The Polemics of Infant Baptism

The Polemics of Infant Baptism ^ | posted to FR as of October 5 2001 | Benjamin B. Warfield

[RnMomof7]

There was a man who was baptized in my Church about 6 months ago who has not showed up to Church since that time. It appears he thinks the baptism saved him. My Pastor advocates "adult dunking" and I lean towards infant baptism. This is probably the danger in Adult baptism the thought by some that the work is salvation.

It's unfortunate that our Threads on Covenant v. Dispensational theology lacked participation except by the rants of "end-timers". Notice how this subject, as do more important issues, seem to revolve around a persons Theological position. What is odd is the Calvinist Baptist usually advocate an covenantal position except on baptism in which they do an about face and become dispensationalists.

That was an oportunity to examine beliefs from the foundation up..instead of the other way around

From the day I of my salvation 25 years ago to this day,my doctrinal teaching has been a patchwork job..I had the catholic backround ,which I generally threw out the more I read and understood the gospel.but lock,there was nothing to really replace it with.....so I used scripture and Christian friends as "guides"...Six months ago I could not have named 3 Commentators,or explain the difference in systematic Theology and Wesleyan theology.I had heard of TULIP..but other than being able to tell you the words ,it meant nothing to me.

Lock ,I was saved by the grace of God,not a theological position,so I never worried about it..

Today it seems important to me.some of it is giving words to my faith...some of it is explaining how I know God,but never looked at it before,some of it gives an acknowlegement to things that always "seemed right" to me...that thread was an opportunity to look for the termites in the basement *grin*..instead we ended up looking for holes in the roof..

[lockeliberty]

Lock ,I was saved by the grace of God,not a theological position,so I never worried about it..

I think that is an important point. My Pastor spoke today about how there are 2 extremes in which people base their Christianity. The first extreme is the belief in the institution itself as the means to salvation as if attending church is the most important thing. The second extreme was that Christianity was a litmus test for a set of doctrines for which one must believe in order to be saved. As he pointed out the most important thing is that we have a personal relationship with God and center our life around God and finding confirmation in our relationship through the Word.

[AZPubbie]

I think you are right. I should have kept reading. Please accept my apology.

[George W. Bush]

GW what about Baptists? Wesleyans would ,in fact, encourage an adult baptism of a baptised infant (not as a requirement,but as a outward sign)

You'd be better off asking Jerry or other actual Baptist ministers. I expect that Baptists would not re-baptize anyone who was baptized as a believer. I would generally expect it wouldn't be too difficult to find a Baptist minister who would give a believers' baptism to someone "baptized" in infancy. It might be the case they would be more eager to re-baptize those baptized as infants n churches of a certain doctrine. I'm sure you catch my meaning here.

Much of my opposition to paedobaptism is because it seems to me that baptism is one of the few real and meaningful confessions of faith that we give as believers. A confessoin of Christ as Saviour, baptism, communion. The Christian faith is a beautifully simple thing. If nothing else, a baptism tells others that we have professed a personal faith in Christ. Not that our parents did it for us. I think baptism as a believer also makes communion a richer and more personal experience.

That's a very precious thing, something a believer can cling to in hard times. Had I been baptized as an infant, I simply couldn't feel the same way about it. I have wondered exactly how those who have been baptized as infants feel about it, whether in any sense it leads toward deeper devotion or stronger conviction. It's difficult for me to imagine it as a positive. It seems to me that a Reformed believer is robbed of his own baptism experience by his parents' concern that he be baptized in the event of infant death or death in early childhood. Since I don't believe paedobaptism provides salvation to an infannt, then I have no concern about whatever God will do with those who die in infancy. I merely see this as a something done ostensibly for the child but which is actually about parents' concern about their child's fate if they should die very young.

Perhaps Uriel has something to contribute.

[fortheDeclaration]

An adult who is baptized may be an unbeliever? Only if he lies! We know that a baby isn't a believer!

Baptism has no effect on salvaton except as an outward sign of that salvation, thus an infant who was 'baptized' should be really baptized if he does become a believer.(1Pet.3:21)

even so come Lord Jesus

[fortheDeclaration]

you ask if 'you think that Catholics are ...Biblically illiterate' and then cite Titus 3:5 as proof for baptism! The word 'baptism' is nowhere around the passage!

The passage reads, not by works of righteousness which we have done,but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit

Where do you see water baptism?

I do see an antiCatholic passage that states that you are not saved by works of righteousness which we have done!

Baptism in the Roman Church is to remove Original sin so the infant will not go to 'limbo'. Where is that in scripture?

