| Author | Message | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1670 Registered: 4-2000  |
No Church Council ever debated paedobaptism as being a heresy--even though that mode of baptism was the norm during the first 1500 years of Christianity. Moreover, there are no documents (i.e., from the church fathers, etc.) that debated the validity of infant baptism. The so-called "age of accountability" is not biblical. It teaches that while children are sinful, God does not hold them accountable for their sin because they have not reached the "age of reason" or "age of accountability." The first time the Gospel was ever preached was on the day of Pentecost by the Apostle Peter. In his Spirit-inspired sermon he made it clear that the blessing and promise of salvation was not just for adults, but for children as well (see Acts 2:38,39). The fact that the Bible mentions entire "households" being baptized make it seem probable that children and infants were included (see 1 Cor. 1:16; Acts 11:13b.14;Acts 10:48a; Acts 16:31,33b). The Bible never gives an example of the baptism of a Christian child as an adult. Neither does the Bible state that every child is in a "suspended state of salvation" until they have reached this "age of accountability," which one would have to believe if he held to the "age of accountability" theory. Throughout the Book of Acts we read about the conversion of people who were not Christians or the children of Christians. These people, both Jews and Gentiles alike, had not grown up as the children of (New Covenant) Christians. The preaching and examples of conversions in Acts all have to do with missionary situations in which the Gospel is entering lives of individuals, families, and communities for the first time. Thus, those converted adults needed to receive baptism when they confessed their faith in Jesus. In the Old Testament, when the head of a household was circumcised, his sons were also circumcised. In the New Testament, when the head of a household was baptized, the rest of the household was also baptized. Some contend that Jesus' example of baptism is proof that baptism isn't for babies. But if Jesus'baptism at age 30 proves that babies shouldn't be baptized, it also proves that teenagers shouldn't be baptized. Some may say that we shouldn't base any Christian practice upon Old Covenant customs or direcives (i.e., linking infant baptism with circumcision). However, the practice of "child dedication" is likewise based upon Old Testament customs (i.e., Hannah taking little Samuel to live with the priest). Under the New Covenant, if parents confess Jesus as Lord, are their children INSIDE this community, the church, or are they OUTSIDE? Clearly, in the Old Testament the children were included in the community of God. This issue is not as "cut-and-dried: as whether Jehovah or Baal is God, or whether we are saved by faith in Jesus or by our own obedience to the Law. The biblical answers to those questions are plain and clear. But sincere believers who the Lord and want to follow His Word have drawn very different conclusions on his question of infant baptism. We also never read about Timothy being baptized following his circumcision. God does seem to have a burden to save entire families (i.e., Noah and his family). Hopefully, these thoughts are helpful to you as you evaluate paedobaptism. Dennis Fischer (Message edited by Dennis on May 13, 2009) | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 4776 Registered: 9-2006  |
Hey Mary, I got a cd laying around some where with Wendy Bagwell and John Goodman telling tales of their travels, that story in in it.  River | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 1998 Registered: 8-2004  |
Stands to reason that he did put out some CDs. All I had of his were 8 tracks, LPs and maybe a cassette or two. . . but that was long ago. I'd love to find his "I've Got A Will, I'll Make It Some Way!" | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9820 Registered: 12-2003  |
Just a note about the "age of accountability"—I agree; that is not a biblical principle. Just by the by, my experience with Christian baptism by immersion isn't linked to an age of accountability. It's linked solely to a person's desire to profess publicly his or her faith in the Lord Jesus, and age isn't a factor. If the person can declare Jesus to be his Lord and can explain the gospel in his or her life, he or she can be baptized. One interesting point, in my opinion, is that infant baptism was traditionally considered regenerative, as Adrian pointed out. Today not all Christians would say it is regenerative, yet it has become a tradition that many would not not think of abandoning even though it's no longer considered a "means of grace". Or perhaps the idea of children being baptized into the "covenant people" is considered a means of grace... Either way, a person must be individually born again. Infant baptism does not give a person an inside track to knowing Jesus. In fact, 1 Corinthians 7:14 suggests that children are holy, or sanctified, by means of a believing parent--not by means of baptism. I would not divide over the issue of infant baptism, but I would also not promote the idea of infant baptism as a biblical practice. Colleen | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 1000 Registered: 7-2004  |
