES saw it, they REBUKED THEM. 16 But JESUS called them unto him, and SAID, SUFFER LITTLE CHILDREN TO COME UNTO ME, and FORBID THEM NOT: for of SUCH IS THE KINGDOM OF GOD.] Infants are without any acutal sins and have no need to repent, of such is the kingdom. We are ALL born of flesh and not born into the kingdom, EXCEPT, by water AND of the Spirit, as Christ tells us in Jn3.

We must be born again to enter the kingdom thru BAPTISM. If little children are clean and OF the kingdom they need to be BROUGHT to Christ by their parents, to be touched by him in baptism and brought into that kingdom. Just as circumcision brought the OT male infant into covenant family relationship with God and his people, so circumcision of the heart brings infants into covenant FAMILY relationship with the people of God making them children of God, born again by water and the Spirit.

[Phil 3:3 For **WE ARE THE CIRCUMCISION, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.] You can’t worship God in the spirit if the spirit is NOT regenerated, thru the circumcision OF CHRIST.

[Col2:10 And YE ARE COMPLETE IN HIM, which is the head of all principality and power: 11 **IN WHOM also YE ARE CIRCUMCISED with the CIRCUMCISION MADE WITHOUT HANDS, in PUTTING OFF THE BODY OF THE SINS OF THE FLESH by the CIRCUMCISION OF CHRIST 12 BURIED WITH HIM IN BAPTISM, wherein also ye are RISEN WITH HIM THROUGH the FAITH of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having FORGIVEN YOU ALL TRESPASSES.]

When a Gentile adult converted to Judaism he had to BELIEVE, REPENT, BE CIRCUCISED. Yet his young male children were circumcized. Brought into the people of God, old covenant, on the merits of it’s parents or guardians faith, just as in the new covenant. Else they were cut off from his people. Females where under the old covenant by always being under the authority of a circumcised male household, whether father, husband or guardian.

Gn17:14 And THE UNCIRCUMCISED MAN CHILD whose flesh of his foreskin is NOT CIRCUMCISED, that soul SHALL BE CUT OFF FROM HIS PEOPLE; he hath BROKEN MY COVENANT.]

 

[jlhargus]

I did want to point out “believes and is baptized” will enter. If they do not belive they will be condemmned. Both go together; yet babies can get the baptizm part out of the way. What about the belief part?

JL: Yes what about the belief part? Where does THAT leave babies condemmned unable to enter?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jlhargus,

Nice set of 3 posts…

From my experience - these guys have made up their minds a long time ago… period.

Our job was to present the facts - conversion is up to the Holy Spirit.

God bless

Tom

JL: Yes what about the belief part? Where does THAT leave babies condemmned unable to enter?

 

[PRmerger]

I’m going to move away from the term “protestant” too btw. Many Christian churchs do what you call a “dedication” which is simliar in a sense (anointing of oil or just a prayer sometimes) but simply it is a parental declairation, publicaly, that they will raise their children in an example filled christian home. Not in the bible, yes, but not an action that is to be salvation deciding/bearing either.

So you’re ok with rituals that are not in the Bible, as long as we don’t declare it to have any bearing on salvation?

 

[guanophore]

right, the baby can’t do anything but the other people who are baptizing the baby feel if they don’t baptize it then the baby will be in hell if it dies. Men actions = works. Doesn’t have to be baby’s works for someone to be in danger of superceeding God’s soverigenty with men’s will. In this case, seemingly leaving God out of the decision making part of the picture.

No Dy, this is not what the Catholiic Church believes and teaches. Also, our faith in baptism is not based upon “feelings” either for or against it. It is based on what we have received from the Apostles. Jesus commanded them to “suffer the little children to come unto me”, so we do.

 

[Dokimas]

JL:

There **aren’t thousands of EXAMPLES **

The promise is to those that ‘pricked in their heart’ and ‘repent’. This includes children - future when they are ‘pricked in their heart and repent’ and to those afar off - future (like us) that are ‘pricked in their heart and repent’. Wonderful verses on the subject. Thanks.

