Is infant baptism biblical?

[zone]

Why Does the Orthodox Presbyterian Church Baptize Infants?
Larry Wilson

Does it surprise you to learn that even though we're presbyterians, we're also baptists? The fact is, we do baptize. Our disagreement with our baptistic brethren isn't over whether we should baptize; it's over whom we should baptize. We baptize professing believers and their children. Why do we baptize their children?

As an aside, let me just say that we're not alone. As a matter of fact, infant baptism is the historic Christian practice! In his book Outlines of Theology, A. A. Hodge sums it up like this: "The practice of infant baptism is an institution which exists as a fact, and prevails throughout the universal church, with the exception of the modern Baptists, whose origin can be definitely traced to the anabaptists of Germany, about A.D. 1537...." Then, as proof, he cites Irenaeus (who was born before the death of the apostle John), Justin Martyr (138 A.D.), Tertullian (born 160 A.D.), Cyprian (253 A.D.), and Augustine (born 354 A.D.). Hodge concludes: "...infant baptism has prevailed (a) from the apostolic age, (b) in all sections of the ancient church, (c) uninterruptedly to the present time, (d) in every one of the great historical churches of the Reformation, while its impugners date since the Reformation." Now that's interesting. It encourages us. But that's not why we baptize infants.

The bottom line is, we baptize the children of believers in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church because we firmly believe that God's Word tells us to! To correctly answer the question, "Should we baptize infants?" you have to look to God's Word as your authoritative guide. You have to ask, "Is infant baptism biblical?"

Why Does the Orthodox Presbyterian Church Baptize Infants? < click

 

[tribesman]

Ah, the link I had up in another thread...great study!

 

[jimmydiggs]

I am not against infant baptism. I am against the way Lutherans do it.

During the service I saw:

"Because this child cannot answer for himself/herself, we shall all, together with sponsors and parents, faithfully speak on his/her behalf in the testimony of the forgiveness of sin and the birth of the life of faith which God our Father bestows in and through Baptism."

Then the congregation says things like: "Yes, I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth." That is followed by a few more statements where the congregation affirms that the child has renounced the devil and his works, etc etc... Then at the end a prayer is said by the pastor, and he was goin' on about "welcome our new wittle cwistian!"

My eyes during the whole thing:

 

[danschance]

The fact that Old Testament circumcision was performed on male infants by God's command is the single most powerful argument for infant baptism today.

 

[zone]

Ah, the link I had up in another thread...great study!

different link tm. i couldnt find that one you posted

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The fact that Old Testament circumcision was performed on male infants by God's command is the single most powerful argument for infant baptism today.

Well we know this circumcision never saved, or washed the sin of anyone, Niether does baptism in water..

Using it is a sign is fine, I had my kids baptized as a testimony to the church and myself that I would raise my kids up knowing Christ.

any baptism used, however, in order to say because of this baptism, any sin is removed from a persons credit, would be antibiblical.

 

[Cobus]

I ask this.... how many children did Jesus baptize with water, how many grown-ups did JESUS baptize with water....


Here is the prickly pear in water baptism.... Jesus NEVER stopped His disciples to baptize in water, and yt HE NEVER did baptize ANY person.


My question is this.... the pastor or minister or whoever does the baptism in water is NOT FOLLOWING the practise of Jesus. Whose practice are they following, John the baptist, or Philip's or the apostles, BEFORE they were filled with the Holy Spirit? Even the Apostles did not baptize ALL people AFTER they were filled with the Holy Spirit.... PAul even said he was not sent to baptize, and he only baptized a few people with water, but LOTS with Holy Spirit.

I guess my outook on baptism is.... If God gives me a choice of baptism for me and my family... I would say... YOU BATIZE US PLEASE LORD! Amen!

I was water baptized by my parents in a Dutch Reformed Church, as an infant, just for the record, and look what good that has done////// I have the opinion it is with a develish BAPTISM practise... Called the Heidelburg catasism and doctrine... For me PURE evil////

 

[zone]

lol diggs.
hopefully the child remains with his family in the New Covenant family of God, and is reminded of the Promises, made to Israel, and to their children, and to as many as the Lord Himself shall call.

David, in Covenant with The Lord, knew his baby was with the Lord.


Acts 2
36Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

37Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38And Peter said to them, “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. 39For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” 40And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

 

[zone]

I am not against infant baptism. I am against the way Lutherans do it.

fair enough diggs....but i guess my question would be what you mean by not against it.
does that mean you would be for it...and if so, why.

 

[jimmydiggs]

fair enough diggs....but i guess my question would be what you mean by not against it.
does that mean you would be for it...and if so, why.

