Why Baptize Infants?

[@fallsjd]

Couple questions: what do you think it means to be "born again", and do you think children of believing parents need to be born again? Being born of Christian parents is certainly a benefit, just as being born a Jew was before the time of Jesus. Yet the problem that Jesus and John the Baptist continually confronted with their Jewish audience was that they thought they were already "in" God's kingdom because of their bloodline -- because of their physical descendance from Father Abraham. John the Baptist set them straight: "And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham." -- Matthew <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="189">3:9</a> As did Jesus: "If you were Abraham’s children," said Jesus, "then you would do what Abraham did. As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the works of your own father." -- John <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="519">8:39</a>b-41 (Jesus goes on to tell them that their father is actually the Devil) The faith of their ancestors meant nothing. They instead individually needed to be born -- AGAIN (John 3). Being born again is ultimately a work of the Spirit. It's the fulfillment of the New Covenant: "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws." -- Ezekiel <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="2185">36:25</a>-26 And as Jesus taught Nicodemus, we can't control the work of the Spirit. It's like the wind -- we see it's effect (a transformed life producing the fruit of the Spirit), but we don't know where it's going or where it comes from. "So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." -- John <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="188">3:8</a>b Baptism and the Lord's Supper are signs of this New Covenant. As much as we want our children to become born again, God hasn't promised us that. That's why we teach them and pray that God would work in their hearts so that they might repent and believe the good news.

[@LeoRegum]

I agree with what you have written. Alastair has a video on his channel with baptism in its title where he discusses his view of being born again (I know he has a few). He seems somewhat to separate it from personal inward regeneration and cast it as a participation in the new life Christ has purchased. There is also a James Jordan paper floating around called Thoughts on Sovereign Grace and Regeneration which is related.

[@fallsjd]

@@LeoRegum Thanks for that. I recall hearing about the Federal Vision controversy (some would say heresy) in the early 2000s, but never really delved into it. I read through the paper you referenced, "Thoughts on Sovereign Grace and Regeneration" by James Jordan. Wow. There's a lot that could be said about that -- I'm sure many already have. I'll just note a couple things. It does confirm my view that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the New Covenant here. I noticed he doesn't ever mention "New Covenant" in the paper, but his (mis)interpretation of Ezekiel 36 addresses it. He writes: "I submit that the 'heart of stone' refers rather to the tablets of the law enshrined in the Holy of Holies, and that the coming 'heart of flesh' refers to the Incarnate Word, the New Heart of God's people and of His Kingdom." And: "The heart of stone is not a hard or petrified heart inside individual human beings, but refers to the Word Made Stone, the Ten Words, in the Most Holy of the Tabernacle/Temple." That seems to me to be such a fundamental misreading of the clear text in Ezekiel, that I'm not sure what more to say. If it wasn't clear enough there, how about in Jeremiah 31: "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." -- vs. 33-34 Or how about Paul's description in other words of the same thing in Romans 2? "A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code." -- vs. 28-29a Why would Paul talk about circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, making one a "true Jew" -- if it wasn't an actual inward transformation? What's different about Jesus's kingdom, which he inaugurated, is that his kingdom citizens all have the Spirit inside them and transformed hearts, so that they can bear fruit! -- unlike Israel which failed over and over again out of rebellion and unbelief. To me this is why baptism is actually not a side-issue -- because it has wrapped up in it theological conceptions of New Covenant and Gospel. And if you get those wrong, you're on very dangerous ground.

[@joshuakelley1677]

Has this gentleman been baptized as an adult?

[@provotoprevo2609]

Wonderful. Though the covenant in which the children of believers are included wasn’t explicitly mentioned, I like how you brought faith into the question - which is an outworking of the covenant that the children are included in.

[@ranzbilaran9796]

Everything the words that comes out to our mouth while we speak about baptism infant must be biblical have bible text and not our own interpretation

[@jpfiero]

This was very helpful

[@aaronbevard]

Context man. Sheeshh

[@samuelmulupi2658]

The most smplest and most charitable explanation to my quest to know about this subject. Be blessed

[@MrBully1967]