Peter is speaking to adults, telling THEM what ADULTS must do, REPENT, BE BAPTIZED, FOR REMISSION OF SINS, RECEIVE THE HOLY GHOST. Peter also tells those ADULTS, the PROMISE is to YOU and YOUR CHILDREN. The word here for children includes infant and up. Infants have no sins of which to REPENT, of such is the kingdom. They have been born of flesh and are still in OLD ADAM, they have NOT been BORN AGAIN. Their soul needs to be REGENERATED to bring them into the NEW ADAM and the kingdom.

Thanks for your understanding. I disagree with the infant part, the part where they must be baptized. Since, as you said, 'such is the kingdom, they don’t need baptism.

The Infants of beleivers are clean, acceptable so who can forbid water that they be baptized? Children of unbeleiver’s are unclean. [1Cor7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: **ELSE were YOUR CHILDREN UNCLEAN

; but NOW ARE THEY HOLY.] They are holy by merit of the faith of the believer and acceptable to God for baptism.

Thanks for your understanding. I disagree.

Lk18:15 And THEY BROUGHT UNTO HIM ALSO INFANTS that HE WOULD TOUCH THEM: but when HIS DISCIPLES saw it, they REBUKED THEM. 16 But JESUS called them unto him, and SAID, SUFFER LITTLE CHILDREN TO COME UNTO ME

, and FORBID THEM NOT: for of SUCH IS THE KINGDOM OF GOD.] Infants are without any acutal sins and have no need to repent, of such is the kingdom. We are ALL born of flesh and not born into the kingdom, EXCEPT, by water AND of the Spirit, as Christ tells us in Jn3.

Jesus does not forbid an infant, that’s one reason why they don’t need baptism.

We must be born again to enter the kingdom thru BAPTISM. If little children are clean and OF the kingdom they need to be BROUGHT to Christ by their parents, to be touched by him in baptism and brought into that kingdom. Just as circumcision brought the OT male infant into covenant family relationship with God and his people, so circumcision of the heart brings infants into covenant FAMILY relationship with the people of God making them children of God, born again by water and the Spirit.

Thanks for your understanding. I disagree. IMO, Scripture does not uphold the understanding that circumcision of the OT is now baptism in the NT.

Phil 3:3 For WE ARE THE CIRCUMCISION, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.] You can’t worship God in the spirit if the spirit is NOT regenerated, thru the circumcision OF CHRIST.

Philippians 3:3 is a wonderful verse and reveals that the actual circumcision is of the heart. Notice, it says NOTHING about baptism.

[Col2:10 And YE ARE COMPLETE IN HIM, which is the head of all principality and power: 11 **IN WHOM

also YE ARE CIRCUMCISED with the CIRCUMCISION MADE WITHOUT HANDS, in PUTTING OFF THE BODY OF THE SINS OF THE FLESH by the CIRCUMCISION OF CHRIST 12 BURIED WITH HIM IN BAPTISM, wherein also ye are RISEN WITH HIM THROUGH the FAITH of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having FORGIVEN YOU ALL TRESPASSES.]

Again, true circumcision if of the heart, done by the Spirit of God not by priests (OT - Jewish). Seems obvious that verse 11 and 12 are separate things: 1. circumcision of the heart; 2. baptism.

When a Gentile adult converted to Judaism he had to BELIEVE, REPENT, BE CIRCUCISED. Yet his young male children were circumcized. Brought into the people of God, old covenant, on the merits of it’s parents or guardians faith, just as in the new covenant. Else they were cut off from his people. Females where under the old covenant by always being under the authority of a circumcised male household, whether father, husband or guardian.

Paul clearly states we are NOT under the law. Therefore circumcision is not required.

Gn17:14 And THE UNCIRCUMCISED MAN CHILD whose flesh of his foreskin is NOT CIRCUMCISED, that soul SHALL BE CUT OFF FROM HIS PEOPLE; he hath BROKEN MY COVENANT.]

