Baptismal Regeneration of Infants

[Chica]

I didn't know there was a Jewish custom of baptism. This verse speaks of NT baptism(Ez 36:25-27) just like Acts 2:38. If this is a Jewish custom, please explain

Ezekiel 36:25-27 is about the future restoration of Israel and has nothing to do with the Church in the Church Age (i.e. now).

In Acts 2:38 Peter is speaking to Old Testament Jews, under the law who have killed their divinely chosen ruler.

Cornelius and his household got "the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 11:7-15) BEFORE any of them were baptized.

 

[mwc68]

Ezekiel 36:25-27 is about the future restoration of Israel and has nothing to do with the Church in the Church Age (i.e. now).

In Acts 2:38 Peter is speaking to Old Testament Jews, under the law who have killed their divinely chosen ruler.

Cornelius and his household got "the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 11:7-15) BEFORE any of them were baptized.

Don't understand how you come to the restoration of Isreal from that verse and you haven't explained the Jewish custom that is Baptism or like baptism. You said i was referring to a Jewish custom, which one?

 

[Stephen63]

Let's see..... Baptismal regeneration..... not in scripture at all, Jesus doesn't get baptized till He's what, THIRTY-THREE, The doctrine originated from the Roman Catholic Church, probably in the middle ages, God's plan for children under the age of accountability is to take them to Heaven, baptized or not, etc, etc. Tell me again, WHY DO WE NEED THIS DOCTRINE WHEN THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR IT? BECAUSE IT HAS SUCH A WARM, FUZZY, CHRISTIANESE FEELING TO IT?!?

While we're at it, why don't we all quit our church organizations & join the RCC Antichrist Babylon bunch so we don't have to keep adding their heretical doctrines to ours? Truly this thing is the real swallowing of the camel while we strain on insignificant gnats.

 

[MarcR]

What about John the baptist?

Mt 17:10-13
10 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
13 Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.
KJV

Elijah never died. He was taken live into heaven. The baby within Elizabeth had the Spirit and the consciousness of Elijah. Most babies are not born with the consciousness of an adult man.

Elizabeth was past menopause when she conceived and she conceived while Zechariah was serving as priest. Her conception was no more natural than Mary's

 

[jamie26301]

I have a couple of questions for those who believe baptism to be symbolic. Honest questions, but I haven't seen these angles addressed. I fall more into the camp where infant baptism has its place, and if not for salvation then for some other blessing. I'm am open to views I haven't heard, however. But this is what I have:

I hear a lot of the "age of accountability." Someone has already brought up the subjective nature of that, the different rates in which children grow. This is my question: WHAT is accountability? Telling right from wrong? What type of right from wrong choices - spiritual, social, economical, environmental? Does accountability include any understanding of RESPONSIBILITY? Doing chores, keeping your room clean, studying your schoolwork - things that we are accountable for later in life, if we want a decent means of living. A child of 10 or so may know it's wrong to steal - does she/he know understand and know it's wrong to covet? See, "accountability" doesn't really lay down any kind of image of what an accountable child looks and thinks like.

If the reasoning for infant baptism being wrong is that a decision/understanding has to be met first, then you open another can of worms with that reasoning. What about severally disabled newborns who will NEVER be able to comprehend? This is the biggest problem I have with decision theology - many are not capable, and may never have been. Many have emotional disorders that keeps them in confusion with little to no clarity. To say a decision/understanding MUST be made to be a Christian makes you wonder about the who "showing no partiality" thing.

 

[crossnote]

I have a couple of questions for those who believe baptism to be symbolic. Honest questions, but I haven't seen these angles addressed. I fall more into the camp where infant baptism has its place, and if not for salvation then for some other blessing. I'm am open to views I haven't heard, however. But this is what I have:

I hear a lot of the "age of accountability." Someone has already brought up the subjective nature of that, the different rates in which children grow. This is my question: WHAT is accountability? Telling right from wrong? What type of right from wrong choices - spiritual, social, economical, environmental? Does accountability include any understanding of RESPONSIBILITY? Doing chores, keeping your room clean, studying your schoolwork - things that we are accountable for later in life, if we want a decent means of living. A child of 10 or so may know it's wrong to steal - does she/he know understand and know it's wrong to covet? See, "accountability" doesn't really lay down any kind of image of what an accountable child looks and thinks like.

If the reasoning for infant baptism being wrong is that a decision/understanding has to be met first, then you open another can of worms with that reasoning. What about severally disabled newborns who will NEVER be able to comprehend? This is the biggest problem I have with decision theology - many are not capable, and may never have been. Many have emotional disorders that keeps them in confusion with little to no clarity. To say a decision/understanding MUST be made to be a Christian makes you wonder about the who "showing no partiality" thing.

