Baby Baptism

[Wall-dog]

Hey Everyone!

I was 33 when I was baptized. I have two children - eight and two. If my daughter (eight) really wanted to be baptized, I'd let her be baptized, but really I don't think she is old enough to make that decision.

I have a problem with baptism. When John the Baptist baptized Jesus, he hesistated at first and said "I cannot baptise you. You are without sin." Jesus had him baptise him anyway, but John's hesistation was at least important enough that it was included in The Bible.

When Jesus broke the old testament at the last supper (and created the new one) he served pork. When asked about it he said "Let no man be judged for what he eats" or something like that. He was telling his disciples and through them us that because he was dying for our sins, the old rules no longer apply.

Now, isn't baptism one of the old rules that no longer apply? If I allow my sins to be 'washed away,' aren't I questioning my having already been forgiven of them? I was finally baptised, but I made a point of having it called a "public affirmation of faith" because I looked at is as nothing more.

As a public affirmation of faith, I believe my children need to be old enough to affirm their faith before they are baptised. I know most Christians disagree with that though, so I'd like to hear the opinions of others. I'm going to debate you, but that's not because I am not open to hearing your view. Rather it is that I think if you are right you should be able to win the debate.

Thank you in advance!

[Fortigurn]

I have a problem with baptism.

At least you're honest about it. Most people who have a problem with baptism claim that Scripture says they don't have to do it.

When Jesus broke the old testament at the last supper (and created the new one) he served pork. When asked about it he said "Let no man be judged for what he eats" or something like that.

I am not aware of these incidents in any of the gospel records. Could you provide chapter and verse?

He was telling his disciples and through them us that because he was dying for our sins, the old rules no longer apply.

Now, isn't baptism one of the old rules that no longer apply?

The Law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ, and passed away. Baptism, on the other hand, is a part of the new covenant. It was never a part of the Law of Moses.

If I allow my sins to be 'washed away,' aren't I questioning my having already been forgiven of them? I was finally baptised, but I made a point of having it called a "public affirmation of faith" because I looked at is as nothing more.

You did right, it is indeed the public affirmation of your faith. It is the outward sign of an inward change. You're not questioning your having already been forgiven of them, you're proclaiming your having already been forgiven of them.

Thousands submitted willingly to it in the New Testament. What, precisely, is your problem with it?

As a public affirmation of faith, I believe my children need to be old enough to affirm their faith before they are baptised. I know most Christians disagree with that though, so I'd like to hear the opinions of others.

I certainly agree with you. The age at which they are prepared to comprehend and affirm the faith, however, is unlikely to be very low.

[Wall-dog]

Fortigurn,

Thank you for replying!

I looked through the gospels and I can't find it. I remember it from a New Testament class I took when I was in college. I may have gotten it wrong. I shouldn't quote scripture without looking it up first - sorry!! Maybe it's in another book of the NT or maybe I just don't remember it as well as I thought I did. I got the idea right that the old covenant was broken though and a new one born. That's the important thing.

Baptism was being applied before Jesus. Whether or not it was a part of the actual Mosiac Covenant as per Deutronomy, it was certainly a part old covenant practice.

I don't have a problem with baptism as a public affirmation of faith. That's how I was baptized. But a baby can't give a public affirmation of faith so I have to wonder what the point is. Most churches I've considered joining did baptism as a way of washing away sins. I've been told by ministers in churches including Lutheran and Baptist that only those sins you commit after baptism are forgiven. Pre-baptism sins need to be washed away through the sacrament of baptism, and if babies are not baptized and die, they go to Hell. That's what I've got a problem with. I don't believe that the sacrament of baptism is a requirement for going to Heaven.

[Fortigurn]

Fortigurn,

Thank you for replying!

I looked through the gospels and I can't find it. I remember it from a New Testament class I took when I was in college. I may have gotten it wrong. I shouldn't quote scripture without looking it up first - sorry!! Maybe it's in another book of the NT or maybe I just don't remember it as well as I thought I did.

I believe you'll find you misremembered something. It's certainly not there.

I got the idea right that the old covenant was broken though and a new one born. That's the important thing.

Yes.

Baptism was being applied before Jesus. Whether or not it was a part of the actual Mosiac Covenant as per Deutronomy, it was certainly a part old covenant practice.

