Recently, I went looking for my earlier post on “Infant Baptism” and could not find as it was buried under another heading. After a few minutes I decided to take Eugene’s suggestion and re-post the topic in a new thread under the correct title. I have paraphrased the post slightly for the purposes of adaptation.

(On the subject of infant baptism a recent visitor to this forum, D.M. wrote: If infants are to be baptised), “Why wasn't Jesus baptized when HE was an infant?” Ah, but if you examine Scripture closely and understand the full meaning of redemption in the Lamb, you will see that Christ WAS “baptised” as an infant. Jesus is the “New Covenant”. “And he who sat upon the throne said, "Behold, I make all things new." (Rev. 21:5). Jesus re-wrote the covenant God had with Abraham. If we as Christians, believe this, than we must acknowledge that Jesus was on the “cusp” of the two covenants. Jesus transformed the “old” covenant into the “new”” covenant by His dolorous shedding of blood on the Cross. Jesus was “baptised” under the “old” covenant, as evidenced in Luke 2:21, “And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.” If we know anything of Scripture and the Old Covenant we know that every male was circumcised as a sign of acceptance of his covenant with God. Similarly, one of the first things Jesus did when He launched His public ministry and began to re-write man’s covenant with God was, He was baptised in the Jordan. “And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him;” (Matthew 3:16). A New Covenant with God was struck that would be completed on the Cross. St. Paul confirms this in Colossians (2:11-12). He ties in the “old’’ covenant signature of circumcision in with the “new” covenant one of baptism. St. Paul writes, “In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.”

D.M. wrote, “The scriptures are clear as to who are candidates for baptism.” I completely agree. The Scriptures are clear for those who read them in their entirety. There are innumerable references in Holy Scripture to the requirement that “all” men be baptised. Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 19:14). St. Paul clearly stated that unless you be baptized you could not come to Christ. “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” (Romans 6:3-4).

Following Christ’s instructions the Apostles went out and baptised “all people” (Luke 3:21). Are infants not people? For more proof of the need to baptise infants, let us take a look at the very Book D.M. quoted, (Acts) “And when she was baptized, with her household, she besought us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us.” (Acts 16:15). What does the word “household” mean? It means, “entire family”, it means, “men, women, children and infants”! Still again in Holy Scripture we find, “I did baptize also the household of Steph'anas.” (1 Cor 1:16). To disregard these passages from Scripture out of hand is to assume that households in ancient times did not have children? It is abundantly clear the Apostles went out and baptised children. Who else to better understand the will of God than the Apostles, those chosen by Jesus, who spent three years under His tutelage learning of the New Covenant. In the ancient catacombs of Rome, still today, you can go and see the inscriptions on the tombs of infants who were baptised as a result of what Jesus instructed His Church to do.

In concentrating on one or two passages of Scripture only to prove a point we sometimes err in our interpretation if we do not consider the text in relation to other related passages. We must be careful to read the text as it relates overall to the rest of the Holy Book, in order to grasp the full meaning intended.

St. James and Mary, Our Blessed Mother, help us all to discover Truth, your Son, Jesus, and as always, pray for us!

Ed

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), April 12, 2001

Answers

-- (_@_._), April 13, 2001.

Being baptized is NOT essential for salvation. This is very clear when reading the scriptures. We are only saved by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ. Baptism is a way to express our faith. The Lord ask us to do 2 thing. 1) Remeber him by taking of the Bread and of the cup. 2) To be baptized. Both of these acts are a way to express our faith. Obviously an infant cannot decide right from wrong so therefore how can that infant accept the Lord Jesus Christ as his/her savior? Was the theif on the cross baptized? If he was then the scriptures surely would of had said so and he would of been baptized after he believed in the Lord Jesus. Here are just a few scriptures to back up what I am saying.

(Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Chris, both men and women were baptized.)

It is clear that after they believed they were baptized.

(Acts 8:36-38 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" Then philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.)

Here is is clear that if you believe in the Lord Jesus then you may be baptized. How can an infant believe?

There is not one example in the entire bible of an infant being baptized. I don't think it is going to hurt a child to be baptized but then again it does nothing to that child, so then why do it? I do believe it is a major problem when people believe that in order to be saved you must be baptized. This is not what the gospels teach us. Below is some versus that tells us on how we become saved.

