Baptism - Private Or Part Of A Church Service?

I see no vital teaching on the baptism of babies, there.

Once again, there are no explicit passages that mention infant baptism just as you won't find passages that condemn it.

But, for argument's sake, let's recognize that just because something is not in the Bible means we should either reject it or accept it. We have to look at scriptural evidence rather than proof.


Your evidence shows that adults must repent and accept Christ before baptism. That's a good argument on your side.

My evidence is that baptism is expressed in Scripture as it's link to circumcision in the New Testament. We know infants were circumcised, but converts to the Jewish faith must first proclaim their Jewish faith before circumcision. Likewise, converts to Christianity must first proclaim their faith. But we also see the evidence in that entire households were baptized, which is likely to include children below the age of reason -- whether infants or 5-year-olds or whatnot. And of course, like the passages I did offer, that Church authority goes on into expressing this view. Infant baptism was written about explicitly at least in the 2nd century.


Let's say for a moment that you are right, that because the Bible says nothing about infant baptism, it must be rejected. We'd then have to find the Bible verse that explains that if something is not explicitly stated in the Bible that it must be rejected as a tradition of man.
 
The problem is yours. #1 concerns people who have realized that they are sinners in need of a Saviour. Infants have no such conviction, nor are they capable of it. The command is to those who have faith and have demonstrated it.

Everyone in the OT needed the Savior just as much as we do. Everyone in the OT had no forgiveness of sins without faith and repentance (typically expressed through sacrifice). And, yet, babies were still circumcised. Israelites were required to perform certain rituals. Babies couldn't perform those rituals, but they were still circumcised.
 
One should at least contemplate what the Bible says before accepting a tradition which the many follow. Take heed that Jesus was very upset with man's traditions which led the many astray.

Ephesians 4: 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

So we see clearly there is one baptism. In Acts 19, we find some people who needed re-baptized in the name of the Lord because they had only been baptized by John the Baptist for repentance of sin.

Acts 8:36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?”
37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”
And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

Here we see that you must believe with all your heart before you may be baptized. Other scripture on baptisms also refer to people believing, and then being baptized. By this, I conclude you must believe first, then be baptized, and there is only one true baptism. Infants cannot believe yet, so all you are doing is getting them wet. If you were only baptized as an infant, you would need the true baptism of being a believer.
This is why we ask for scripture to support your belief. These would be scriptures which would show infant baptism is nothing more than a dedication, and there is nothing wrong with that.
 
what i see is apples and oranges on baptism....

Matthew 20:22King James Version (KJV)
22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able
 
I think what many people don't understand is that the sacrament of confirmation proceeds baptism as a more intellectual acceptance of Christ. Granted, Protestants don't really recognize sacraments, but baptism was never really applied as a means of intellectual assent but as a faithful surrender to have sins washed away.

You can combine confirmation and baptism but you do not necessarily need to. Baptism just means you submit to Christ and accept His sacrifice and an infant can do this with its parent's consent, just like circumcision.

I agree, and those many people keep on comparing apples with oranges....
 
Everyone in the OT needed the Savior just as much as we do. Everyone in the OT had no forgiveness of sins without faith and repentance (typically expressed through sacrifice). And, yet, babies were still circumcised. Israelites were required to perform certain rituals. Babies couldn't perform those rituals, but they were still circumcised.

What does infant baptism do for a baby? Give scriptural support.
 
Your evidence shows that adults must repent and accept Christ before baptism. That's a good argument on your side.

The evidence shows that converts to Christianity were baptized, which is identical to converts being circumcised in the old covenant. The evidence shows that when the head of house was converted, the whole household was circumcised or baptized. The only difference between OT and NT is that the OT is full of lengthy instructions for religious practices, including 8th-day infant circumcision for babies born into a believing household.

Converts to the old covenant were likewise, as in the new covenant, required to subscribe to certain things, including repentance and acceptance of God, and yet infants were still circumcised! This shows the argument that "one must repent before baptism" is invalid, not a good argument. If not for explicit instructions, many Israelites might have run around claiming infant circumcision is invalid, and they would be flat out wrong.

The preponderance of the biblical evidence supports infant baptism. Undeniably. The only argument that anti-infant baptism people have is that the opposing side also lacks a smoking gun.
 
I have photos of my own baptism when I was a baby and it appeared to be a private ceremony, but I know that some churches work a baptism into their weekly Sunday services. Is this a matter of choice on the parents' behalf, or is it more up to the church?

