DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Religious Convictions
HTML https://religiousconvictions.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Religious Discussions
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2729--------------------------------------------------
Must We 'Choose' Baptism?
By: Piper Date: July 31, 2015, 7:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=trebuchet ms]This thread is speaking specifically of water
baptism.
What actually occurs during baptism? Some believe one must
choose to be baptized in order for it to have any meaning or
validity. Some see it as a sacrament/covenant.
If it is only valid by choice, it seems it would be utterly
senseless to baptize infants.
Yet, when recognized as a sacrament/covenant, infants are
regularly baptized. What does it mean, what spiritually occurs
when an infant is baptized?
Is infant baptism biblical? Did everyone in the bible "choose"
to be baptized, or did parents make the choice for their
children?
Is a covenant binding if the infant/child had no "choice"?
Just some questions to foster discussion . . .
What do you think? What does your church teach?
[/font]
#Post#: 2730--------------------------------------------------
Re: Must We 'Choose' Baptism?
By: bradley Date: July 31, 2015, 8:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I believe the baptism done in the time of Jesus was only adults
(as far as I know), so I believe the age of accountability is
truly important, but infant baptism imo although good, only
testifies that the parent will raise the child with the tenents
of christianity more so.
#Post#: 2733--------------------------------------------------
Re: Must We 'Choose' Baptism?
By: Deborah Date: August 1, 2015, 3:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]What actually occurs during baptism? Some believe one
must choose to be baptized in order for it to have any meaning
or validity. Some see it as a sacrament/covenant.[/quote]
I would say: yes, it is a sacrament, and yes, we should 'choose'
to undergo it (by which I mean it should be a conscious,
personal decision). To me, it makes no sense to baptise very
small children (but as soon as they are old enough to understand
and make a personal commitment to Jesus, they are old enough to
be baptised - our daughter was baptised at the age of 7).
As a sacrament, baptism has a rich depth of meaning.
HTML https://deborahsbiblestudies.wordpress.com/the-sacraments/baptism/the-meaning-of-christian-baptism/
[quote]Is infant baptism biblical? Did everyone in the bible
"choose" to be baptized, or did parents make the choice for
their children?[/quote]
When the NT writers speak of baptism, they were thinking of
something very different from the usual modern concept. All the
baptisms recorded in the New Testament are baptisms of converts,
and took place at the time of conversion (Acts 8:35,36) – even
if this was in the middle of the night! (Acts 16:32,33) And this
would have been the experience of the vast majority (if not all)
of the Christians to whom the New Testament letters were
written. But as time went by, the link between baptism and
conversion became dislocated. Christians today are usually
baptised either a long time before their conversion (as babies)
or some time after (to give them time to ‘prove’ their
commitment). So when we read the apostles’ teaching on the
meaning of baptism, we have to read it in the New Testament
context – and perhaps consider that it may not all be directly
transferable to baptism as it is often practised today.
#Post#: 2734--------------------------------------------------
Re: Must We 'Choose' Baptism?
By: CatholicCrusader Date: August 1, 2015, 9:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Piper link=topic=313.msg2729#msg2729
date=1438387737]
[font=trebuchet ms]This thread is speaking specifically of water
baptism.
What actually occurs during baptism? Some believe one must
choose to be baptized in order for it to have any meaning or
validity. Some see it as a sacrament/covenant.
If it is only valid by choice, it seems it would be utterly
senseless to baptize infants.
Yet, when recognized as a sacrament/covenant, infants are
regularly baptized. What does it mean, what spiritually occurs
when an infant is baptized?
Is infant baptism biblical? Did everyone in the bible "choose"
to be baptized, or did parents make the choice for their
children?
Is a covenant binding if the infant/child had no "choice"?
Just some questions to foster discussion . . .
What do you think? What does your church teach?[/font][/quote]
Jesus commanded the apostles to baptize before he ascended to
heaven. We have no choice to not heed his command.
Baptism is the means by which one is born again, and it is the
entrance into the covenant family of God. Any teaching to the
contrary is false.
#Post#: 2735--------------------------------------------------
Re: Must We 'Choose' Baptism?
By: Kerry Date: August 1, 2015, 11:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Piper link=topic=313.msg2729#msg2729
date=1438387737]
[size=12pt][font=trebuchet ms]
What actually occurs during baptism? Some believe one must
choose to be baptized in order for it to have any meaning or
validity. Some see it as a sacrament/covenant.
If it is only valid by choice, it seems it would be utterly
senseless to baptize infants. [/quote]When Israel was baptized
in the sea and in the cloud, both adults and children were
baptized. You know the story. Of the adult men over the age
of twenty, only two men entered the Land of Promise. Their
baptism was not a guarantee they would enter. Their children,
also baptized, did enter.