Brian3, "they came up out of the water" (speaking of Philip and the eunuch) doesn't necessarily mean immersion. They weren't both immersed, yet they both came up out of the water. They could have both walked into the water, Philip could have poured water on the eunuch's head, and then they could have both come up out of the water. I think it's easy to read into Scripture what we already picture in our mind based on other influences. It's also interesting that Biblically "sprinkle" is commonly used to signify cleansing (especially check out Ezekiel 36:24-26), and when baptize is used to describe Noah and family saved through the flood, Israel going through the Red Sea, and the dew on Nebuchednezzar - none of these examples had anyone getting completely wet. | ||
| Esther Registered user Username: Esther Post Number: 480 Registered: 5-2004 |
I'm really glad that this topic of baptism, especially infant, has come up. Dennis, thanks for sharing your thoughts. This is something that I've wrestled with much in the last few months...perhaps because I wonder about my son. And since I tend to run in more "reformed" circles, but worship in evangelical circles. I can see both sides of the argument...yet myself almost feel more inclined towards the infant baptism. Definately not as a guarantee of salvation, as the child would need their own response to the Gospel. However, I do see the strong veins of God working within the familial unit. In the case of Noah, even Job (losing his entire family & gaining an entire family), the Jewish community, the type of circumcision, and the entire families being baptized in the NT. Something that a Lutheran pastor I spoke with said to me makes sense. That while the baptized infant isn't necessarily saved...viewing baptism as a "means of grace" might enable God to bless and lead that child through life. While I don't feel God entirely needs that in order to guide and lead...i equate it to communion. Scripture paints a picture of the blessings that work in us when we (as believers) partake of communion - while those who don't come as believers suffer by that same symbol. If partaking of these "types" enables blessings in us and through us, why would I want to deprive my child, who, though i believe is born unregenerated just as every other human was/is (according to Romans)...also is born into our household of faith. Also, in 1 Cor 7. While a doctrine shouldn't be made out of this one verse...it's still part of the Bible...and what if the believing family member does bare out some "shelter" on the unbelieving?... Paul does call the children holy. Again...not because they were born regenerate, but because of their association with the community of faith. Noah's entire family was allowed safe passage on the ark when it's very likely to be that one son for sure was not in a saved place. Again...I do believe that one must eventually place themselves squarely at the feet of Christ...and I don't feel this infant baptism topic should be divisive. Just some ponderings I've had. Don't eveyone get too jumpy...just thinking out loud here Also...do any of us believe that a child of a believer who dies either un-infant baptized, or un personal choice saved, not go to heaven? As an SDA, I believed Ellen that those who'd never really had the chance to make the decision would just be non-existant. Well, that just doesn't fit anymore. Either they're under punishment due to being inherently sinful in Adam...or they reap the benefit of a gracious God who extends mercy to them via their position under the community of believers (based on the blood of Christ of course)... Again...just some open ramblings...I've enjoyed reading what everyone's saying on this topic. Don't let me derail it...and feel free to correct me where I'm off base | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 307 Registered: 8-2008 |
Dennis, I am not entirely certain on infant baptism, but your point that children of believers are not to be considered as separate from the community is correct. Paul addresses his letters to the church, and in a few places specifically speaks to children, indicating that he considered them part of the church (too lazy to look up the exact references right now). Paul did not take the concept of "church" lightly. His writings are fiercely communitarian. He did not see the church as some institution or place where people go once a week. He saw it as a community, a family, the household of God, the living Temple. The vast majority of Christians have a much lower understanding of what it means to be the church than Paul would have countenanced. For him to include children in the audience of his letters indicates he did not believe somehow children of believers are to be considered outside of the community until they reach some "age of accountability." I say this because one of my beefs with Adventism is that they deny communion to Christian children. I always had a problem with this because Jesus said not to keep the little children from coming to Him. | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1671 Registered: 4-2000 |