Your right, a lot of this is more tradition/speculation on both sides so let me add some more speculation.

I would not give it an age but would say a person becomes accountable when they ...
1. realize they have sinned against God.
2. are able to comprehend that their sin will be judged
3. realize they need saving

This 'age' probably comes at different times with different individuals and with some like a down syndrome individual, never.

Again...speculation.

 

[mwc68]

Baptism is for the cleansing of Adam's sin, Romans 5:12-21, 1Cor 15:21-22. Baptism has a specific purpose,so it is not a symbol or a sign. I have not been able to find any age limit on this cleansing of sin and God offers it to all Acts 2:38

 

[p_rehbein]

I have a couple of questions for those who believe baptism to be symbolic. Honest questions, but I haven't seen these angles addressed. I fall more into the camp where infant baptism has its place, and if not for salvation then for some other blessing. I'm am open to views I haven't heard, however. But this is what I have:

I hear a lot of the "age of accountability." Someone has already brought up the subjective nature of that, the different rates in which children grow. This is my question: WHAT is accountability? Telling right from wrong? What type of right from wrong choices - spiritual, social, economical, environmental? Does accountability include any understanding of RESPONSIBILITY? Doing chores, keeping your room clean, studying your schoolwork - things that we are accountable for later in life, if we want a decent means of living. A child of 10 or so may know it's wrong to steal - does she/he know understand and know it's wrong to covet? See, "accountability" doesn't really lay down any kind of image of what an accountable child looks and thinks like.

If the reasoning for infant baptism being wrong is that a decision/understanding has to be met first, then you open another can of worms with that reasoning. What about severally disabled newborns who will NEVER be able to comprehend? This is the biggest problem I have with decision theology - many are not capable, and may never have been. Many have emotional disorders that keeps them in confusion with little to no clarity. To say a decision/understanding MUST be made to be a Christian makes you wonder about the who "showing no partiality" thing.

FYI: You should find the answers to your questions here.........


http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/112118-i-born-christian.html

 

[jamie26301]

FYI: You should find the answers to your questions here.........
http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/112118-i-born-christian.html

Thank you, but no it doesn't.

And you misquoted Luke 9:50, which says the reverse, putting emphasis on "for us" rather than "against us."

Pupit Commentary
The offence of the stranger, if it were an offence, was not against Jesus, whose Name had evidently been used reverently and with faith, but against the disciples, whose rights and privileges were presumably infringed upon. The Master's reply contained a broad and far-reaching truth. No earthly society, however holy, would be able exclusively to claim the Divine powers inseparably connected with a true and faithful use of his Name.

 

[sltaylor]

Ezekiel 36:25-27 is about the future restoration of Israel and has nothing to do with the Church in the Church Age (i.e. now).

In Acts 2:38 Peter is speaking to Old Testament Jews, under the law who have killed their divinely chosen ruler.

Cornelius and his household got "the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 11:7-15) BEFORE any of them were baptized.

I will have to disagree with you, Ezekiel 34,36, & 37, they are all about redemption through Christ and the spirit.

Salvation means redemption, deliverance, protection. All these prophecies are fulfilled by Christ and through Christ, salvation for Israel come no other way.

Just look at Ezekiel 34:12, he talks about gathering the flock on a day of clouds and darkness; that is the shepherd with the one flock and references the SAME DARKNESS mentioned in MATTHEW 24, right before the shepherd gathers the elect.

36&37, both speak of a pasturing on the mountains of Israel, but it's not the earthly Israel. The new spirit and new heart mentioned, that's the new covenant for the one flock under Christ, and his kingdom in which the flock enters through the gate is not of this Earth.

Paul understood Zion as the heavenly Jerusalem and quoted OT, I would recommend trying to see HOW he new the OT was talking about the Heavenly Jerusalem.

Peter reveals how the prophets who predicted Christ's coming also talked about the salvation and future glories that would also follow

1st Peter 1:10Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke*of the grace that was to come to you,*searched intently and with the greatest care,*

11*trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ*in them was pointing when he predicted*the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.*

12*It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you,*when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you*by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven.*Even angels long to look into these things.

 

[kaylagrl]

Just as circumcision was a sign in the OT, so baptism is a sign in the NT.

"But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Matt 19:14. KJV

This is from the Lord: give your children to Christ, he will care for them as only child.

Christ be with you always.

Yes this is why we have dedication of children but baptism is a choice made to follow Christ and His command. One must be at the age of understanding.