I would say someone has to believe and make the choice, just the
way Abraham made the choice to circumcise Ishmael and his whole
household. If we argue that infant baptism can't be valid
because the child can't make a choice, how do we explain
circumcision which was commanded to be performed by parents.
Clearly, it is possible for adults to make decisions that impact
their children; and circumcision in Israel allows for the
spiritual authority of parents, so I cannot see any reason to
say children can't be baptized. Children are not specifically
mentioned in this passage; but it would be odd, I think, if
there were none.
Acts 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and
washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his,
straightway.
34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat
before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.
[quote]Yet, when recognized as a sacrament/covenant, infants are
regularly baptized. What does it mean, what spiritually occurs
when an infant is baptized? [/quote]Circumcision was also a
covenant. . . .
[quote]Is infant baptism biblical? Did everyone in the bible
"choose" to be baptized, or did parents make the choice for
their children?
Is a covenant binding if the infant/child had no "choice"?
Just some questions to foster discussion . . .[/quote]
I believe it is binding, and that the child is adopted into the
Body of Christ through the spiritual authority of the parents
just as circumcision was binding on Jews.
We should not believe God is going to judge us by the actions of
our parents. No, that is not possible; but it is possible for
godly parents to act in ways that truly matter, that make it
easier for children to enter the Kingdom. If what parents do
doesn't matter, why would they pray for their children, teach
them about Jesus and the Bible, or get them to attend church?
If baptism is something that gives us a gift from God, does it
matter how we got it? What matters is what we do with what we
have received. "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him
shall be much required. . . ."
#Post#: 2740--------------------------------------------------
Re: Must We 'Choose' Baptism?
By: Piper Date: August 1, 2015, 11:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=trebuchet ms]I'm outta time today, but will get back to
read more carefully and respond. Thanks for all the replies,
everyone.
Good to see you posting, Deborah. Hope all is well for you and
yours![/font]
#Post#: 2743--------------------------------------------------
Re: Must We 'Choose' Baptism?
By: Deborah Date: August 1, 2015, 12:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Kerry link=topic=313.msg2735#msg2735
date=1438444946]
I would say someone has to believe and make the choice, just the
way Abraham made the choice to circumcise Ishmael and his whole
household. If we argue that infant baptism can't be valid
because the child can't make a choice, how do we explain
circumcision which was commanded to be performed by parents.
Clearly, it is possible for adults to make decisions that impact
their children; and circumcision in Israel allows for the
spiritual authority of parents, so I cannot see any reason to
say children can't be baptized.[/quote]
That argument is valid only if baptism is exactly equivalent to
circumcision. I'm not at all sure that it is (although I know
that people have differing opinions on this).
The main argument in favour of infant baptism is that it admits
children to the new covenant, in the same way that Jewish babies
(the male ones, at least) are admitted to the Abrahamic covenant
by circumcision. But is baptism the ‘Christian equivalent’ of
circumcision? There are indeed some similarities: both are
signs, signifying participation in a covenant. But there is one
very major difference: Jews are born into Abraham’s covenant by
physical birth, whereas we enter the new covenant by being born
again through repentance and faith. And so while it is entirely
appropriate for the heirs of Abraham to be circumcised soon
after physical birth, Christian baptism is most logically
administered at the time of spiritual birth, whenever that may
be.
John the Baptist preached the uncomfortable truth that being
born into a covenant family does not automatically make you a
child of God. His message was basically this: that in order to
enjoy the covenant blessings promised to Abraham, it was not
enough to be a physical descendant of Abraham (which was what
circumcision signified). It was necessary to make a personal
confession of sin and commitment to God, expressed in baptism.
As Jesus explained to Nicodemus, a Jew circumcised (and thus
admitted to the covenant) eight days after he was born, “You
must be born again” (John 3:7) – “born of water and the Spirit”
(John 3:5) – in order to enter the Kingdom of God.
In fact, this principle was not radically new; John simply gave
it a new means of expression. From the time of Moses onwards,
the prophets had repeatedly called on the Israelites (who were
already circumcised physically) to “circumcise your hearts”
(Deuteronomy 10:16;Jeremiah 4:4). Paul expresses the same idea
in his letter to the Colossians: baptism is equivalent to the
spiritual circumcision of the heart, not to the physical
circumcision of the body (Colossians 2:11,12). If infant baptism
is made equivalent to infant circumcision, it acquires exactly
the same shortcomings: by itself, it is not enough. Sadly, being
born into a covenant family – even a ‘new covenant’ family –
does not automatically make you a child of God. Consequently,
churches that baptise infants have had to invent a second
ceremony – confirmation – to make up for the deficiency.