So they are to throw the child out in the wilderness to die because his parents didn’t circumcize him?

 

[jlhargus]

Originally Posted by jlhargus
Quote: JL: There aren’t thousands of EXAMPLES of baptism given in scripture. If you are speaking of the three thousand on Pentecost, there is no reason to believe whole families with young children were not also baptized. The scripture do not specify. In fact the odds whole families were baptized including infants are better than not.

Aren’t you contradicting yourself?

JL: This is not three thousand examples of individual baptisms. It is ONE example of three thousand BEING baptized.

Quote:JL: [Acts2:37 Now WHEN THEY HEARD this, THEY WERE PRICKED IN THEIR HEART, AND SAID unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, WHAT SHALL WE DO? 38 Then PETER SAID unto 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. 39 For THE PROMISE IS UNTO YOU, AND TO YOUR CHILDREN, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.]

The promise is to those that ‘pricked in their heart’ and ‘repent’. This includes children - future when they are ‘pricked in their heart and repent’ and to those afar off - future (like us) that are ‘pricked in their heart and repent’. Wonderful verses on the subject. Thanks.

JL: That’s not what the scripture says is it? The PROMISE is to YOU and YOUR CHILDREN. The PROMISE is to those PRESENT and far away. There were three thousand PRESENT, who where baptized and the odds that whole families where PRESENT and baptized can’t be refuted. Also notice those baptized RECEIVE the GIFT of the HOLY GHOST. Are we born with the GIFT of the HOLY GHOST? Wasn’t that lost for all humanity by Adam’s sin?

Quote: JL: Peter is speaking to adults, telling THEM what ADULTS must do, REPENT, BE BAPTIZED, FOR REMISSION OF SINS, RECEIVE THE HOLY GHOST. Peter also tells those ADULTS, the PROMISE is to YOU and YOUR CHILDREN. The word here for children includes infant and up. Infants have no sins of which to REPENT, of such is the kingdom. They have been born of flesh and are still in OLD ADAM, they have NOT been BORN AGAIN. Their soul needs to be REGENERATED to bring them into the NEW ADAM and the kingdom.

Thanks for your understanding. I disagree with the infant part, the part where they must be baptized. Since, as you said, 'such is the kingdom, they don’t need baptism.

JL: So infants DON’T need Christ? Are all men then born with the indwelling Holy Spirit and the RIGHT to be in HEAVEN? Are ALL born of the flesh AND of the Spirit when they come out of the womb of their mother? Then why are children of unbelievers UNCLEAN?

Quote: JL: The Infants of beleivers are clean, acceptable so who can forbid water that they be baptized? Children of unbeleiver’s are unclean. [1Cor7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: ELSE were YOUR CHILDREN UNCLEAN; but NOW ARE THEY HOLY.] They are holy by merit of the faith of the believer and acceptable to God for baptism.

Thanks for your understanding. I disagree.

JL: And you reasons and evidence would be?

Quote: JL: Lk18:15 And THEY BROUGHT UNTO HIM ALSO INFANTS that HE WOULD TOUCH THEM: but when HIS DISCIPLES saw it, they REBUKED THEM. 16 But JESUS called them unto him, and SAID, SUFFER LITTLE CHILDREN TO COME UNTO ME, and FORBID THEM NOT: for of SUCH IS THE KINGDOM OF GOD.] Infants are without any acutal sins and have no need to repent, of such is the kingdom. We are ALL born of flesh and not born into the kingdom, EXCEPT, by water AND of the Spirit, as Christ tells us in Jn3.

Jesus does not forbid an infant, that’s one reason why they don’t need baptism.

JL: Then why does Paul tell us some children ARE UNCLEAN, doesn’t scripture tell us nothing unclean can enter heaven? And who brought children to Christ, so they may be touched by HIM? The childs BELIEVING parents.