I need to see this from Scripture. But even if it's true (and I don't believe it was a part of the old covenant practice), the fact remains that both the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ were brand new, and not part of the old covenant. That's precisely why the apostles went around baptizing people into Christ.

I don't have a problem with baptism as a public affirmation of faith. That's how I was baptized. But a baby can't give a public affirmation of faith so I have to wonder what the point is.

That's exactly right - there is no point. That is why there are no instances in the New Testament of babies being baptized. You might as well baptize a turnip.

Most churches I've considered joining did baptism as a way of washing away sins. I've been told by ministers in churches including Lutheran and Baptist that only those sins you commit after baptism are forgiven. Pre-baptism sins need to be washed away through the sacrament of baptism, and if babies are not baptized and die, they go to Hell. That's what I've got a problem with.

All that sounds very bizarre. I would stay with Scripture if I were you. I don't believe that babies who aren't baptized go to hell, but then I don't believe in the popular idea of hell anyway.

I don't believe that the sacrament of baptism is a requirement for going to Heaven.

I don't believe in the popular idea of going to heaven either, but if Christ commands me to do something, and the apostles do it because it is a commandment of Christ, then I do believe I'm being flagrantly disobedient to Christ if I don't obey:

Acts 2:
37 Now when they heard this, they were acutely distressed81 and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “What should we do, brothers?”
38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

41 So those who accepted his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand people were added.

Acts 8:
12 But when they believed Philip as he was proclaiming the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they began to be baptized, both men and women.

36 Now as they were going along the road, they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “Look, there is water! What is to stop me from being baptized?"
38 So he ordered the chariot to stop, and both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and Philip baptized him.

Acts 9:
18 Immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized,

Acts 10:
48 So he gave orders to have them baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay for several days.

Acts 16:
32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him, along with all those who were in his house.
33 At that hour of the night he took them and washed their wounds; then he and all his family were baptized right away.

Acts 18:
8 Crispus, the president of the synagogue, believed in the Lord together with his entire household, and many of the Corinthians who heard about it believed and were baptized.

Acts 19:
4 Paul said, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.”
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,

Galatians 3:
27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

[IRQ Conflict]

You might as well baptize a turnip.

[Byblos]

You might as well baptize a turnip.

What ritual did baptism replace? Circumcision (as per Paul in Col. 2:11—12).
Who was circumcised? Infants.
Where in scripture does it say infants cannot be baptized? Nowhere.

You can apply your own beliefs any which way you want but those are the facts.

For more info: http://www.catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp

[Fortigurn]

What ritual did baptism replace? Circumcision (as per Paul in Col. 2:11—12). Who was circumcised? Infants.

You are falsely equating baptism with circumcision. The fact that baptism replaced circumcision does not mean that baptism takes place in the same way or under the same circumstances as circumcision (it certainly did not).

Where in scripture does it say infants cannot be baptized? Nowhere.

That is an argument from silence, a classic logical fallacy. The point is that baptism was only undertaken by informed believers. Both understanding and faith are necessary for baptism, so babies are right out.

[Byblos]

What ritual did baptism replace? Circumcision (as per Paul in Col. 2:11—12). Who was circumcised? Infants.

You are falsely equating baptism with circumcision. The fact that baptism replaced circumcision does not mean that baptism takes place in the same way or under the same circumstances as circumcision (it certainly did not).

I didn't equate it, Paul did. Are you saying he was wrong?

Where in scripture does it say infants cannot be baptized? Nowhere.

That is an argument from silence, a classic logical fallacy. The point is that baptism was only undertaken by informed believers. Both understanding and faith are necessary for baptism, so babies are right out.

This is your classic argument when it is clearly a matter of interpretation. You say unless it is expressly stated in scripture then it cannot be so. I say unless it is expressly prohibited then it can. Who is right and who is wrong? Well clearly I am right (from my point of view).

In any case, you are mistaken as per Acts 2:39:

38Peter 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. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

[Fortigurn]

What ritual did baptism replace? Circumcision (as per Paul in Col. 2:11—12). Who was circumcised? Infants.