I am neither for nor against infant baptism as it is done in some groups.

It is one thing to say a child is baptised into the covenant. It is a much more unbiblical one to say the child has been saved.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I am neither for nor against infant baptism as it is done in some groups.

It is one thing to say a child is baptised into the covenant. It is a much more unbiblical one to say the child has been saved.

amen.. But that would go with anyone, not just children, adults also..

 

[tribesman]

I am neither for nor against infant baptism as it is done in some groups.

It is one thing to say a child is baptised into the covenant. It is a much more unbiblical one to say the child has been saved.

Maybe we should have a thread up about baptismal regeneration...when time and circumstances allow.

 

[zone]

I am neither for nor against infant baptism as it is done in some groups.

It is one thing to say a child is baptised into the covenant. It is a much more unbiblical one to say the child has been saved.

well, i'm not sure it's biblical or unbiblical to say the baptized child (let's say who passes away in infancy) has been saved
we're not told, are we?

David's baby is really the only thing we have to go on in that area.

and the idea that The Lord includes children in His Covenant.

it just something to ask i guess, about what it means to not be against it, or to be for it.
if it didn't have some important significance, and evidence for it in the New Covenant doctrines?

just looking at it is all.
i believe we made a serious mistake in becoming ashamed of baptism for children of the families of the New Covenant.
love ya diggs

 

[Elizabeth619]

Maybe we should have a thread up about baptismal regeneration...when time and circumstances allow.

It has always been my understanding a person needs to be at an age of accountability before one should be baptized. Therefore infant baptism is pointless.
I've always looked at it you need to understand the word and believe it. Then upon believing it you confess your sins and baptism comes after that.

 

[zone]

".....consider it in light of the following five-step explanation:

The church of the Old Testament and the church of the New Testament are, in essence, the same church;

God includes the children of believers as members of this church;

In the Old Testament era, children of believers, because they were church members, were given the sign of circumcision;

In the New Testament era, God has taken the sign of circumcision and changed it to baptism;

Therefore, in the New Testament era, children of believers, because they are church members, are to be given the sign of baptism.

Why Does the Orthodox Presbyterian Church Baptize Infants? < click

seems so obvious now, to me.

 

[Abiding]

I see inconsistency here as far as limited atonement goes.
Well i see alot of inconsistencies when it comes to how some folks
doctrines are played out practically in life.
Looks like a work to me tho.

 

[1still_waters]

Although I'm currently on the side that says only believers should be baptized, I understand, and I'm understanding more the theology behind infant baptism.

I think many can't even get their mind around the idea of infant baptism because they don't understand covenant.
They understand God's working in more of an existential way, and not so much as it being part of a covenant community.

If you can get your mind around the idea of covenant and spiritual community, you'll at least be able to say..."Oh well ok, I understand it..I don't agree..but I get it."

 

[violakat]

Coming from a Baptist background, I fail to see how baptism saves you. I've always been taught that baptism is a sign that you have renounced your sins and are now following God. That we do it because Christ was baptized as our example. His baptism was a sign that He was God's chosen, just like our baptism is a sign that we are now God's.

I've also been taught that dedicating your child to God, proclaiming that you will raise him/her in the ways of God was a good thing, and in fact encouraged. However, that does not make your child saved, as they still have to make the decision to accept Christ as Savior on their own.

 

[zone]

"Again, in 1 Corinthians 7:14, Paul assumed that God includes children in his covenant community, the church—"For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." The word holy is a covenant word. It means "set apart." Children of even one believer are "holy," set apart in a special way to God."

Why Does the Orthodox Presbyterian Church Baptize Infants? < click

as Christians in The Covenant family, we all hope and believe our children are set apart, don't we?
hmmm...

 

[zone]

Coming from a Baptist background, I fail to see how baptism saves you. I've always been taught that baptism is a sign that you have renounced your sins and are now following God. That we do it because Christ was baptized as our example. His baptism was a sign that He was God's chosen, just like our baptism is a sign that we are now God's.

I've also been taught that dedicating your child to God, proclaiming that you will raise him/her in the ways of God was a good thing, and in fact encouraged. However, that does not make your child saved, as they still have to make the decision to accept Christ as Savior on their own.

hi violakat...
i think the idea is that the child is born into a believing New Covenant family, and stays in the Church.
and is brought up like Timothy:

2 Timothy 3:15
and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

their baptism is a very good reminder (at the very least) to Whom they were dedicated, or set apart.
this is what Lutherans remind their members - remember your baptism.

it's not water they are talking about.