I was always taught against infant baptism...because how can you picture(outwardly) what has not happen inwardly.But I come across this thought and well maybe someone can answer me......Circumcision in the Old Testament Gen17....the infants were circumcised.Why is it wrong to baptize infants(as I was taught) and it wasn't wrong to circumcise them?
infant baptism
- Thread starter setfree
- 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!
True, but Jesus also said to circumsize our hearts. The outward act was moreso for the parent, not the child, right?I'm not against infant baptism... at this point... just so long as nobody thinks that it has any effect on the child's salvation. That happens when they choose to receive Jesus, by their own free will. I think infant baptism is best excesized as a faith practice of the parents... but doesn't in any way save the child. Hopefully someday the child will be saved, and choose to be baptized after being saved.
I do not believe water baptism whether an infant of adult saves them...Jesus is the only one that can save..it is through faith.
I pretty much agree with TOL but I also agree with setfree that water does nothing but I do not see any harm in baptising a baby and asking God to bless the child. But the child isn't saved till he accepts Christ himself knowing what he is doing.I havent closley studied this but I believe ,The circumcision of the Jewish babies was to distinguished a people set them apart from the heathens as Gods chosen people.
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 12
- 0
- 65
Let me give my understanding on this. I would not want to confuse baptism with circumcision. baptism represents dying and raising again with Christ. This has to do with grace.Circumcision was the covenant between Abraham and his seed---- any by seed this shows that God's promises to Abraham was supposed to be of a literal race of people. Hence, infants were circumcised because SAVED OR NOT, they are still the elect of race. The race are the earthly counterparts to the spiritual promises in the church, and they may overlap as people are both chosen of race and grace, but the covenant of circumcision was to show that they were the chosen people of the race---- this is why Paul argues that it is not necessary to be circumcised to be a Christian. Being a Christian is by grace by faith.
(tim_from_pa;57137)
Let me give my understanding on this. I would not want to confuse baptism with circumcision. baptism represents dying and raising again with Christ. This has to do with grace.Circumcision was the covenant between Abraham and his seed---- any by seed this shows that God's promises to Abraham was supposed to be of a literal race of people. Hence, infants were circumcised because SAVED OR NOT, they are still the elect of race. The race are the earthly counterparts to the spiritual promises in the church, and they may overlap as people are both chosen of race and grace, but the covenant of circumcision was to show that they were the chosen people of the race---- this is why Paul argues that it is not necessary to be circumcised to be a Christian. Being a Christian is by grace by faith.
AgreedThat's exactly the way I was poorly attempting to say I understood it however I obviously was lacking in the details and eloquence of which Tim explained this
Let me give my understanding on this. I would not want to confuse baptism with circumcision. baptism represents dying and raising again with Christ. This has to do with grace.Circumcision was the covenant between Abraham and his seed---- any by seed this shows that God's promises to Abraham was supposed to be of a literal race of people. Hence, infants were circumcised because SAVED OR NOT, they are still the elect of race. The race are the earthly counterparts to the spiritual promises in the church, and they may overlap as people are both chosen of race and grace, but the covenant of circumcision was to show that they were the chosen people of the race---- this is why Paul argues that it is not necessary to be circumcised to be a Christian. Being a Christian is by grace by faith.
AgreedThat's exactly the way I was poorly attempting to say I understood it however I obviously was lacking in the details and eloquence of which Tim explained this
On the side of people that practice infant baptism; I do not think it can be properly viewed from the standpoint of "age of reason"(not in NT at all) or "once saved always saved" (debateable - another topic). To try and understand the infant baptism view, it only makes sense within the entire system of beliefs. Think most of the people practicing infant baptism also say as long as that was done properly (not the Mormon way for example) one can only be baptized once. Those Churches will accept baptism from most other Christian Churches. Interestingly within the group of those who say infant baptism is wrong and baptism does nothing for our soul internally there is a smaller subset of that group that in order to be considered "valid" require baptism be conducted within that particular faith (or even that particular Church in some cases- closed membership some call it). Find that interesting because if baptism does nothing for our soul, why would it matter or not whether the particular act for someone is "valid" or not?For that do infant baptism, they consider it a Grace from God that cannot be continually re-applied. You can fall (sin and in some faiths even loose salvation), but once you join the Church, become a Christian (and baptism is a part of that act) one cannot then later re-join the Church - or IOW become a Christian again by being Baptized again. In fact in joining those Churches they will not allow it if they are aware one has already been baptized. From their view, one is or is not already a member of the Church (in this sense a Christian) and a baptism record is a validation of that fact. Of course infant baptism makes no sense if one holds to there being a requirement for an "age of reason" in order to make a single-one-time profession of faith that guarantees salvation. Remove those two more fundamental requirements and infant baptism makes much more sense.When people say that Baptism does nothing internally for us am always curious to know what they think is dsecribed as happening to Jesus when He was Baptized? Also curious to know how they see the difference, as Jesus indicates there is a difference, between what John was doing and what Jesus commanded His diciples to do? If our baptism does nothing at all internally for us, then is the difference that John's baptism actually did something for those he baptised, while the baptism commanded by Jesus does nothing?And when entire households are said to be baptized in the NT, are we to understand those statements as excluding all infants? Or is the assumption that none of the households being referred to had infants? Why would they say "entire" if there were such an exception?