[quote]Children are not specifically mentioned in this passage;
but it would be odd, I think, if there were none.
Acts 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and
washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his,
straightway.
34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat
before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.
[/quote]
It, does, however, specifically say that the whole household
believed (which is why they were all baptised). Which suggests
to me that if there were any children involved, they were old
enough to 'believe'.
#Post#: 2748--------------------------------------------------
Re: Must We 'Choose' Baptism?
By: Kerry Date: August 2, 2015, 12:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Deborah link=topic=313.msg2743#msg2743
date=1438449917]
That argument is valid only if baptism is exactly equivalent to
circumcision. I'm not at all sure that it is (although I know
that people have differing opinions on this).[/quote]
I wouldn't say that. The fact that circumcision is valid
without the consent of the child undermines the argument that
religious rites cannot be valid unless an adult consents to them
on his own behalf.
[quote]The main argument in favour of infant baptism is that it
admits children to the new covenant, in the same way that Jewish
babies (the male ones, at least) are admitted to the Abrahamic
covenant by circumcision. But is baptism the ‘Christian
equivalent’ of circumcision? There are indeed some similarities:
both are signs, signifying participation in a covenant. But
there is one very major difference: Jews are born into Abraham’s
covenant by physical birth, whereas we enter the new covenant by
being born again through repentance and faith.[/quote]
This is not what Jews say of it. They say every soul in Israel
took the vow at Sinai, including future generations who had not
been born yet. They base that on the passage which says God
made covenant with those standing there and also with those not
standing there.
[quote]And so while it is entirely appropriate for the heirs of
Abraham to be circumcised soon after physical birth, Christian
baptism is most logically administered at the time of spiritual
birth, whenever that may be.[/quote]
There must be some difference between the children of Christians
and non-Christians since Paul wrote:
1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by
the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband:
else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
I would think, myself, that children born to non-Christians
would need to repent themselves before being baptized.
A gentile converting to Judaism becomes "adopted" into Israel
in their own form of baptism. From religionnews.com
HTML http://www.religionnews.com/2015/07/30/splainer-jewish-conversions-work/:
. . . the final step of the conversion process is submerging the
entire body three times in a mikvah, a Jewish ritual bath, and
reciting two blessings. A mikvah has to be either a natural body
of water, such as a lake, or a special man-made pool. There are
all kinds of nitty-gritty specifications for how to construct a
mikvah, but the main thing is that it has to contain a certain
amount of water directly from a natural source, such as rain.
Many Jewish communities build their own mikvahs for the purpose
of conversion and purification rituals.
This is also seen as a form of new birth. The parents
according to the flesh are no longer seen as exerting any
parental authority. All Israel is considered their parents.
We are not told that Abraham did anything with water; but he
left his father who was an idol maker according to the Jews. I
do not see this as a sign of disrespect for a father. Terah
ceased to be his father. The Jews also say the daughter of
Pharaoh was bathing in the Nile as an act of defying the pagans
gods, that she was rejecting the false religion of her father.
She became part of Israel and left Egypt when Israel left.
These were children of idolaters so they had to reject the false
gods and accept the one true God. If we allow that the
children of Christians are "clean" in some way others are not,
then we can see too, I think, that they can be baptized without
the need to reject false gods.
[quote]John the Baptist preached the uncomfortable truth that
being born into a covenant family does not automatically make
you a child of God. His message was basically this: that in
order to enjoy the covenant blessings promised to Abraham, it
was not enough to be a physical descendant of Abraham (which was
what circumcision signified). It was necessary to make a
personal confession of sin and commitment to God, expressed in
baptism. As Jesus explained to Nicodemus, a Jew circumcised (and
thus admitted to the covenant) eight days after he was born,
“You must be born again” (John 3:7) – “born of water and the
Spirit” (John 3:5) – in order to enter the Kingdom of God.
[/quote]You are probably quite sure you know what "born again"
means, but if you do, can you tell me why Jesus expected
Nicodemus to know about it? "Art thou a master of Israel, and
knowest not these things?" Why would Jesus expect him to know?
Did he know?
A second question is if "born of water and of the Spirit" are
one or two births. Jesus said that those who are born of the
Spirit can move like the wind. I have not met many people who
claim to have born of the Spirit who can do that. I can
believe they have been born of water, but I cannot believe they
are born of the Spirit. There are people who can move like the
wind; and those I can believe have been born of the Spirit.