Versus on Salvation:

Luke 7:50 Then He said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you. Go in peace."

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on Him."

John 5:24 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgement, but has passed from death into life."

John 6:40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

John 6:47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.

John 7:38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heat will flow rivers of living water

John 11:25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live.

John 20:31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

Acts 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.

Acts 16:30-31 And he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 31)So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household."

Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your hear that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

-- Derek Hagen (d.hagen@excite.com), March 11, 2003.

Dear Derek,

If you look at this question in historical perspective, you will see that no Christian on earth thought baptism was merely "a way to express our faith" until one renegade Catholic priest in the 16th century thought he knew better than 1,500 years of the greatest theological minds who ever lived. The wrtitings of the earliest Fathers of the Church unanimously and absolutely uphold infant baptism. These were second and third generation leaders of the Christian Church, who received their teaching directly from the apostles. Could the apostles have taught them false doctrine?? You have to face the fact that Christianity and infant baptism were inseparable until your recent tradition began. How then can we accept these modern ideas of yours as Christian teaching? We cannot.

The Bible tells us that a person cannot enter the kingdom unless he is born of water and the spirit. Living in the kingdom is synonymous with being saved, is it not? And being born of water is synonymous with baptism. Some people, desperate to validate their traditions, try to deny the necessity of baptism by claiming that "born of water" is a reference to natural birth. However, that idea is plain silly. Why would Jesus tell people that they had to EXIST if they wanted to be saved? Especially people who already existed (were already born). Kind of self-obvious, isn't it? Besides, John 3:5 is an explanation to Nicodemus of John 3:3, which deals only with being "born again". Being "born of water and the spirit" are the required means of being "born again". Being "born again" is necessary for salvation. Therefore the only reasonable conclusion is that baptism is necessary for salvation. Which is why all Christians accepted that teaching until recent manmade traditions began.

Naturally, in speaking to adult sinners, Jesus told them they had to repent and be baptized. "Repent, and each 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" (Acts 2:38) This important passsage provides a lot of information. First, it demonstrates that repentance is a necessary prerequisite for baptism, for adults. Secondly, it reveals that baptism is not merely something we do to express our faith. Baptism forgives sins. Is that something we have the power to do? Baptism endows us with the gift of the Holy Spirit. Can we do this for ourselves? By the effects of baptism desribed in the Word of God we know that baptism must be a work of God, not something we do; and so has the universal Christian Church believed for 2,000 years.

Why do adult sinners need to repent before being baptized? To regain some of the spiritual purity they have lost through sin. To return to a state of spiritual innocence. That's the purpose of repentence. Another way of expressing this idea is "becoming once again like little children". Jesus said "Truly I say to you, unless you become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 18:3) So, if adults must become like children as a prerequisite to baptism, it should be obvious that persons who already ARE little children are fully qualified for baptism, and do not require repentence first. Thus, Jesus said "Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these" (Mark 10:14) Jesus says the kingdom belongs to little children. And, he says that no-one can enter that kingdom without baptism. It would therefore be completely inconsistent and illogical if He also said that little children cannot receive that which is necessary for entering the kingdom which is already theirs!

Both scripture and other early Church writings make it clear that it was the common practice of the early Church to baptize the entire families of new adult converts ...

And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay." (Acts 16:15)

"And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household" (Acts 16:33)

Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized" (Acts 18:8)

"Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other" (1 Corinthians 1:16)

What does "ALL his household" mean, if not "He, his wife, and ALL their children"? Since this was clearly the common practice of the early Church, undoubtedly many hundreds, if not thousands, of households were baptized in this way. Is it possible that none of them had small children?

If the early Church did not baptize young children, and the Church later decided it would start baptizing them, surely there would have been some faction, perhaps even a majority, who would have protested such a radical change. There is no historical record of any such protest within the Church - one more clear indication that infant baptism was universally accepted by Christians from the very beginning.

In fact, scripture, tradition, and history ALL conclusively reveal that infant baptism is an integral part of Christianity, and was from earliest times. Nothing but modern manmade tradition claims otherwise. Can you really hold up that new tradition against such overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 11, 2003.