The good news is that God is in the business of saving entire families. Infant baptism involves the entire church family. Parents promise God and His church that the children will be raised in the Gospel doctrines and the commandments of God's Word. The congregation itself adds to the parents' commitment or pledge, to assist the parents in the care and nurture of the child. The church family actually voted to do this when I witnessed this last Sunday. The baptized infant was then taken down the center aisle by the pastor as he introduced the newest addition to their community of faith. The writer of Hebrews tells us that we are heirs of an even better covenant, the New Covenant. The New Covenant excels the Old Covenant in so many ways, but does it fall short in this point of including our children? In the OT, the children were included in the covenant and made heirs to the promises--God was the eternal father of these generations, as Abraham was of the earthly generations--but now are we to believe that God wishes to exclude our children in this much better covenant? The Old Testament warns, "The Lord's curse is on the house of the wicked...but those who are righteous will go free" (Proverbs 3:33;11:21). The children of believers were not considered unregenerate pagans, "for they will be a people blessed by the Lord, they and their descendants with them" (Isaiah 65:23). But the NT has the same message. Paul assured the Corinthians that one believing parent sanctified the children: "Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy" (1 Cor. 7:14). Indeed, God keeps his own timetable of regeneration--sometimes even in older age. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 2000 Registered: 8-2004 |
So you think Baptism DOES regenerate? (that is, you seem to emphasize that the children are not 'unregenerate pagans') (Message edited by helovesme2 on May 13, 2009) | ||
| Esther Registered user Username: Esther Post Number: 481 Registered: 5-2004 |
Ha, I see two of you have already gone where I got back on to go...but I'll still share. I've loved how even in Evangelical circles parents allow their children to partake of communion. This is in stark contrast to how it was as SDA. Yet in some of these same churches where they allow the children to share in the communion "means of grace", they deny them to share in the baptismal "means of grace". I don't see any instance in the Bible where either communion or baptism is elevated to a higher level over the other?!? Again...sorry if I sound riled up about this...I'm just passionate about it cause I've been so desperately trying to work this out for myself...and every time I talk to my pastor about it, I come away with the Romans view of...oh yeah, we're all born dead and must make that decision to believe for ourselves (with the enabling of God). But it still deeply plagues my spirit. More and more I'm tending to side on the infant baptism side. Not so that the infant CAN be saved... but so that they partake of the blessing available in baptism. sigh...thanks for allowing me to vent | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1672 Registered: 4-2000 |
Bskillet, Thank you for your excellent comments. As I mentioned with my first post on the topic of infant baptism, I do not currently embrace paedobaptism. However, having said that, I realize some excellent points on both sides of this issue. It my intent to stimulate thoughtful discussion and study on this topic. As Colleen correctly stated, we certainly shouldn't divide over this sacrament. I am a member of a church that teaches believer's baptism. Both modes of baptism leave us with some questions. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Esther Registered user Username: Esther Post Number: 482 Registered: 5-2004 |
Mary...now that I see your post I was just thinking the same thing. I don't know how it would specificaly work in the spirit part of it...but I believe children born to believers are inherently sinful...just like I was inherently sinful before I was a believer...though, I'm still sinful...even now as a believer and will be as long as I'm in my flesh. Being raised in a community of faith (or family of faith, or by a mother/father of faith) allows the child to have access to hearing the Gospel. Romans 10, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ". A reformed group I regularly listen to continually say something to the effect that it's so important that each week in church the Gospel is being presented (it's gotta all be about Jesus...whether from Samuel, or David, or the NT). That it's through hearing the Gospel that the power of God can work in our lives with it's transforming power (and by the power of the HS). So, taking that a step further, wouldn't a believers child be in a position to be (hopefully) continually hearing to word of the Gospel...and wouldn't that hearing have the possibility of resulting in faith? So, perhaps at some point the hearing would result in a transformed spirit within the child...though for those externally it might be hard to know exactly when that was as who knows at what time a child would cognitively realize that their salvation is in Christ and believe. For some children it might be at 5...others might be at 10...or even later. Yet, those children might still be in God's plan as children of those of us who have believed. Perhaps I'm looking at this with eyes that are to close to the picture. Ever since Mack's birth God brought me to this verse and I've claimed it emphatically. "For the promise is for you, and your children..." Acts 2:39. I've had a great sense of peace about it because just as Abraham believed that God would do as He promised, I (as a believer) believe that God will do as He promised and that the promise will be for me and for my children. Ok, I think I'm done for the night | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 1001 Registered: 7-2004 |