Even so, come Lord Jesus

[fortheDeclaration]

Children or retarded individuals do not need to be baptized. Baptism does not make one saved, it shows that one has accepted Christ as Saviour, in His death, burial and resurrection (1Cor.15:3-4)

Those who never get a chance to make a decision (children) or cannot (retarded) are saved because they are under the blood of Christ (Rom.5:15) and did not reject the free gift of grace (Jn.16:9)

Even so, come Lord Jesus

[fortheDeclaration]

Who the heck is Steve Schlissel? His allusion to Acts 2:38-39 had nothing to do with 'infant baptism' it had to do with the prophecy made in Joel 2:28-29 and cited in Acts 2:17!

This was Peter thinking the 2nd advent was going to happen and the Kingdom be set up (Acts.3:20) which would have happened had not the Jews rejected the offer of the Kingdom a second time (Acts 7)

Where is infant baptism in any of this?

How do you Reform guys make this stuff up? (Mk.7:9)

[Precisian]

Digested, and bookmarked! Thanks.

[wrdhuntr]

Had I been baptized as an infant, I simply couldn't feel the same way about it. I have wondered exactly how those who have been baptized as infants feel about it, whether in any sense it leads toward deeper devotion or stronger conviction. It's difficult for me to imagine it as a positive. It seems to me that a Reformed believer is robbed of his own baptism experience by his parents' concern that he be baptized in the event of infant death or death in early childhood. Since I don't believe paedobaptism provides salvation to an infannt, then I have no concern about whatever God will do with those who die in infancy. I merely see this as a something done ostensibly for the child but which is actually about parents' concern about their child's fate if they should die very young.

Weighing in here as a Lutheran, I can speak to this. I was baptized when I was a month and a half old by parents who, yes, were a little apprehensive about a baby dying, but who recognized that I would probably live a long time. I take great comfort in the fact that my parents, aunts, uncles, and many neighbors saw fit to take steps for my faith at an early age. I don't see my faith today belonging just to me -- I recognize that many, many people have shaped and nurtured my faith in Jesus Christ. That started even before I was baptized and has continued to the present, some 35 years later. Today I am a Lutheran pastor with a strong personal faith in Jesus. But I don't think for a minute that I got here on my own, or that my faith is the simple result of my own decision. In hard times, it is valuable to me to go back to my baptism and consider God's faithfulness and commitment to me when I was helpless. (If I'm honest, in a lot of ways I'm still helpless.) When I face trials, it helps me a great deal to remember the community in which I was nurtured as an infant and a child, and the communities that continue to support me today. "None of us lives to himself, none of us dies to himself; ... we are the Lord's." I recognize a great beauty in the faith of my friends who practice only adult baptism. But often I see that the end result of that practice can become a radical individualizing of faith that denies the Body of Christ -- the fact that we belong to each other as well as to Christ.

I think one of the issues facing us today is the whole question of how to view baptism in the face of a "post-Christian" culture. Do we focus on the individual's faith to the exclusion of community? Do we focus on the communal faith at the risk of missing individual commitment to Christ? Nobody I've been reading lately has good answers to this one at the moment.

Another, perhaps better question is, what is God doing in baptism, if anything? I've heard a lot of argument on this voluminous thread about what we do ... but very little discussion of what God is up to.

[George W. Bush]

I think one of the issues facing us today is the whole question of how to view baptism in the face of a "post-Christian" culture. Do we focus on the individual's faith to the exclusion of community? Do we focus on the communal faith at the risk of missing individual commitment to Christ? Nobody I've been reading lately has good answers to this one at the moment.

I've been interested in and trying to follow the events among conservative Lutherans. All of those who embrace traditional faith are under attack. I've tried to understand the systematic way in which the modernists operate, whether it's among Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, church of Rome, whatever. What I have found is that these liberals tend to use the same methods over and over. The account of Machen among the Presbyterians is a sound warning to any of us. I have somewhere here an excellent extended analysis of exactly how the traditional Presbyterians were overcome, how Machen was tried, how he subsequently formed Uriel's Orthodox denomination to preserve traditional Presbyterianism.

So much of this underlies independent church government. The issue of pension systems as a tool of intimidation is also not adequately described for most people to understand exactly what can happen when the purse strings and the ownership of church property falls into the hands of the modernists.

Another, perhaps better question is, what is God doing in baptism, if anything? I've heard a lot of argument on this voluminous thread about what we do ... but very little discussion of what God is up to.

Very good questions. I have my own opinions but can't say that I can prove them. I think that now, as in the time of Christ, baptism is a sign that is recognized by God and by the church as that of a sincere believer. I think that a believer who takes these issues seriously is more likely to be led by God to do His will. It is surprising how these most basic issues are being overlooked in so many modern churches. And no denomination is immune. I think we Baptists have fared better because we are completely independent churches and own our own church properties and have historically been careful about our pension systems. We also avoid absolute creedalism which can be used to force the liberalization of conservative congregations.