I will be frank with you. I don't think most people know what
"born again" means. Few can tell you where it's talked about in
the Old Testament, yet Jesus clearly indicated that Nicodemus
should know about it.
[quote]In fact, this principle was not radically new; John
simply gave it a new means of expression. From the time of Moses
onwards, the prophets had repeatedly called on the Israelites
(who were already circumcised physically) to “circumcise your
hearts” (Deuteronomy 10:16;Jeremiah 4:4). Paul expresses the
same idea in his letter to the Colossians: baptism is equivalent
to the spiritual circumcision of the heart, not to the physical
circumcision of the body (Colossians 2:11,12). If infant baptism
is made equivalent to infant circumcision, it acquires exactly
the same shortcomings: by itself, it is not enough. Sadly, being
born into a covenant family – even a ‘new covenant’ family –
does not automatically make you a child of God. Consequently,
churches that baptise infants have had to invent a second
ceremony – confirmation – to make up for the deficiency.
It, does, however, specifically say that the whole household
believed (which is why they were all baptised). Which suggests
to me that if there were any children involved, they were old
enough to 'believe'.
[/quote]You are assuming things there just as others can assume
the other way. While we are discussing this, I read your link
and found this section inexplicable:
Just as Jesus died just once for all the sins of mankind,
whether committed before His death or afterwards (Hebrews
9:27,28), so we are baptised just once for cleansing from all
our sins (whether committed before or after our baptism).
How can that be true when the Scriptures teach us that sinning
after becoming Christians is like a dog returning to its vomit
and warns about people falling away? You said churches that
practice infant baptism had to invent the rite of confirmation.
It sounds to me that you have some ideas you favor yourself
(probably some form of Calvinism) and that you did a little bit
of inventing there yourself. If baptism washes away our future
sins, it wouldn't matter if we sinned or not, would it?
You also seem to be arguing against yourself. Here you said
baptism by itself is not enough and I agree with you on that;
but then you say baptism washes away future sins. If it does
wash away future sins, what sins could remain to condemn
anyone? It should be enough. Can you clarify your position
on this since I am confused by what you believe?
If it was only the Catholic Church that practiced infant
baptism, the argument against it might be stronger; but the
Orthodox Church and the Coptic Church do. These are ancient
churches who did not always agree with the Catholic Church. We
can't believe the Catholics somehow imposed infant baptism on
them. When I see three ancient churches agreeing on something,
I tend to give it more credence than if I see it in only one.
Now the rite of confirmation does vary somewhat. On this
point, I think I agree with the Catholics who do not allow
children to participate in the Eucharist if they are not yet
confirmed. If the Catholic idea of "confession" doesn't make
sense to you, I doubt the Catholic concept of confirmation will
either. It seems a little lax to me when the Orthodox allow
children to participate since they also confirm babies
immediately after baptizing them. It seems to me children
should not be confirmed until they are old enough to know
things for themselves. If we had an Orthodox member here,
perhaps he could explain it; but I admit I don't understand
their concept of confirmation.
#Post#: 2750--------------------------------------------------
Re: Must We 'Choose' Baptism?
By: Deborah Date: August 2, 2015, 1:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Kerry link=topic=313.msg2748#msg2748
date=1438492638]
This is not what Jews say of it. They say every soul in Israel
took the vow at Sinai, including future generations who had not
been born yet. They base that on the passage which says God
made covenant with those standing there and also with those not
standing there.[/quote]
But nevertheless they enter the covenant through physical birth
of Jewish parents. This is different from the new covenant.
In any case, circumcision predates the covenant at Sinai.
[quote]There must be some difference between the children of
Christians and non-Christians since Paul wrote:
1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by
the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband:
else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
I would think, myself, that children born to non-Christians
would need to repent themselves before being baptized. [/quote]
I agree, this verse indicates that there is a difference. But
people and churches disagree enormously on what the implications
of that difference are.
Personally, I think that our children have a special status
before God until they are old enough to make a commitment to
Jesus for themselves. They do not need baptism until then.
Infant baptism muddies the waters enormously... what if they
reject the faith as adults and never return?
[quote]You are probably quite sure you know what "born again"
means, but if you do, can you tell me why Jesus expected
Nicodemus to know about it? "Art thou a master of Israel, and
knowest not these things?" Why would Jesus expect him to know?
Did he know? [/quote]
He knew about circumcision of the heart.
[quote]A second question is if "born of water and of the Spirit"
are one or two births. Jesus said that those who are born of
the Spirit can move like the wind. I have not met many people
who claim to have born of the Spirit who can do that. I can
believe they have been born of water, but I cannot believe they
are born of the Spirit. There are people who can move like the
wind; and those I can believe have been born of the Spirit.