Thanks for posting your thoughts Esther (and Dennis)! I've also thought a lot about infant baptism because we ended up in a Lutheran church. I'm just as glad we don't have an infant to concern ourselves about in this regard, but I definitely understand that thinking and don't have a problem for anyone else who decides to go that route -- just not 100% certain what I would do if the decision came up. I liked how it was brought up that infant baptism is part of the whole church family's pledge to raise up the child in the Christian faith. Infant baptism is never meant to be done outside of the parents (and others directly involved in the infant's life) being committed to the Christian faith--that's also the whole point of godparents, although that deteriorated long ago to "in name only". Churches who do infant baptism recognize that at some point belief must be individually confessed, that's why there is "confirmation" when the child is old enough to understand and express belief. Either way, I don't believe the Bible teaches salvation can only occur with baptism; God can regenerate any person He chooses to, with or without baptism, before or after. | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1673 Registered: 4-2000 |
Mary, It is my understanding that paedobaptism is NOT regenerational in itself. There is no magic in the water. However, like in Old Testament times, the children of the Israelites were NEVER considered as "unregenerate pagans" due to the covenant promises of God. Accordingly, I believe God sanctifies the children in a family when even only one parent is a true believer as Paul indicated in 1 Cor. 7:14. The godly family unit is heaven approved and designed. Truly, as the Bible repeatedly verifies, God really does bless a Christian home. Dennis Fischer (Message edited by Dennis on May 13, 2009) | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 138 Registered: 3-2009 |
Age of accountability? Is it 12 as in ancient Israel? 18 as in USA? Would 8 do? If I have found grace in your eyes, you'd you allow an 8 year old to be baptize? Forgive me for insisting, but if I have found grace in your eyes would you not allow a seven year old (is only one year less) OH, and six is just one year less than seven. So what's the age of accountability? Who determine it? Hec | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9824 Registered: 12-2003 |
Hec, there's no such thing as an "age of accountability". People become believers when they place their faith in the Lord Jesus; sometimes they are very young; sometimes older. As far as the argument that infant baptism is a church family affair where the whole body agrees to raise the child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, infant dedications do the same thing. At least at our church, with which I have experience, the church does vote to nurture, pray for, and help the child to grow in the knowledge of Jesus. The interesting thing about the "position" of baptism and communion is that in churches that practice infant baptism, communion is generally not administered until the person is later confirmed. In churches that practice immersion, people are generally allowed to take communion when they place their faith in the Lord Jesus, and baptism often happens later. Another issue regarding baptism and communion is the idea of them being "means of grace". The Bible never actually says this. The command for baptism was that people believed and were baptized. The instructions for communion recorded in 1 Corinthians 13 explain that no one was to come to the supper (for they did practice communion at common meals) hungry and take more than his/her share, leaving others to go hungry. The command of Jesus was to eat and drink "in remembrance" of him, and Paul added that "whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." Communion is a sign; a remembrance and a proclamation of the finished work of Jesus on the cross. When people ate unworthily by grabbing more than his share and treating his brothers rudely and without respect, he ate and drank judgment on himself. The point was not that some sort of "grace" is given through communion; the point is that communion symbolizes Jesus' saving blood and atoning death, and to take the symbols of salvation—which is a declaration of Christ's death—and treat one's brother shabbily, that person was disrespecting the death of Jesus and behaving as if it hadn't changed him, and he ate and drank judgment on himself. The NT doesn't present either baptism or communion as means of grace. It presents both as signs: one of entering the new covenant when one is born again, and the other as a sign of proclaiming Christ's death...the shared meal of believing brothers and sisters who are anticipating the culmination of the Marriage Feast of the Lamb. But, I will not quarrel with the commitment of one's child to the care of God and to the nurture of the local church! Colleen | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 141 Registered: 3-2009 |