Quote: JL: We must be born again to enter the kingdom thru BAPTISM. If little children are clean and OF the kingdom they need to be BROUGHT to Christ by their parents, to be touched by him in baptism and brought into that kingdom. Just as circumcision brought the OT male infant into covenant family relationship with God and his people, so circumcision of the heart brings infants into covenant FAMILY relationship with the people of God making them children of God, born again by water and the Spirit.

Thanks for your understanding. I disagree. IMO, Scripture does not uphold the understanding that circumcision of the OT is now baptism in the NT.

JL: Yet you present no evidence for your understanding.

 

[jlhargus]

Quote: JL: Phil 3:3 For WE ARE THE CIRCUMCISION, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.] You can’t worship God in the spirit if the spirit is NOT regenerated, thru the circumcision OF CHRIST.

Philippians 3:3 is a wonderful verse and reveals that the actual circumcision is of the heart. Notice, it says NOTHING about baptism.

JL: Notice, it says NOTHING about the Holy Spirit either. I see again you present NO evidence for your opinion. Yet Col2:10-13 SPECIFICALLY tells us, baptism is Christ’s circumcision.

Quote: JL: [Col2:10 And YE ARE COMPLETE IN HIM, which is the head of all principality and power: 11 IN WHOM also YE ARE CIRCUMCISED with the CIRCUMCISION MADE WITHOUT HANDS, in PUTTING OFF THE BODY OF THE SINS OF THE FLESH by the CIRCUMCISION OF CHRIST 12 BURIED WITH HIM IN BAPTISM, wherein also ye are RISEN WITH HIM THROUGH the FAITH of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having FORGIVEN YOU ALL TRESPASSES.]

Again, true circumcision if of the heart, done by the Spirit of God not by priests (OT - Jewish). Seems obvious that verse 11 and 12 are separate things: 1. circumcision of the heart; 2. baptism.

JL: You make a lot of statements, but show NO evidence for your opinion. The text is clear, baptism is Christ’s circumcision. OT circumcision was only of the flesh, it only pointed to the NEED for circumcision of the heart, which is given in the New Covenant by water AND of the Spirit in baptism, as fulfillment of circumcision of the flesh. Circumcision of the flesh did not give the indwelling Holy Spirit. Would you give me an example in scripture, of a person being circumcized, which you consider circumcision of the heart by the Holy Spirit.

Quote: JL: When a Gentile adult converted to Judaism he had to BELIEVE, REPENT, BE CIRCUCISED. Yet his young male children were circumcized. Brought into the people of God, old covenant, on the merits of it’s parents or guardians faith, just as in the new covenant. Else they were cut off from his people. Females where under the old covenant by always being under the authority of a circumcised male household, whether father, husband or guardian.

Paul clearly states we are NOT under the law. Therefore circumcision is not required.

JL: Not even Christ’s circumcision of the HEART of the NEW COVENANT? I think everyone is aware we are not under the law, I haven’t see anyone say we are, have you?

Quote: JL: Gn17:14 And THE UNCIRCUMCISED MAN CHILD whose flesh of his foreskin is NOT CIRCUMCISED, that soul SHALL BE CUT OFF FROM HIS PEOPLE; he hath BROKEN MY COVENANT.]

So they are to throw the child out in the wilderness to die because his parents didn’t circumcize him?

JL: Is that HOW you interpret Gn17:14? I think your problem is with interpreting scripture not me. The uncircumcised child was NOT a member of the family of God. Just as an unbaptized person is cut off from the family of God and only in baptism will he be become a child of God.

**How do we become children of God? How do we put on Christ? **
[Gal 3:26 For **YE ARE all the CHILDREN OF GOD by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For AS MANY of you AS HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED into Christ HAVE PUT ON CHRIST.]

