Baptism served 2 purposes, it was parents wanting their child raised with knowledge of the Lord so they had godparents that were agreeing should anything happen to the parents the godparents to make sure of the training. So it was a witness to the church of the parents heart for training with beliefs of Jesus. I did as Tony did explained this to them, they were as babies dedicated to the Lord. They when older understanding it was for repentance chose and did get baptized of their own choosing. There is an age of accountability.
What is the purpose of infant baptism?
- Thread starter TonyChanYT
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What you've provided is exactly the opposite. It's reasons why baptism of infants is unnecessary. And there's no prohibition cited against it, but when you examine all pertinent scriptures related to salvation, it becomes very apparent that it is unscriptural and makes no sense.
And you weren't baptized as an infant. Someone most likely poured water on your head, a person at that time that had no sin, couldn't repent nor had a need to, and was incapable of belief. What happened to you was a joke.
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
A non-sequitur fallacy. Baptism works for infants the same as adults. The difference is that adults need to be instructed as to what exactly they are doing. Scripture gives no age restriction for baptism.
Forced conversion or forced baptism (usually by power hungry kings) has never been recognized as valid by the Church, contrary to the psychotic ramblings of made-in-America Bible cults.
Problems arise with the rejection of the doctrine of Original Sin, clearly spelled out in Romans 5.
To Explain Infant Baptism You Must Explain Original Sin
The Church’s teaching on infant baptism flows from the Church’s teachings on original sin and the sacrament of baptism. Click here for an explanation.
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 – these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant –
Did the parents of these 8 day old babies say, "lets wait until he is old enough to decide for himself to be circumcised?? Parents play a crucial role for circumcision and baptism.
Col 2:11-12 – however, baptism is the new “circumcision” for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.
Did the parents of these 8 day old babies say, "lets wait until he is old enough to decide for himself to be circumcised?? Parents play a crucial role for circumcision and baptism.
Col 2:11-12 – however, baptism is the new “circumcision” for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.
Baptism, in and of itself, has absolutely no impact. It does not "work" to accomplish anything, It is simplly the occasion, the time in the life of the penitent believer that God forgives the believers sins and gives him the gift of the Holy Spirit. Baptism itself accomplishes nothing.A non-sequitur fallacy. Baptism works for infants the same as adults. The difference is that adults need to be instructed as to what exactly they are doing. Scripture gives no age restriction for baptism.
Forced conversion or forced baptism (usually by power hungry kings) has never been recognized as valid by the Church, contrary to the psychotic ramblings of made-in-America Bible cults.
Problems arise with the rejection of the doctrine of Original Sin, clearly spelled out in Romans 5.
To Explain Infant Baptism You Must Explain Original Sin
The Church’s teaching on infant baptism flows from the Church’s teachings on original sin and the sacrament of baptism. Click here for an explanation.www.catholic.com
And again the really bad interpretation of Romans 5. What Romans 5 says is that the effect of the obedience of Jesus negated what might have been the effect of the disobedience of Adam.
The doctrine of Original Sin is perhaps one of the most disgusting and heretical doctrines ever to enter Christendom. To believe that God would actually impute the sin of Adam upon the whole of humanity is a slap in the face of God.
Eze 18:3 "As I live," declares the Lord GOD, "you are surely not going to use this proverb in Israel anymore.
Eze 18:4 "Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die.
Baby baptism to me,
It's all about the parents actually training and teaching the child to live a Christian lifestyle....the cold water? Getting the baby to fuss and cry about nothing important....because that crying means LIFE!
And it's good to hear.
Colossians 2:11-12 says that all that was accomplished was THROUGH FAITH. Infants do not have faith. Moreover, they have not sinned and therefore were not dead in their transgressions and sin. There was nothing to be forgiven for.
No need to go to church and dunk the baby in cold water; just smack the little sucker on the bottom and he will fuss and cry.
There is no actual spiritual reason for infant 'baptism'. It is the parents who pursue this as some sort of rite of passage or because they think it is the right thing to do. I know that because all three of my children were 'Christened' - I won't call it baptism because I later learned what true baptism is. And it isn't a choice or decision that can be made by anybody apart from the person who chooses to be baptised once they have been born again of the Spirit of God. And even for adults engaging in this ritual without the seal of the Holy Spirit it isn't true baptism, it's just getting wet.
Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
All baptisms are adoption ceremonies. It seems pretty normal for a baby to be adopted.
But there is an issue here. With baptism, God is the one adopting, the pastor or priest is merely acting as God's hand. So... does God accept these adoptions?
The Bible shows that God has placed a pre-condition on adoption - belief. I doubt that days-old babies can have belief in God. But perhaps I'm wrong. John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit before he was even born.
But there is an issue here. With baptism, God is the one adopting, the pastor or priest is merely acting as God's hand. So... does God accept these adoptions?