Catholics baptize infants because that takes away the "original sin". (Makes the spirit alive?) Now, if we are born with dead spirits, and to be save we have to be born again, and an infant can't understand enough to accept Jesus and be born again. Is that infant "lost" until he/she is old enough to understand and accept Jesus to be born again? Until s/he is born again, his/her spirit is dead. So supposing that infant dies with a dead spirit, now what? Hec | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9827 Registered: 12-2003 |
Hec, the death of children is another thing we have to trust God to take care of. I remember reading in Wayne Grudem's Bible Doctrine a section on the saving of children who die. He pointed out that the Bible doesn't explicitly tell us what happens, but that it does tell us that being born again is the condition of salvation. Grudem pointed out that God is capable of revealing Himself and regenerating even an infant. For example, John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit in his mother's womb and leaped when he heard Mary's voice. That was God giving life to John's spirit while still in the womb. There is mystery here which God has not revealed; we can know, however, that He is faithful, and He can save even infants. God reveals Himself to us; He is not dependent upon our ability to find Him. Colleen (Message edited by Colleentinker on May 13, 2009) | ||
| Jrt Registered user Username: Jrt Post Number: 427 Registered: 10-2008 |
I'm not sure if this is the place to ask this question ... It just came up in a discussion at a training class in church tonight. (I'm taking a class on evangelism) John 3:5 says, "Jesus answered, "I assure you: Unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." I asked the assoc. pastor what it meant to be born of water. He didn't have an answer. He did say that some people try to use that text to imply that you have to be baptized to be saved - or at least some denom. believe that. I don't see that interpretation in the text. I always thought it meant that we recognize our sin and turn to Jesus to be washed of it - that is what I understood "born of water" meant. But that may be an Ellenism too. Any thoughts about that John passage and being born of water - in the story of Nicodemus? Keri P.S. Sorry, maybe you already covered that passage in this thread ... I skimmed the thread ... | ||
| Esther Registered user Username: Esther Post Number: 483 Registered: 5-2004 |
So, here I am at 3:46 am wide awake and contemplating this topic again. I get everything you said Colleen...and honestly, I've resolved myself to that view more than on one occasion after discussion with my pastor. Yet, even though I have a sense of peace that God is in control and will work it out and that my child must come to his own decision for Christ, I end right back up here positively plagued by these same questions again. It's like, this isn't quite spelled out in Scripture, and it "feels" to me like the debate about God's sovereignty and our free will. That both are portrayed in Scripture and I just must accept that somehow both are true even though as a human I don't understand how that works. I apologize for my lack of explanation by my use of "means of grace". Let me put it this way: For example, prayer. I don't believe for a minute that God NEEDS my prayers to do anything. He can step inside or outside of time and act in any way for His own choosing at any time He desires. Yet, we're told to pray. And we know that sometimes it seems God acts on behalf of those prayers in ways that perhaps He wouldn't have otherwise. Right?... SO, what if baptism and communion are similar. While I completely agree that they are symbols and there is no inherent power in the water, or wine, or bread...we're commanded to take part of those symbols. And, perhaps by our expression of being part of this Covenant, God chooses to bless us through the partaking of those symbols. Like with our prayers He sometimes chooses to bless us because of our expressions/requests of Him. And just like I will daily and continually offer up prayer for my child, if there's a blessing to be had by allowing him to partake of the "means of grace" of baptism...why would I deny him that? I also agree that whether infant baptized, or infant dedicated, has no resolute bearing on salvation in that the act itself guarantees salvation or regeneration. I've been praying continually that I am submitting these thoughts and ponderings to God and His will, and am not reading anything into this that is based on my own desires. But, I keep feeling that when I "back off" from my assurance about the salvation of my child (based on Acts 2), that I'm losing something akin to my own assurance based on the promises of God. Like, there's something very real about peoples responses to God in that they believe He's a God who does exactly what He says He'll do. Many of the Heb 11 are there simply because they believed that God would do what He said: Noah, Abraham, Rahab, etc. Well, must run for now...I hear my son stirring and he'll be up looking for me I appreciate this discussion so much...and really hope that I'm near an "aha" moment with it |