**Does baptism save? **How does baptism now save us? ****
[1Pt3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, EIGHT SOULS WERE SAVED BY WATER. 21 THE LIKE FIGURE whereunto even **BAPTISM DOTH also NOW SAVE US (NOT the PUTTING AWAY of the FILTH OF THE FLESH, BUT THE ANSWER OF A GOOD CONSCIENCE toward God,) BY THE RESURRECTION of Jesus Christ:]

**How are we crucified and die with Christ? ** How are we raised from the dead to new life with Christ? **How are we united or planted together with Christ? How is our old sinful self crucified with Christ, that we no longer be slaves to sin? **
[Rms 6:3 KNOW YE NOT, THAT so many of us as were BAPTIZED INTO JESUS CHRIST were BAPTIZED INTO HIS DEATH? 4 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. 5 For if we have been PLANTED TOGETHER IN THE LIKENESS OF HIS DEATH, we shall be ALSO IN THE LIKENESS OF HIS RESURRECTION: 6 Knowing this, that OUR OLD MAN IS CRUCIFIED WITH HIM, that the body of sin might be destroyed, THAT henceforth WE SHOULD NOT SERVE SIN.]

What must we do to be saved by Christ? How do we receive remission of sins by Christ? How do we receive the gift of the Holy Ghost?
[Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto 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.] With your theory, Peter should have said, Your hearts have been circumcised already, you are saved when you believed. If you want, you can be baptized as a sign of that circumcision, but it’s not necessary. Instead Peter tells them to BE baptized, FOR REMISSION OF SINS and RECEIVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. Again scripture tells us baptism WASHES AWAY SINS, Acts22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

 

[guanophore]

The promise is to those that ‘pricked in their heart’ and ‘repent’. This includes children - future when they are ‘pricked in their heart and repent’ and to those afar off - future (like us) that are ‘pricked in their heart and repent’. Wonderful verses on the subject. Thanks.

No, Doki, the promise is to everyone. Jesus came to the Jews, who were the people of the Promised redeemer. The promise was offered to them, and most of them refused it. There was a small remnant who received it, and to them, He gave the power to become Children of God. God’s promises to His people have always been for the whole family, to them, and to their children. These were Jews of the diaspora, and they all understood that children were brought into God’s covenant on the basis of the parents faith. Mary and Joseph brought their Son Jesus into the covenant by circumcision. In the NT, baptism replaced circumcision. There was no reason for them to think that children were suddently excluded.

However, I agree with your point, that even infants brought into covenant need to grow into their faith,and come to a point where they are personally pricked in the heart and repent. All those Jews that listened to Peter (and Jesus, and John the Baptist before that) needed to be pricked in the heart and beleive, even though they were brought into covenant with God as infants.

I also agree with you that there is a reference to future generations as well in this passage.

I disagree with the infant part, the part where they must be baptized.  Since, as you said, 'such is the kingdom, they don't need baptism.

For us to say that children don’t need something Jesus has commanded for us does not make any sense to me. Why would our ideas of what they need supercede His?

Jesus does not forbid an infant, that’s one reason why they don’t need baptism.

This attituded denotes an inadequate understanding of original sin. We are all born into a default seting of death. Those who do not beleive and are baptized are “condemned already” because of original sin. We are born into a condition that is separated from God through sin.

IMO, Scripture does not uphold the understanding that circumcision of the OT is now baptism in the NT.

I think you are in a lot of company here. Although all the Reformers taught and believed this, it seems that each generation that moves further from the Apostolic teaching loses more and more of what they believed and taught.

Philippians 3:3 is a wonderful verse and reveals that the actual circumcision is of the heart. Notice, it says NOTHING about baptism.

The Apostles taught that this circumcision of heart occurrred in the waters of baptism. They never separated the two.

Again, true circumcision if of the heart, done by the Spirit of God not by priests (OT - Jewish). Seems obvious that verse 11 and 12 are separate things: 1. circumcision of the heart; 2. baptism.

Yes. It is customary for modern evangelicals to separate them, but this is an innovation unknown to the Church until a couple hundred years ago.

