Baptism - Private Or Part Of A Church Service?

I believe in infant dedication. Not infant baptism. Even within protestant circles, infant baptism is very common in many denominations. I don't condemn that practice. Dedicating a child for Christ is a beautiful thing. I would prefer to call it dedication rather than baptism. Because baptism is an obedient step of public confession of faith. A child is in no position to make such confession. Even if someone has been baptized as child, I always urge them to be baptized again when they feel the need to (after accepting Christ).
 
JamesJohn said:
Jesus encourages us to teach our children of Him. We are to do that from their birth. It is our responsibility to teach them His ways and the word so that they will come to the Saviour early in life. He says absolutely nothing about baptizing unbelieving babies. It isn't necessary, as they are not at the level of understanding the importance of it.

You transgress by insisting on a man-invented tradition, and that it has any spiritual import, and not abiding in the doctrine of Christ as spoken of in 2 John 1:9-11.
Click to expand...

JamesJohn, forgive me if I'm pestering you, but you haven't offered an argument yet. You're still just re-wording your position. Can you show me a verse that condemns this practice or perhaps early Church writing on the condemnation of it?

I'm afraid we can't go any further unless you give supporting defenses for your statements rather than just re-stating them.
 
PeaceLikeaRiver said:
It isn't really fair to say "unbelieving babies" because the two sides in Christianity understand baptism differently. Your side goes with believer's baptism. That's fine, but Catholics and many others look at it as the remission of the stain of original sin. (Eve eating the apple, all that stuff...) So it doesn't matter that the baby in question is as yet an "unbeliever" when the idea is we all have the stain of original sin at birth.
Click to expand...

It's fair...babies are unbelievers, and we as believing parents are to commit to God to train them in righteousness so that they will receive Jesus.

Proverbs 22:6
6 Train up a child in the way he should go,
And when he is old he will not depart from it.
 
LysanderShapiro said:
JamesJohn, forgive me if I'm pestering you, but you haven't offered an argument yet. You're still just re-wording your position. Can you show me a verse that condemns this practice or perhaps early Church writing on the condemnation of it?

I'm afraid we can't go any further unless you give supporting defenses for your statements rather than just re-stating them.
Click to expand...

I have offered a good argument based on the word. You have not.
 
Ravindran said:
I believe in infant dedication. Not infant baptism. Even within protestant circles, infant baptism is very common in many denominations. I don't condemn that practice. Dedicating a child for Christ is a beautiful thing. I would prefer to call it dedication rather than baptism. Because baptism is an obedient step of public confession of faith. A child is in no position to make such confession. Even if someone has been baptized as child, I always urge them to be baptized again when they feel the need to (after accepting Christ).
Click to expand...

Growing up Evangelical in churches that performed baby dedications, this is partially what infant baptism is. We don't say "Oh, they're infants, but we know that they are now Christian." Rather, it is a welcoming into the Christian family, despite a lack of a personal relationship with Christ, but more so, a dedication of Church to support this child as a growing member of the faith, through teaching and love.

The second part, though, is in regards to the objectivity of baptism. Many believe there is an objective reality of baptism's role of our individual souls being tarnished of original sin--not personal sin. That's why Catholics and Lutherans and Presbyterians and Orthodox and other groups perform baptism, not just dedication, but the dedication aspect is really a large part of it.

You put it very nicely, Ravidran--as usual :)
 
JamesJohn said:
It's fair...babies are unbelievers, and we as believing parents are to commit to God to train them in righteousness so that they will receive Jesus.
Click to expand...
But not everyone agrees that this is the point of baptism. It doesn't matter what the baby believes because it is not believer's baptism that is being practiced. You might disagree but at least recognize that there's another side.
 
PeaceLikeaRiver said:
But not everyone agrees that this is the point of baptism. It doesn't matter what the baby believes because it is not believer's baptism that is being practiced. You might disagree but at least recognize that there's another side.
Click to expand...

What do you say that scripture teaches is the purpose of baptism?
 
JamesJohn said:
God doesn't instruct us in this ritual for infants, so inventing a ritual that supposedly conveys salvation to a child who cannot profess faith is wrong, and can actually do harm by teaching the person when he is older that he is saved when he is not.
Click to expand...
As it happens, yes He does.

"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" (Acts 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.
 
PeaceLikeaRiver said:
As it happens, yes He does.

"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" (Acts 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.
Click to expand...

That is not applicable to the tradition of infant baptism. Therefore it stands that God is silent on such a notion and so it is unnecessary, and in fact should not be done.
 
JamesJohn said:
That is not applicable to the tradition of infant baptism. Therefore it stands that God is silent on such a notion and so it is unnecessary, and in fact should not be done.
Click to expand...

What about "whole families" being baptized in Acts 16:33? Does it say "except for the infants"? I don't call that silence on the Bible's part.

Although Fundamentalists are the most recent critics of infant baptism, opposition to infant baptism is not a new phenomenon. In the Middle Ages, some groups developed that rejected infant baptism, e.g., the Waldenses and Catharists. Later, the Anabaptists ("re-baptizers") echoed them, claiming that infants are incapable of being baptized validly. 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. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said "let them come unto me," who are we to say "no," and withhold baptism from them?
 
JamesJohn said:
God doesn't instruct us in this ritual for infants, so inventing a ritual that supposedly conveys salvation to a child who cannot profess faith is wrong, and can actually do harm by teaching the person when he is older that he is saved when he is not.
Click to expand...
It's not an invented ritual. This is a to rural instituted by Christ and extended to believers and their families. We see this in the Bible.

But you haven't shown me where God condemns this. Rather, you've presupposed it is a man-made tradition and shown me what the Bible says about man-made traditions. You're hung up on the second part, but haven't explained the first part. Instead you've just said that it is, not why it is.
 
Whole "households" would include family members and servants that all would understand the gospel message and that they were sinners needing to be saved.
 
LysanderShapiro said:
It's not an invented ritual. This is a to rural instituted by Christ and extended to believers and their families. We see this in the Bible.

But you haven't shown me where God condemns this. Rather, you've presupposed it is a man-made tradition and shown me what the Bible says about man-made traditions. You're hung up on the second part, but haven't explained the first part. Instead you've just said that it is, not why it is.
Click to expand...

Including infants is a human invention, and is not taught anywhere in scripture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top