 

[kaylagrl]

Suffer the little children to come onto Me for of such (FAITH) is the kingdom of God.
plain english spoken by God Himself.
Only a fool would prevent the remission of sins to any person God has placed on the earth.
Do you honestly believe the Gospel of the kingdom of God is only for human understanding and foget the SPIRIT OF GOD and WHAT THE WORD FAITH MEANS?
You better read the passage over again and again and come to the realization that you aren't God and God alone decides who is welcome
in His kingdom.
And stop preaching another gospel. When the apostles including John baptised THEY DIDN'T ASUME ANYTHING they did as they were commanded.

No where in the Bible does it show babies being baptized. You must be at the age of understanding.


Acts 2 --Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

How can a baby repent? They cant. Baptism doesn't save you,you trust in Jesus to cover your sins saves you.You must choose to follow Him. A baby cannot do that.

 

[mwc68]

No where in the Bible does it show babies being baptized. You must be at the age of understanding.


Acts 2 --Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

How can a baby repent? They cant. Baptism doesn't save you,you trust in Jesus to cover your sins saves you.You must choose to follow Him. A baby cannot do that.

Baptism cleanses Adam's sin. Not a sign of accountability. That is a made up doctrine

 

[kaylagrl]

Baptism cleanses Adam's sin. Not a sign of accountability. That is a made up doctrine

Sooo why was John baptized by Jesus? What am I missing,could you explain further? Thanks

 

[mwc68]

Sooo why was John baptized by Jesus? What am I missing,could you explain further? Thanks

I think you got that backwards. Jesus was baptized as a demonstration what to do. Of course he didn't need the cleansing, but he did need to set an example, just like the foot washing

 

[Chica]

Don't understand how you come to the restoration of Isreal from that verse and you haven't explained the Jewish custom that is Baptism or like baptism. You said i was referring to a Jewish custom, which one?

That portion Ezekiel 36:25-27 is about the redemption but (v.24) right above is about their restoration to the land so from 24-27 is about their future restoration and redemption.

The sprinkling is illustrative of what God had commanded Moses in Numbers 19 to mix the ashes of a red heifer with water it was called the water of seperation and it was .....sprinkled..... on an unclean person.

This was done clear up until the temple was destroyed in A.D.70. It's clearly meant for Israel and has nothing to do with the Church.

Like I said before:

The Church doesn't identify with Jewish customs. We identify with Jesus and His death and resurrection and the baprtism by immersion is that type. As we go under the water we symbolically die to our old life and as we come out of the water we are resurrected to as Paul puts it:

"newness of life" Romans 6:4

 

[mwc68]

That portion Ezekiel 36:25-27 is about the redemption but (v.24) right above is about their restoration to the land so from 24-27 is about their future restoration and redemption.

The sprinkling is illustrative of what God had commanded Moses in Numbers 19 to mix the ashes of a red heifer with water it was called the water of seperation and it was .....sprinkled..... on an unclean person.

This was done clear up until the temple was destroyed in A.D.70. It's clearly meant for Israel and has nothing to do with the Church.

Like I said before:

still not sure where you get this. the verse speaks of baptism and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

[ember]

in Acts 2:38, Peter doesn't make any age requirements or insist on repentance. He simply says be baptized

if Peter were to stand in front of a crowd of 5000 infants and say those exact words, which infant would walk forward and say 'I believe and want to be baptized?'

Peter does not make age requirements because most ...notice I said MOST...adults are equipped with a brain that can figure out that Peter understands he is speaking to adults because babies cannot voice belief nor they can speak as an adult

So, yuh know, what is obivous to some, becomes some sort of super religious and mysterious rite that only the initiated wish to propogate because if they actually UNDERSTOOD how silly the misquotes are, they would retire rather sheepishly and RENOUNCE all doctrine that states infants should be IMMERSED because that is what baptism is...JOHN demonstrated that in the river Jordan

It is not sprinkling...how many parents would stand by while their child who cannot even yet walk, is tossed into water over its little head?

 

[ember]

Originally Posted by mwc68

in Acts 2:38, Peter doesn't make any age requirements or insist on repentance. He simply says be baptized

I mean you really give yourself away here....what about the scripture that states repent and be baptized? One moment you folk say that baptism is required for repentance and then, when it is not expedient for you to do so, you flip and say Peter simply says baptized...loosing the repentance part (since an infant cannot do that)

Do you understand that this is exactly the type of hypocrisy that Jesus accused the Pharisees of?

Give it a rest already!

 

[kaylagrl]

I think you got that backwards. Jesus was baptized as a demonstration what to do. Of course he didn't need the cleansing, but he did need to set an example, just like the foot washing

Lol I did,posting too early in the AM. I meant the other way round of course. And yes I do agree he was the example.In fact Im not sure where we do disagree now....