It's a lot like communion---the Lord says "as often as you do it..." which means it is up to the individual church leadership whether baptism is offered every week as people are saved, or once every quarter, or whatever is decided. Our church baptizes about 4o--60 new believers over one weekend of services about every 6 months. (Not babies, though. We dedicate them to Christ.)
 
The evidence shows that converts to Christianity were baptized, which is identical to converts being circumcised in the old covenant. The evidence shows that when the head of house was converted, the whole household was circumcised or baptized. The only difference between OT and NT is that the OT is full of lengthy instructions for religious practices, including 8th-day infant circumcision for babies born into a believing household.

Converts to the old covenant were likewise, as in the new covenant, required to subscribe to certain things, including repentance and acceptance of God, and yet infants were still circumcised! This shows the argument that "one must repent before baptism" is invalid, not a good argument. If not for explicit instructions, many Israelites might have run around claiming infant circumcision is invalid, and they would be flat out wrong.

The preponderance of the biblical evidence supports infant baptism. Undeniably. The only argument that anti-infant baptism people have is that the opposing side also lacks a smoking gun.
Let's go to the source.
Genesis 17:9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
Explicit instructions for all males to be circumcised was needed so they could not argue against it. All who were not circumcised were cut off from God's chosen people for breaking the covenant. No such rule for baptism. Only faith and belief is needed. You could argue the baptism of the Holy Spirit is needed, but that is part of the faith and belief of the person. Circumcision had nothing to do with repentance. Please show this in scripture if you disagree.
What do all instances of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ have in common? Back to the source.


Acts 8:36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?
37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”
And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
Acts 2:41 41 Those who believed what Peter said were baptized and added to the church that day—about 3,000 in all.
Acts 10 ...Then Peter asked, 47 “Can anyone object to their being baptized, now that they have received the Holy Spirit just as we did?” 48 So he gave orders for them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Acts 16:31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, along with everyone in your household.” 32 And they shared the word of the Lord with him and with all who lived in his household. 33 Even at that hour of the night, the jailer cared for them and washed their wounds. Then he and everyone in his household were immediately baptized. 34 He brought them into his house and set a meal before them, and he and his entire household rejoiced because they all believed in God.

Not just some or the master of the house, but all believed and then immediately baptized.
Acts 18:8 Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, and everyone in his household believed in the Lord. Many others in Corinth also heard Paul, became believers, and were baptized.

In comparing circumcision to baptism, Paul does this in Colossians 2:
11 When you came to Christ, you were “circumcised,” but not by a physical procedure. Christ performed a spiritual circumcision—the cutting away of your sinful nature. 12 For you were buried with Christ when you were baptized. And with him you were raised to new life because you trusted the mighty power of God, who raised Christ from the dead.
Here we see "When you came to Christ," obviously means "when you believed", Christ "circumcised" you by cutting away the sinful nature. Then you are "buried", this is one of many scriptures which endorse immersion, with Christ in baptism, and again, after immersed, you are raised up out of the water to symbolize the raising of Christ from the dead. You go in dead, and are raised with new life!
So the preponderance of the biblical evidence supports believers baptism only. Undeniably. Show your knowledge of the Bible by showing where circumcision is the same as baptism. I won't hold my breath.
;)
 
I guess it comes down to why you are baptizing the child. Baptisms are biblically a public profession of faith. Since the child can't do this yet, you might as well make it private.

ah ok. so I understand now why non-Catholic view on Catholic baptism....

Question now: is that the intention of Catholic baptism?

I think not....of course not.... obviously, it is a baby....
 
Explicit instructions for all males to be circumcised was needed so they could not argue against it. All who were not circumcised were cut off from God's chosen people for breaking the covenant. No such rule for baptism. Only faith and belief is needed. You could argue the baptism of the Holy Spirit is needed, but that is part of the faith and belief of the person. Circumcision had nothing to do with repentance. Please show this in scripture if you disagree.
What do all instances of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ have in common? Back to the source.


Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?”[/quoe]

I've already refuted your arguments. The Eunuch wasn't raised Christian. You refuse to acknowledge that because you have no case. If the Eunuch had been introduced to the Old Covenant, he could just as easily had said, "What hinders me from being circumcised?" The Eunuch had no Christian parents who could have baptized him.

37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”

Converts to the Old Covenant also had to believe certain things to convert. You refuse to acknowledge that because you have no case.

Not just some or the master of the house, but all believed and then immediately baptized.
A rispus, the leader of the synagogue, and everyone in his household believed in the Lord. Many others in Corinth also heard Paul, became believers, and were baptized.

In the Old Testament, the whole house also was credited with believing when the head of the house converted. You refuse to acknowledge that because you have no case.