[/quote]
What do you mean by 'can move like the wind'?
[quote]I will be frank with you. I don't think most people know
what "born again" means. Few can tell you where it's talked
about in the Old Testament, yet Jesus clearly indicated that
Nicodemus should know about it. You are assuming things there
just as others can assume the other way. [/quote]
I agree, that this is a major problem when discussing baptism.
We all come to it with preconceived ideas, and several of the
texts can be interpreted in more than one way (such as John
3:1-8).
[quote]While we are discussing this, I read your link and found
this section inexplicable:
Just as Jesus died just once for all the sins of mankind,
whether committed before His death or afterwards (Hebrews
9:27,28), so we are baptised just once for cleansing from all
our sins (whether committed before or after our baptism).
How can that be true when the Scriptures teach us that sinning
after becoming Christians is like a dog returning to its vomit
and warns about people falling away? You said churches that
practice infant baptism had to invent the rite of confirmation.
It sounds to me that you have some ideas you favor yourself
(probably some form of Calvinism) and that you did a little bit
of inventing there yourself. If baptism washes away our future
sins, it wouldn't matter if we sinned or not, would it?
You also seem to be arguing against yourself. Here you said
baptism by itself is not enough and I agree with you on that;
but then you say baptism washes away future sins. If it does
wash away future sins, what sins could remain to condemn
anyone? It should be enough. Can you clarify your position
on this since I am confused by what you believe?[/quote]
Turning your back on the faith altogether is like a dog
returning to its vomit (II Peter 2:21,22). He isn't referring to
the individual sins that we all commit. Baptism is a
once-for-all event (this is the teaching of all churches, as far
as I know), so if our future sins are not dealt with, we have a
problem... we should wait until our deathbeds before being
baptised!
Why do you say that our future sins could condemn us? Isn't it
Jesus' blood that cleanses us? And He is not going to be
crucified again. Baptism is symbolic of this.
[quote]If it was only the Catholic Church that practiced infant
baptism, the argument against it might be stronger; but the
Orthodox Church and the Coptic Church do. These are ancient
churches who did not always agree with the Catholic Church. We
can't believe the Catholics somehow imposed infant baptism on
them. When I see three ancient churches agreeing on something,
I tend to give it more credence than if I see it in only
one.[/quote]
And not only those churches, but many Protestant ones also -
including the Anglican church, which is the one I currently
belong to. I respect their beliefs, although I am not personally
convinced by their arguments.
[quote]Now the rite of confirmation does vary somewhat. On
this point, I think I agree with the Catholics who do not allow
children to participate in the Eucharist if they are not yet
confirmed. If the Catholic idea of "confession" doesn't make
sense to you, I doubt the Catholic concept of confirmation will
either. It seems a little lax to me when the Orthodox allow
children to participate since they also confirm babies
immediately after baptizing them. It seems to me children
should not be confirmed until they are old enough to know
things for themselves. If we had an Orthodox member here,
perhaps he could explain it; but I admit I don't understand
their concept of confirmation.[/quote]
Don't Catholic children have their 'first communion' at a
relatively early age? Isn't that before confirmation?
The Anglican church allows unconfirmed children to take
communion. I have never been confirmed, nor has my daughter
(although at the age of 25 she is now considering it). As
someone coming into the Anglican church from 'outside', I don't
really see things the way they do.
#Post#: 2753--------------------------------------------------
Re: Must We 'Choose' Baptism?
By: CatholicCrusader Date: August 2, 2015, 6:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Kerry link=topic=313.msg2735#msg2735
date=1438444946]
When Israel was baptized in the sea and in the cloud, both
adults and children were baptized. You know the story. Of the
adult men over the age of twenty, only two men entered the Land
of Promise. Their baptism was not a guarantee they would
enter. Their children, also baptized, did
enter..........[/quote]
All true. And to add to my previous post, Baptism as I
described it is also not a guarantee of salvation. And yet, it
still is as I described it: "Baptism is the means by which one
is born again, and it is the entrance into the covenant family
of God."
As for infants, in the Mosaic and subsequent covenants, babes
were circumcised as a sign of the entrance into the Family of
God. In the New Testament Paul notes that baptism has replaced
circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to
baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision
made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were
circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare,
since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to
exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a
parallel for baptism.
It would be good for all to look into the meaning of Covenant to
the Jews of the time as a kinship (i.e. family) bond between two
parties, with conditions or obligations, established and sealed
by an oath (sacramentum), the sharing of a meal, and some sign.
That has not changed.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page