marksman
My eldest granddaughter showing the result of her
And when entire households are said to be baptized in the NT, are we to understand those statements as excluding all infants? Or is the assumption that none of the households being referred to had infants? Why would they say "entire" if there were such an exception?
This was the case as in the NT days when the head of a household adopted a religion, all the other members even slaves adopted the same religion. Baptism by most religions then would have been by immersion, not sprinkling, even the pagan religions. It was their way of saying that you identify with and accept the teaching of the religion.
This was the case as in the NT days when the head of a household adopted a religion, all the other members even slaves adopted the same religion. Baptism by most religions then would have been by immersion, not sprinkling, even the pagan religions. It was their way of saying that you identify with and accept the teaching of the religion.
(tim_from_pa;57137)
Circumcision was the covenant between Abraham and his seed---- any by seed this shows that God's promises to Abraham was supposed to be of a literal race of people. Hence, infants were circumcised because SAVED OR NOT, they are still the elect of race.
Circumcision was not a covenant, but a sign of a covenant. Race had nothing to do with infants being circumcised. Infants were circumcized because every male member of the household was to be circumcized, regardless of race. God said, "Every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring."
Circumcision was the covenant between Abraham and his seed---- any by seed this shows that God's promises to Abraham was supposed to be of a literal race of people. Hence, infants were circumcised because SAVED OR NOT, they are still the elect of race.
Circumcision was not a covenant, but a sign of a covenant. Race had nothing to do with infants being circumcised. Infants were circumcized because every male member of the household was to be circumcized, regardless of race. God said, "Every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring."
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 12
- 0
- 65
(Follower;60574)
Circumcision was not a covenant, but a sign of a covenant. Race had nothing to do with infants being circumcised. Infants were circumcized because every male member of the household was to be circumcized, regardless of race. God said, "Every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring."
OK--- you got me there. I got a little sloppy on my language. It was a sign because Paul said that Abraham was justified by faith before the sign of circumcision. However, it's the focus of that sign that I wanted to emphasize.And yes, strangers could be taken into the fold of Israel, but this does not lessen the significance of his physical race to whom the promises went. If outsiders joined in with them and enjoyed the benefits, that was OK too.Therefore, I have to take issue with you saying race had nothing to do with it. It did, and from that race went blessings to other races. The bible is a book about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob's family.
Circumcision was not a covenant, but a sign of a covenant. Race had nothing to do with infants being circumcised. Infants were circumcized because every male member of the household was to be circumcized, regardless of race. God said, "Every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring."
OK--- you got me there. I got a little sloppy on my language. It was a sign because Paul said that Abraham was justified by faith before the sign of circumcision. However, it's the focus of that sign that I wanted to emphasize.And yes, strangers could be taken into the fold of Israel, but this does not lessen the significance of his physical race to whom the promises went. If outsiders joined in with them and enjoyed the benefits, that was OK too.Therefore, I have to take issue with you saying race had nothing to do with it. It did, and from that race went blessings to other races. The bible is a book about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob's family.
(tim_from_pa;60576)
Therefore, I have to take issue with you saying race had nothing to do with it. It did, and from that race went blessings to other races. The bible is a book about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob's family.
The Bible is book about the fall and redemption of man through Christ.