In comparing circumcision to baptism, Paul does this in
11 When you came to Christ, you were “circumcised,” but not by a physical procedure. Christ performed a spiritual circumcision—the cutting away of your sinful nature. 12 For you were buried with Christ when you were baptized. And with him you were raised to new life because you trusted the mighty power of God, who raised Christ from the dead.

In comparing circumcision to baptism, Paul equates the two, save for the context of the Old vs. New covenants. You have no case. The OT refutes all of your arguments.
 
ah ok. so I understand now why non-Catholic view on Catholic baptism....

Question now: is that the intention of Catholic baptism?

I think not....of course not.... obviously, it is a baby....
Yes, if you want to sprinkle water on the baby to baptize it, that is fine and makes for a beautiful dedication. The problem is when they are older, they believe they were baptized as a believer when they were not. If that is what you truly believe, I don't think God will hold it against you. Paul talks about things like this to not squabble over because it could undermine someone's faith. I gave my two cents on the scripture I am aware of, and if you hold this as part of your faith, that's cool with me.:cool:
 
Yes, if you want to sprinkle water on the baby to baptize it, that is fine and makes for a beautiful dedication. The problem is when they are older, they believe they were baptized as a believer when they were not.
No they won't, because that's not why they were baptized.

You tell them that they were baptized for the remission of the stain of original sin, and that it had nothing to do with what they believed. Because it was not believer's baptism.
 
Yes, if you want to sprinkle water on the baby to baptize it, that is fine and makes for a beautiful dedication. The problem is when they are older, they believe they were baptized as a believer when they were not. If that is what you truly believe, I don't think God will hold it against you. Paul talks about things like this to not squabble over because it could undermine someone's faith. I gave my two cents on the scripture I am aware of, and if you hold this as part of your faith, that's cool with me.:cool:

Now the definition is now in the context of ‘Dedication”…

First it is in the context “public profession of faith”.

My point: it seems non-Catholics is giving definition what is Catholic baptism…. and they are discussing it in terms of their own definition….
 
Yes, if you want to sprinkle water on the baby to baptize it, that is fine and makes for a beautiful dedication. The problem is when they are older, they believe they were baptized as a believer when they were not. If that is what you truly believe, I don't think God will hold it against you. Paul talks about things like this to not squabble over because it could undermine someone's faith. I gave my two cents on the scripture I am aware of, and if you hold this as part of your faith, that's cool with me.:cool:

I agree with the first part of what you say, but the last part...God will hold it against a person who for all their life think they are saved by water poured on them as an infant when that is not what saved anyone. It is a treacherous belief that can be the very real cause of people never knowing the fullness of a relationship with the living God, and in the end can be the reason for one's very damnation. "Depart from me for I never knew you!" Matthew 7:23
 
I agree with the first part of what you say, but the last part...God will hold it against a person who for all their life think they are saved by water poured on them as an infant when that is not what saved anyone.
Once again Euphemia, you fail to recognize that other Christians understand baptism differently than you do, and once again I need to point out that it's not your place to say what God will hold against someone else.

For the last time, there are TWO understandings of baptism. Believer's baptism which you practice, and infant baptism which others practice. They are practiced for DIFFERENT REASONS. Infant baptism has NOTHING to do with what you believe, it is something you receive for the removal of original sin. If you don't believe that, FINE. You don't have to believe it. The point is others do, and you should not keep insisting that others play by your rulebook.
 
Once again Euphemia, you fail to recognize that other Christians understand baptism differently than you do, and once again I need to point out that it's not your place to say what God will hold against someone else.

For the last time, there are TWO understandings of baptism. Believer's baptism which you practice, and infant baptism which others practice. They are practiced for DIFFERENT REASONS. Infant baptism has NOTHING to do with what you believe, it is something you receive for the removal of original sin. If you don't believe that, FINE. You don't have to believe it. The point is others do, and you should not keep insisting that others play by your rulebook.

I am only too aware of how others believe.

God will definitely hold unrighteousness against the unrighteous. If a person thinks he is saved by virtue of drops of water on his bald baby pate, he is wrong and is still in his sins. The word is clear about how we are saved.

There may be two or more understandings of baptism, but there is only one that the bible teaches---it is a symbol of our identification with Christ's death, burial and resurrection.

Romans 6:3-4 (NLT)
Or have you forgotten that when we were joined with Christ Jesus in baptism, we joined him in his death? 4 For we died and were buried with Christ by baptism. And just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glorious power of the Father, now we also may live new lives.
 
Back
Top