You are falsely equating baptism with circumcision. The fact that baptism replaced circumcision does not mean that baptism takes place in the same way or under the same circumstances as circumcision (it certainly did not).

I didn't equate it, Paul did. Are you saying he was wrong?

Paul did not draw the equivalence you did.

This is your classic argument when it is clearly a matter of interpretation. You say unless it is expressly stated in scripture then it cannot be so. I say unless it is expressly prohibited then it can. Who is right and who is wrong? Well clearly I am right (from my point of view).

You are 'clearly right' if you believe that the argument from silence is not a logical fallacy (which it is).

But the point is that my argument is not unless it is expressly stated in scripture then it cannot be so'. My argument is 'We have nothing in Scripture saying babies can be baptized, and we have conditions for baptism in Scripture which babies cannot fulfil'.

In any case, you are mistaken as per Acts 2:39:

38Peter 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. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

Firstly, I suggest you spend some time on the Semitic idiom 'your children'. Secondly, I would like to you to show me how a baby 'repents in the name of Jesus Christ'.

You're still avoiding the rest of the Scriptures, I note.

[Byblos]

What ritual did baptism replace? Circumcision (as per Paul in Col. 2:11—12). Who was circumcised? Infants.

You are falsely equating baptism with circumcision. The fact that baptism replaced circumcision does not mean that baptism takes place in the same way or under the same circumstances as circumcision (it certainly did not).

I didn't equate it, Paul did. Are you saying he was wrong?

Paul did not draw the equivalence you did.

Really? Why did you ask him?

This is your classic argument when it is clearly a matter of interpretation. You say unless it is expressly stated in scripture then it cannot be so. I say unless it is expressly prohibited then it can. Who is right and who is wrong? Well clearly I am right (from my point of view).

You are 'clearly right' if you believe that the argument from silence is not a logical fallacy (which it is).

But the point is that my argument is not unless it is expressly stated in scripture then it cannot be so'. My argument is 'We have nothing in Scripture saying babies can be baptized, and we have conditions for baptism in Scripture which babies cannot fulfil'.

Clearly you are wrong as per Acts 2:39.

In any case, you are mistaken as per Acts 2:39:

38Peter 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. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

Firstly, I suggest you spend some time on the Semitic idiom 'your children'. Secondly, I would like to you to show me how a baby 'repents in the name of Jesus Christ'.

And there we go again, of course 'your children' doesn't mean your children because we're exegeting the English, right?

Do you think the people who heard it would have said to themselves, hmmm, what exactly did he mean by 'your children'? Or would they be more likely to say to themselves: You know what, I need to rush home, gather my family, all my family, including children, and make sure we're all baptized. There's no question as to which one they would have understood and done.

[Fortigurn]

Really? Why did you ask him?

No, I read what he wrote. You are asserting that baptism is equated by Paul with circumcision to the extent that it is carried out in the same way (on an uninformed and ignorant child). You have provided no evidence for this. Why not?

Clearly you are wrong as per Acts 2:39.

Now you are committing the logical fallacy of begging the question (assuming your conclusion).

And there we go again, of course 'your children' doesn't mean your children because we're exegeting the English, right?

It doesn't mean 'your babies', no. Yes, you are exegeting the English.

Do you think the people who heard it would have said to themselves, hmmm, what exactly did he mean by 'your children'? Or would they be more likely to say to themselves: You know what, I need to rush home, gather my family, all my family, including children, and make sure we're all baptized. There's no question as to which one they would have understood and done.

There is certainly no question. Show me how many babies you know who have repented of their sins and accepted Jesus Christ. You keep avoiding the obvious.

[Byblos]

And there we go again, of course 'your children' doesn't mean your children because we're exegeting the English, right?

It doesn't mean 'your babies', no. Yes, you are exegeting the English.

Yes, of course, how could I have missed it? We need to toss out every English-translated bible and all go back to learn Greek and Hebrew.

Do you think the people who heard it would have said to themselves, hmmm, what exactly did he mean by 'your children'? Or would they be more likely to say to themselves: You know what, I need to rush home, gather my family, all my family, including children, and make sure we're all baptized. There's no question as to which one they would have understood and done.

There is certainly no question. Show me how many babies you know who have repented of their sins and accepted Jesus Christ. You keep avoiding the obvious.