 

[jlhargus]

Hi, Jlhargus,

Nice set of 3 posts…

From my experience - these guys have made up their minds a long time ago… period.

Our job was to present the facts - conversion is up to the Holy Spirit.

God bless Tom

JL: Thanks tqualey.

 

[jlhargus]

These were Jews of the diaspora, and they all understood that children were brought into God’s covenant on the basis of the parents faith.

JL: Excellent point guanophore , I will add that to my notes.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dokimas,

I am still waiting for a response to Post #960

Actually, with so many scriptural references - and of course the history of the early Church (Apostolic Tradition) and the writings of the Early Church Fathers - none of which support antagonism towards infants and children specific to Baptism … I can understand your problem with a 16th Century view…

But, if you do not like that, then really - just come up with the documentation and stop with the repitition “I don’t believe” what is written routine.

Of course, there are other posters who you have not resonded to, either … and, they have references that support infant Baptism, too…

So, let’s see what you have…

God bless

Aren’t you contradicting yourself?

 

[Dokimas]

No, Doki, the promise is to everyone. Jesus came to the Jews, who were the people of the Promised redeemer. The promise was offered to them, and most of them refused it. There was a small remnant who received it, and to them, He gave the power to become Children of God. God’s promises to His people have always been for the whole family, to them, and to their children. These were Jews of the diaspora, and they all understood that children were brought into God’s covenant on the basis of the parents faith. Mary and Joseph brought their Son Jesus into the covenant by circumcision. In the NT, baptism replaced circumcision. There was no reason for them to think that children were suddently excluded.

All are called; relatively few are chosen.

[SIGN]However, I agree with your point, that even infants brought into covenant need to grow into their faith,and come to a point where they are personally pricked in the heart and repent. All those Jews that listened to Peter (and Jesus, and John the Baptist before that) needed to be pricked in the heart and beleive, even though they were brought into covenant with God as infants.

I also agree with you that there is a reference to future generations as well in this passage.[/SIGN]

For us to say that children don’t need something Jesus has commanded for us does not make any sense to me. Why would our ideas of what they need supercede His?

Jesus DIDN’T command their baptism. He commanded they not be left out, (understanding mine from what Jesus said).

This attituded denotes an inadequate understanding of original sin. We are all born into a default seting of death. Those who do not beleive and are baptized are “condemned already” because of original sin. We are born into a condition that is separated from God through sin.

I understand original sin. It seems you don’t understand how far reaching the mercy and grace of God is… it reaches to infants.

I think you are in a lot of company here. Although all the Reformers taught and believed this, it seems that each generation that moves further from the Apostolic teaching loses more and more of what they believed and taught.

I’m pretty sure I agree with the 1st apostles on this one. That’s great company, not a lot of company.

The Apostles taught that this circumcision of heart occurrred in the waters of baptism. They never separated the two.

The first apostles, writers of the NT, taught they were different. Circumcision of the heart happens through trust in Christ’s substitute, the Gospel.

Yes. It is customary for modern evangelicals to separate them, but this is an innovation unknown to the Church until a couple hundred years ago.

You mean the understanding was lost for hundreds of years until a couple of hundred yrs ago.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I like your insurance analogy. That’s why I believe children are ‘grandfathered’ in by the love and grace of God without baptism until they can deside for themselves.

Interesting Dokimas. Do these children then, at some point in time, fall out of the “grandfathered” salvation? Do you believe in once saved always saved? If you do (not sure if you do ) how do you mesh the two beliefs? If someone is grandfathered in they should be (under OSAS) always grandfathered in right?

God bless you

 

[Dokimas]

Interesting Dokimas. Do these children then, at some point in time, fall out of the “grandfathered” salvation? Do you believe in once saved always saved? If you do (not sure if you do ) how do you mesh the two beliefs? If someone is grandfathered in they should be (under OSAS) always grandfathered in right?

God bless you

Age of accountability (which is not mentioned directly in the Bible).