Is infant baptism biblical?
- Thread starter zone
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Yes i love Elins threads too, but im not going back to the OT.
But its ok with me that you do. I see nothing wrong with it.
Its just some folks(im sure not you) cant see the antitype from the type.
Thats why the thread is good i rekon
In otherwords....what does baptism signify?
But its ok with me that you do. I see nothing wrong with it.
Its just some folks(im sure not you) cant see the antitype from the type.
Thats why the thread is good i rekon
In otherwords....what does baptism signify?
there's no way i'm making this an issue.
i know what i believe, and what i would do if i had it to do over again.
question though - is baptism in water OT?
in other words, was the command to baptize the disciples in water in the Name an interim ordinance?
forget kids for the moment.
skip over infant baptism for the time.
Weeeell . . . .I certainly don't want to ruffle any feathers either. . .BUT, I believe that when one confesses Jesus as Lord, they are born again and when they are born of the Spirit, they are baptized, filled, with the gift of holy spirit and that is now the ONE baptism. . . .
And being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence. [Acts 1:4,5]
And being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence. [Acts 1:4,5]
1
I think people are missing the community/family/household/covenant aspect of this, when they try to understand infant baptism.
Look at how circumcision was administered.
Gen 17
[SUP]13[/SUP]He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. [SUP]14 [/SUP]And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”
So who was to be circumcised? Those in the house, and those who were bought with money.
That's how the original Gospel hearers understood signs of a covenant.
Now let's go to the NT and see what's told about baptism.
Remember the word in bold above. HOUSE
Acts 16
[SUP]14 [/SUP]Now a certain woman named Lydia heardus. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. [SUP]15 [/SUP]And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.
[SUP]32 [/SUP]Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. [SUP]33 [/SUP]And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. [SUP]34 [/SUP]Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.
You're not going to find a smoking gun, silver bullet verse that points to infants being baptized. But if you take the context of scripture, you'll understand the WHY, of WHY they do it.
The original hearers of the Gospel, understood signs of a covenant were to be administered within the household and community. That's why some believe in infant baptism. It's a household/community/communal covenant thingy muh thingy-er.
At least that helped me in understanding WHY.
Look at how circumcision was administered.
Gen 17
[SUP]13[/SUP]He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. [SUP]14 [/SUP]And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”
So who was to be circumcised? Those in the house, and those who were bought with money.
That's how the original Gospel hearers understood signs of a covenant.
Now let's go to the NT and see what's told about baptism.
Remember the word in bold above. HOUSE
Acts 16
[SUP]14 [/SUP]Now a certain woman named Lydia heardus. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. [SUP]15 [/SUP]And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.
[SUP]32 [/SUP]Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. [SUP]33 [/SUP]And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. [SUP]34 [/SUP]Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.
You're not going to find a smoking gun, silver bullet verse that points to infants being baptized. But if you take the context of scripture, you'll understand the WHY, of WHY they do it.
The original hearers of the Gospel, understood signs of a covenant were to be administered within the household and community. That's why some believe in infant baptism. It's a household/community/communal covenant thingy muh thingy-er.
At least that helped me in understanding WHY.
Last edited:
Weeeell . . . .I certainly don't want to ruffle any feathers either. . .BUT, I believe that when one confesses Jesus as Lord, they are born again and when they are born of the Spirit, they are baptized, filled, with the gift of holy spirit and that is now the ONE baptism. . . .
And being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence. [Acts 1:4,5
And being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence. [Acts 1:4,5
so would you tell people do not to be baptized in water?
in other words....if not, why not?
why do it at all?
Well if someones enjoying their bubble far be it from me to burst it.
that's me i guess.
i'm okay with the bubble.
i think it's biblical
i'm thinking it's one huge reason for the chaos...everything becoming symbolicky.
not important.
just like the Lord's Supper.
lol.
i defer to Elin's thread.
again.
A
hehehe...okay
that's me i guess.
i'm okay with the bubble.
i think it's biblical
i'm thinking it's one huge reason for the chaos...everything becoming symbolicky.
not important.
just like the Lord's Supper.
lol.
i defer to Elin's thread.
again.
that's me i guess.
i'm okay with the bubble.
i think it's biblical
i'm thinking it's one huge reason for the chaos...everything becoming symbolicky.
not important.
just like the Lord's Supper.
lol.
i defer to Elin's thread.
again.
The Lords supper is quite different to me. He hasnt come yet.
And that is one thing i want to remember.
Still makes a good point. all through the Old times things were communal
and today that mindset doesnt exist at least in the west. But i sure needed
to understand that to understand Romans 9-11 and other passages.
In fact In Christ, we share all He is and has, communal
E
OT baptisms did occure. we do not see it because the OT was written in Hebrew for the most part.. where the NT is written in greek.
baptism is not an english word, it is a tranliterated greek work. (baptizo) this is most likely the reason we do not see the word baptize in the OT. However, the jews who came to John the baptist certainly knew what it was.
priests were baptized in a ceremony which concecrated them as priests. they called it washing.
I also agree baptism replaced circumcision as a symbol of cleansing in the NT church. however, as I said before it does not save anymore than circumcision does.
I will just use the words of paul, replace the NT symbol with the OT symbol.