I am avoiding nothing. It is simply irrelevent since baptism is used to wash away original sin, penance is used to repent for subsequent sin and confirmation is used for the acceptance of the faith in Christ.

[Fortigurn]

And there we go again, of course 'your children' doesn't mean your children because we're exegeting the English, right?

It doesn't mean 'your babies', no. Yes, you are exegeting the English.

Yes, of course, how could I have missed it? We need to toss out every English-translated bible and all go back to learn Greek and Hebrew.

No you shouldn't, you should simply conduct your Bible study with an understanding that what you are reading requires discernment. If you spend a few weeks (or, as I have, years), on a professional Bible translation discussion list, you'll soon see just how difficult it is for Bible translators to render the Bible accurately in English.

I am avoiding nothing. It is simply irrelevent since baptism is used to wash away original sin, penance is used to repent for subsequent sin and confirmation is used for the acceptance of the faith in Christ.

You are certainly avoiding things, the most prominent of which is that repentance is said to be necessary for baptism (also understanding and faith).

Nowhere are we told that baptism 'is used to wash away original sin'. However did Peter, Paul, and the other apostles manage to miss that one?

Nor do they say a word about penance or confirmation. As far as they are concerned, it's understanding, faith, repentance, baptism. That's it.

But that aside, you do realise that the doctrine of 'Original Sin' was invented long after the practice of infant baptism? Infant baptism was not originally understood to wash away 'Original Sin' (that was a later invention).

[Byblos]

And there we go again, of course 'your children' doesn't mean your children because we're exegeting the English, right?

It doesn't mean 'your babies', no. Yes, you are exegeting the English.

Yes, of course, how could I have missed it? We need to toss out every English-translated bible and all go back to learn Greek and Hebrew.

No you shouldn't, you should simply conduct your Bible study with an understanding that what you are reading requires discernment. If you spend a few weeks (or, as I have, years), on a professional Bible translation discussion list, you'll soon see just how difficult it is for Bible translators to render the Bible accurately in English.

Go tell that the millions, perhaps billions, of believers who speak and read but one language. Go tell that to the people who have no other means but to listen to sunday mass or service or preacher or whoever, yet they believe with all their heart and their soul.

What you are suggesting is the religion of the elite, which is totally unbiblical.

I am avoiding nothing. It is simply irrelevent since baptism is used to wash away original sin, penance is used to repent for subsequent sin and confirmation is used for the acceptance of the faith in Christ.

You are certainly avoiding things, the most prominent of which is that repentance is said to be necessary for baptism (also understanding and faith).

Nowhere are we told that baptism 'is used to wash away original sin'. However did Peter, Paul, and the other apostles manage to miss that one?

Nor do they say a word about penance or confirmation. As far as they are concerned, it's understanding, faith, repentance, baptism. That's it.

I say baptism, penance, confirmation, you say understanding, faith, repentance and baptism. 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. The only difference is that you seem to attach a sequential timeline or an importance to the order of appearance, which is nowhere suggested in scripture.

This horse is dead, let's move on.

[Fortigurn]

Go tell that the millions, perhaps billions, of believers who speak and read but one language. Go tell that to the people who have no other means but to listen to sunday mass or service or preacher or whoever, yet they believe with all their heart and their soul.

What, go tell them how hard it is to translate the Bible into English? I imagine a lot of them already know, which is why they leave the job to professionals.

What you are suggesting is the religion of the elite, which is totally unbiblical.

I am suggesting no such thing. Please get yourself on a professional Bible translation discussion list, and learn something about the subject.

I say baptism, penance, confirmation, you say understanding, faith, repentance and baptism. 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.

It isn't '6 of one and half a dzoen of the other'. It's the fact that faith, repentance and baptism are referred to explicitly, and penance and confirmation aren't refrred to at all. These are completely different things.

The only difference is that you seem to attach a sequential timeline or an importance to the order of appearance, which is nowhere suggested in scripture.

You must be joking. What does 'repent and be baptized' suggest to you? As for timelines, you've done that yourself, giving a timeline of around 10 years. Is that really what Peter meant? Get baptized now, do penance later, and finally be confirmed, which is going to take around 10 years?