But Baptists are no more immune to modernist influence than anyone else. It's merely that Baptists as a "denomination" don't have the organizational machinery to force conservative churches into line with the modernists ideas. From my reading about ELCA and other Lutheran associations, I think you can appreciate why I prefer the independence of Baptist churches. So far, it's kept us from the worst of errors, I think. Only time will tell if Baptists can continue to preach the Word soundly and fully in a politically correct era.

[RnMomof7]

An adult who is baptized may be an unbeliever? Only if he lies! We know that a baby isn't a believer!

Hey!We hardly see each other anymore :>)

I think that was the point..you and I know that there are "Social churches" and there are Churches that have "Social" members..

I think that was the point of Uriels observation..

There have always been men that go to the altar because it is expected of them,"everyone "does it..or it is a "family tradition"

Do men lie...yep all the time...that is nothing new Matthew 7:21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 7:22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 7:23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

So it is up to the Pastor to have wisdom and discernment,to know the truth from the lie.. (where the fruit inspection comes in)

But I am sure more than one rotten apple has slipped by!

[Uriel1975]

Perhaps Uriel has something to contribute. 104 Posted on 10/07/2001 19:42:27 PDT by George W. Bush

Sorry for the delay... I church morning and evening on Sunday's, and today was pretty busy (I took a nap after work, I was fairly tired).

I'll try to respond tomorrow, thanks for your patience.

[Uriel1975]

on sundays not "on sunday's"

[fortheDeclaration]

The fact is that infant baptism is death to any church. It leads people to think that they are saved because they were baptized as infants. As Dr.Grady writes in his history of the United States,

The Puritans had learned the hard way why their Baptist brethren were insistent upon a regenerated church membership. That the entire Protestant Reformation was destined toshare a similiar fate is implied in our Lord's description of the Roman Catholic Church in Revelation 17:5 as the The Mother of Harlots

For although spiritually productive as 'children' (Luther's 95 Thesis etc), the Protestant denominations would eventually come of age and pursue their mother's career as religious prostitutes.

Without a built-in safeguard to keep the unregenerate out, decay was inevitable. Only by rejecting infant sprinkling and embracing believer's baptism can a church experience the divine perpetuity promised in Matthew 16:18b, And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it

What Hath God Wrought by Dr. William P. Grady, p.89.)

This should cause the fur to fly!:>

Even so come Lord Jesus

[Jerry_M]

I just realized that I may have "all bases covered".

I was christened as an infant by a Lutheran Chaplain in a military chapel, and had Presbyterians assigned as Godparents. My father was Congregationalist, my mother was Church of England (not Episcopalian). I was later baptized at age 16 in a Southern Baptist Church.

I just wanted to inject a little levity here, it is still my intention to stay out of the fray.

[Jerry_M]

To add to my last. Since my christening occured in a military chapel, it is conceivable that the baptismal font was the same one utilized by the Roman Catholic Chaplains!

[Uriel1975]

just realized that I may have "all bases covered". I was christened as an infant by a Lutheran Chaplain in a military chapel, and had Presbyterians assigned as Godparents. My father was Congregationalist, my mother was Church of England (not Episcopalian). I was later baptized at age 16 in a Southern Baptist Church. I just wanted to inject a little levity here, it is still my intention to stay out of the fray.

I was baptized as a teen, in a non-denominational church (which was apparently Mennonite Anabaptist in its distant past) by the lay-back or "burial" immersion method.

So far my Presbyterian teaching-Elder (pastor) hasn't tried to sprinkle me....

[RnMomof7]

I was christened as an infant by a Lutheran Chaplain in a military chapel, and had Presbyterians assigned as Godparents. My father was Congregationalist, my mother was Church of England (not Episcopalian). I was later baptized at age 16 in a Southern Baptist Church.

LOL...You ARE the original ecumenical movement *grin*

[George W. Bush]

I didn't realize that Lutherans had christenings. I've only read of infant baptism. Maybe someone could explain exactly what a christening actually is and who believes in it. I always thought christening came from Episcopalian or Anglican or something from the high church traditions.

So, for the time being, I'm going to put you in the "anabaptist" column with RnMom. Not theologically, but literally re-baptized.

This is an interesting angle. RnMom probably wasn't aware that she is literally "anabaptist" in this sense. Better watch out, RnMom, you've already got one foot in the Baptist camp. I'm glad that both you and RnMom confessed a faith in Christ as believers and accepted baptism. It is a personal committment that is very meaningful.