The Bible shows that God has placed a pre-condition on adoption - belief. I doubt that days-old babies can have belief in God. But perhaps I'm wrong. John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit before he was even born.
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
This is an important aspect, often overlooked in discussions like this.
Like most emotive topics, it’s sometimes hard to see past the emotion.
But Christian baptism has to reflect the same baptism that Jesus undertook, which was not a request for forgiveness of sins, but the beginning of a new course in life.....and he was 30 when John baptised him.
John was hesitant to proceed because he knew that his baptism was for the forgiveness of sins committed against the Mosaic law. He “prepared the way” for the Messiah who came after him, by getting the people in the right frame of mind and heart to accept Messiah’s teachings.
So what did Jesus’ baptism symbolise, since it was not for the remission of sins? Jesus said to John that this (one off) baptism was so that God’s will could be carried out in connection with the role that he was now undertaking, from that day forward. So with complete immersion, he was symbolically dying to his former life and rising to a new life of dedication to his God and Father.....a role that Paul identified as a role of service......he called Jesus “God’s holy servant”. (Acts 4:27, 30) That day Jesus received the holy spirit and became “the Christ”. People become “born again” only after the dedication of baptism, not before.
Those baptised by John, on accepting Jesus as the Christ, had to undergo a separate Christian baptism to demonstrate publicly that they had begun a new course in life as disciples of the Messiah.
It was not the baptism itself that was the important thing, but more importantly, what it symbolised. It was also a decision that had to be demonstrated from that day forward, in the lifestyle of that individual who has told the world that they now belonged to Christ as a fellow ‘servant’ of his God.
Paul also stated something significant with regard to the spiritual standing of children. There is not one single mention of any infant being baptised in the scriptures.....for very good reason. Christian baptism was full immersion under the water and to do that to an infant would put their life at risk. Paul gave us a different perspective as to the standing of children from God’s perspective....
1 Cor 7:12-15....
“....if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.” (NASB)
Do you see provision there for believers to feel secure that their minor children are covered under their own Christian parenthood. Even an unbelieving mate comes under that umbrella, but for children there is an “age of accountability” where the child then becomes responsible for their own course in life, and can choose to become a Christian by his or her own baptism, or not, according to their own free will. There is no proxy arrangement for baptism. As Paul goes on to relate, mates too can be drawn to God by the conduct of their believing spouse. However their ‘sanctified’ standing only applies while they are married to a believer. At the judgment, they will stand before God on their own.
And once undertaken, baptism carries a weight of responsibility to continue in that course for the rest of your life....that is not something an infant can undertake of their own free will.
This, I believe rules or any necessity for infant baptism, but there is no impediment to having a naming ceremony if that is the parent’s wish. It can be something done at home even, not requiring the services of anyone but the parents and attendance by close family and friends. All are free to celebrate the birth of a child and to give them a name that will be theirs for the rest of their lives.
Last edited:
I agree with most of this Jane. In a way at some church's it has become more a custom that they will do. I was not a member of the church I had my youngest baptized or christened whatever term was done. They did do it for me as my background and it was the same church just a different synod. I have no idea if that was why they did it for me it could have been. My sons once older and as I said the age of accountability they needed to decide their own path in life.. both of them did get baptized when older which was not required in the church I was raised in. I got baptized myself when older and it was to me my choice and desire so I did for the remission of sins understanding.
That is not true. It was not to demonstrate anything. Baptism, as presented in the NT, is never for the purpose of demonstrating anything. They were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ because they had not received the gift of the Holy Spirit. We know that from the account given in Acts 19:1-7 of the twelve in Ephesus. The signal difference between John's baptism and Christian baptism is the receiving of the indwelling Holy Spirit. Both were for the forgiveness of sins. Only Christian baptism is the occasion when God both forgives the one being baptized and gives the indwelling Holy Spirit to the baptizee.
It's a CELEBRATION OF LIFE. Do you not think life needs to be celebrated? The cold water is a lot less harmful than spanking or pinching the baby....and a little ceremony with a pastor is not exactly a horrible thing. Even Jesus took time out to bless children on occasion. (If only I could have been one of those kids)
And what is the problem exactly in creating a community? A community interested in watching a child grow up....and each other's well being.
There is nothing wrong with a celebration of life. But that is not the biblical purpose of baptism. There is nothing in scripture, specifically the NT, that says that we should poor cold water on a baby's head as a celebration of life. On the other hand, it does say what the purpose of baptism is. It is for the forgiveness of sins and to give the gift, the indwelling, of the Holy Spirit to the penitent believer. That does not include infants in any sense of the word. First the infant is not a believer; he has no capacity for that. Second is is not a sinner, he has committed no sins that need forgiveness.
Similar threads