Therefore, I have to take issue with you saying race had nothing to do with it. It did, and from that race went blessings to other races. The bible is a book about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob's family.
The Bible is book about the fall and redemption of man through Christ.
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 12
- 0
- 65
The Bible is book about the fall and redemption of man through Christ..... and brought to all by the people of the elect of race. And proclaimed worldwide by the same people of the race (although we can see the end times coming now and are slipping up as the bible predicted).The bible is a book about Israel.
(tim_from_pa;60585)
and brought to all by the people of the elect of race. And proclaimed worldwide by the same people of the race
Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.
and brought to all by the people of the elect of race. And proclaimed worldwide by the same people of the race
Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 12
- 0
- 65
(Follower;60588)
Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.
That's true. Even if God elected people and gave them all the blessings and promises and they inherited everything they can still be spiritually lost. No doubt about that. The elect of grace are only the ones that did not bow to Baal.
Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.
That's true. Even if God elected people and gave them all the blessings and promises and they inherited everything they can still be spiritually lost. No doubt about that. The elect of grace are only the ones that did not bow to Baal.
THe Bible is the story of Salvation history by way of God's covenants with man.It shows how seldom we fleshily humans keep our end of the covenant.Every covenant provides us an opportunity to say yes to theFatherhood of God, we are all his children but many of us are rebels and do not do is will, when we violate the covenant we are cut off from it's promises, in effect we use our free will to choose a different Father, the act of a devil.Covenants: (Which is similar to a marriage, an exchange of persons, I am yours/you are mine)NoahAbrahamMosesDavidJesusBaptism is a covenental act: you can not enter the Kingdom unless you receive Baptism.There are other Covenental acts and blessings, but that is a different forum.
(WalkingJames;60826)
THe Bible is the story of Salvation history by way of God's covenants with man.It shows how seldom we fleshily humans keep our end of the covenant.Every covenant provides us an opportunity to say yes to theFatherhood of God, we are all his children but many of us are rebels and do not do is will, when we violate the covenant we are cut off from it's promises, in effect we use our free will to choose a different Father, the act of a devil.Covenants: (Which is similar to a marriage, an exchange of persons, I am yours/you are mine)NoahAbrahamMosesDavidJesusBaptism is a covenental act: you can not enter the Kingdom unless you receive Baptism.There are other Covenental acts and blessings, but that is a different forum.
Where in scriptures does it say we have to be baptized in water to enter the kingdom?
THe Bible is the story of Salvation history by way of God's covenants with man.It shows how seldom we fleshily humans keep our end of the covenant.Every covenant provides us an opportunity to say yes to theFatherhood of God, we are all his children but many of us are rebels and do not do is will, when we violate the covenant we are cut off from it's promises, in effect we use our free will to choose a different Father, the act of a devil.Covenants: (Which is similar to a marriage, an exchange of persons, I am yours/you are mine)NoahAbrahamMosesDavidJesusBaptism is a covenental act: you can not enter the Kingdom unless you receive Baptism.There are other Covenental acts and blessings, but that is a different forum.
Where in scriptures does it say we have to be baptized in water to enter the kingdom?
(WalkingJames;60826)
Baptism is a covenental act: you can not enter the Kingdom unless you receive Baptism.
Baptism is a symbol of a covenant. It is not part of the covenant itself. It does not equate with a signature on a contract. It's like a bank putting up a sticker that says "FDIC Insured", it's normal and proper to do, but it doesn't equate with the insurance itself.
Baptism is a covenental act: you can not enter the Kingdom unless you receive Baptism.
Baptism is a symbol of a covenant. It is not part of the covenant itself. It does not equate with a signature on a contract. It's like a bank putting up a sticker that says "FDIC Insured", it's normal and proper to do, but it doesn't equate with the insurance itself.
(Follower;60833)
Baptism is a symbol of a covenant. It is not part of the covenant itself. It does not equate with a signature on a contract. It's like a bank putting up a sticker that says "FDIC Insured", it's normal and proper to do, but it doesn't equate with the insurance itself.
good point!
Baptism is a symbol of a covenant. It is not part of the covenant itself. It does not equate with a signature on a contract. It's like a bank putting up a sticker that says "FDIC Insured", it's normal and proper to do, but it doesn't equate with the insurance itself.
good point!
Similar threads