Gal 5: Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free,[SUP][a][/SUP] and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. [SUP]2 [/SUP]Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become (Baptized) circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. [SUP]3 [/SUP]And I testify again to every man who becomes (Baptized) circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. [SUP]4 [/SUP]You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. [SUP]5 [/SUP]For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
Paul was not saying don't be circumcised. Or don;t circumcise your kids, He was saying do not do it thinking it is part of your salvation. which was taught by the jews.. Unfortunately many in the church attempt to add baptism to the gospel. saying you must do it to be saved. which makes them no different than the jews paul was constantly battling in his day.
baptism is not an english word, it is a tranliterated greek work. (baptizo) this is most likely the reason we do not see the word baptize in the OT. However, the jews who came to John the baptist certainly knew what it was.
priests were baptized in a ceremony which concecrated them as priests. they called it washing.
I also agree baptism replaced circumcision as a symbol of cleansing in the NT church. however, as I said before it does not save anymore than circumcision does.
I will just use the words of paul, replace the NT symbol with the OT symbol.
Gal 5: Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free,[SUP][a][/SUP] and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. [SUP]2 [/SUP]Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become (Baptized) circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. [SUP]3 [/SUP]And I testify again to every man who becomes (Baptized) circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. [SUP]4 [/SUP]You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. [SUP]5 [/SUP]For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
Paul was not saying don't be circumcised. Or don;t circumcise your kids, He was saying do not do it thinking it is part of your salvation. which was taught by the jews.. Unfortunately many in the church attempt to add baptism to the gospel. saying you must do it to be saved. which makes them no different than the jews paul was constantly battling in his day.
if the answer is because the Lord commands it, does it matter then?
or is it part of the Gospel?
or is it symboliky and optional.
how many baptisms are there?
one...or two?
this is where i am a little confused.
are folks kinda just covering their bases by being baptized in water?
not quite clear on that part.
abiding in the Vine is the way.
but the other things He said to do don't seem hard, and they don't seem optional/symboliky/whatever for anyone who hears the basics even.
we either baptize with water because we are supposed to, or it's no longer to be done at all.
hmmm.....
i wonder which one it is.
or is it part of the Gospel?
or is it symboliky and optional.
how many baptisms are there?
one...or two?
this is where i am a little confused.
are folks kinda just covering their bases by being baptized in water?
not quite clear on that part.
abiding in the Vine is the way.
but the other things He said to do don't seem hard, and they don't seem optional/symboliky/whatever for anyone who hears the basics even.
we either baptize with water because we are supposed to, or it's no longer to be done at all.
hmmm.....
i wonder which one it is.
A
Exactly it was a requirement for priests which is why Jesus said "suffer it to be so now for thus it becometh us to fulfill
all righteousness" in other words obey the law.
So like i said to me it make sense if we are a kingdom of priests i can see that.
As it also signifies the new birth, identifying with the death/ressurection of Christ.
all righteousness" in other words obey the law.
So like i said to me it make sense if we are a kingdom of priests i can see that.
As it also signifies the new birth, identifying with the death/ressurection of Christ.
so you're saying Christ was baptized in water by John to fulfill the Law and now christians are attempting to be justified by Law when they are baptized in water?
if we baptize our kids we are severing them from Grace??
like....no....that's not what you are saying is it?
nah.
not enuff coffee yet i reckon.
if we baptize our kids we are severing them from Grace??
like....no....that's not what you are saying is it?
nah.
not enuff coffee yet i reckon.
E
if the answer is because the Lord commands it, does it matter then?
or is it part of the Gospel?
or is it symboliky and optional.
how many baptisms are there?
one...or two?
this is where i am a little confused.
are folks kinda just covering their bases by being baptized in water?
not quite clear on that part.
abiding in the Vine is the way.
but the other things He said to do don't seem hard, and they don't seem optional/symboliky/whatever for anyone who hears the basics even.
we either baptize with water because we are supposed to, or it's no longer to be done at all.
hmmm.....
i wonder which one it is.
or is it part of the Gospel?
or is it symboliky and optional.
how many baptisms are there?
one...or two?
this is where i am a little confused.
are folks kinda just covering their bases by being baptized in water?
not quite clear on that part.
abiding in the Vine is the way.
but the other things He said to do don't seem hard, and they don't seem optional/symboliky/whatever for anyone who hears the basics even.
we either baptize with water because we are supposed to, or it's no longer to be done at all.
hmmm.....
i wonder which one it is.
ceremonial washings of things for the temple were called baptism
Scripture states that the children of Isreal were baptised into moses in the cloud
John had a baptism of repentnance (water)
John spoke of two baptisms performed by jesus, Holy Spirit and fire
Jesus spoke of a baptism of the spirit, and Peter also spoke of this.
then their is baptizing new converts (disciples) which like Johns baptism, is water,
E
which is why it replaced circumcision. which represented a set apart nation, You had to be clean to be a part of that nation and the blessings which came with it. But even gentiles could get circumcised and be part of those blessings.
we are now a set apart people, due to the blood of Christ. Our first command is to be baptised, to signify we are cleansed and able to recieve Gods blessing for the church..
But as with OT tradition, they are teaching tools. It teaches ourtsiders what God must do to us.. in order for us to be saved. and be part of that family of God.
we are now a set apart people, due to the blood of Christ. Our first command is to be baptised, to signify we are cleansed and able to recieve Gods blessing for the church..
But as with OT tradition, they are teaching tools. It teaches ourtsiders what God must do to us.. in order for us to be saved. and be part of that family of God.
E
so you're saying Christ was baptized in water by John to fulfill the Law and now christians are attempting to be justified by Law when they are baptized in water?
if we baptize our kids we are severing them from Grace??
like....no....that's not what you are saying is it?
nah.
not enuff coffee yet i reckon.
if we baptize our kids we are severing them from Grace??
like....no....that's not what you are saying is it?
nah.
not enuff coffee yet i reckon.
So your saying if Jesus was not baptised he would not be saved?