1) Start your chain of logic with a rite that is never mentioned in Scripture, let alone commanded. 2) Redefine faith as a cultural phenomenon so baptism can become a social demarcation like the circumcision, which was abolished by Christ. 3) Claim that, since baptism is to be treated as a social demarcation, that infants are excluded if they are not baptized, and the Bible mentions children all the time. 4) Conflate participation in Church life under parental discipline with voluntary discipleship (these two words actually mean different things). Baptism is for when parental discipline is removed and one is subject to Church discipline directly, having personally submitted to it. 5) Give social examples based on the wall established by God between Jew and Gentile: Abraham (the circumcision) and Moses (the Law), two things that were abolished by the cross. 6) Claim that since households were baptized, every single member within the household was baptized. This was not even the case with circumcision. Acts repeatedly says, “both men and women.” These events were signs to the Jews that the focus had shifted from sons of men to Sons of God-a different Father and a different kind of birth. 7) Yes, God is going to restore humanity, but He does so through qualified and accountable legal representatives. That is what baptism is for. It is not about involuntary cultivation (land and womb promises) but voluntary representation-vow and testimony. They key here is that covenant history is chiastic: circumcision was a social demarcation with an ethical/spiritual telos; baptism is an ethical/spiritual demarcation with a social telos, that is, transformation of families, cities, and nations. Paedobaptism is facing in rather than facing out, looking at what God gives rather than offering to freely give as we have received. It is a retarded ecclesiology, stuck in the past. 8) The utter failure to take the differences in the details in the Bible's major baptism events into account: the Flood was a “World” baptism (and notice that there were only adult human and animal pairs on board, “Adams and Eves” all waiting for the fruit of the land and the womb; the exodus was a “Land” baptism, which included not only men, women, and children, but also domestic (and only domestic) animals, as a priestly nation. But notice that the only individuals baptized were the sacrifices and the priests, picturing…; the baptism of Jesus is a “Garden” baptism, relating to qualification, investiture, and sanctuary access for accountable adult legal representatives. Since the serpent has been crushed, this now includes women, the Garden being made safe for Eve by a better Adam. This World, Land, Garden pattern is an ascension up the mountain of God. We see this in Exodus 24 where only legal representatives dined with Yahweh on the crystal sea, picturing Christian communion. Was anyone excluded who did not ascend the mountain? No. 9) Since God gives us signs, we had better actually read them, instead of treating them like a tribal tattoo. The sign of circumcision was related to seed-the Land and womb promises (covenant sanctions). The sign of baptism is related to the investiture of Adam and Eve in the Garden (covenant oath). It amazes me that those who taught me this distinction fail to understand its importance here. So the social outcome is an effect of the baptism of individuals who follow Christ into His tomb and come out again to serve as royal priests, not a cause. Our families do not need “sacralising.” We are not Jews. Those who voluntarily represent Christ, having put Him on in baptism, do that. Baptism is not for the field but for the laborers. The fence around the sapling is gone. The entire world is now in God’s sights and all people are already within the shared, universal obligation of a global New Covenant. A blood/tribal/civic boundary is actually anti-Christian by definition. God has moved the goal posts and some are still playing the old game.

[@jpfiero]

Are you saying that only those that are going into a specific type of ministry must get baptized? Or am I misunderstanding? Also the pedobaptists that I follow don't seem to be creating any kind of wall or blood distinctions, it seems to be more a dedication of their family/children to God.

[@ter8330]

There is no one scripture pointing TO baptize, which is why there are issues with it. Secondly, Calvinism, baptism, End Times, tithing... none of these should be an issue. God can simply straighten it all out. He chooses not to. Why? There should not be 234 different ways to worship, interpret scripture, And yet here we are. Again.

[@mikezeke7041]

How we believe, live, worship, and teach all become issues...

[@ranzbilaran9796]

Jesus said faith with good works the most greatest is love

[@Wonderboywonderings]

Infant baptism is solemn mockery before God. Little children are alive in Christ and are saved by His atonement until they reach an age/state of accountability.

[@Speakingintothevoid700]

Not in the bible

[@abbottdietrich]

@wonderboywonderings where do you get this statement from I don't think it's in the Bible based on my reading. It sounds like a tradition of man.

[@nicholasvaldez8322]

Isn’t baptism an expression of faith? A deliberate decision to outwardly express your faith? It would make sense that this would be a decision made when someone was ready. I know someone that was baptized as a child but got baptized again when he truly became born again.

[@isaacsponseller3947]

I think that's the big question I've been pondering on. Growing up in baptist churches, that's what I was always taught, but I'm now not sure Scripture actually tells us that baptism is an expression, a profession of faith. That's to me the fundamental disagreement between paedo and credo baptists.

[@andreyconsalter]

I thing this understanding of baptism as a mere public expression of faith comes more from tradition than from the Bible. The verses about baptism presents it with far more depth and importance.

[@gdot9046]

Romans 4:11. Abraham received the sign of faith and new birth (in OT this was circumcision and now it is baptism) and yet he then gave it to his children who were unable to profess that faith. So to say it is an expression of having faith, would be wrong - it's a sign of faith that the child must grow to take up for themselves.

[@LeoRegum]

Baptism is much more than a mere expression of faith. Romans 6 and Colossians 2 frame it as a participation in the saving events of Calvary! We Baptists are missing so much by holding to a profession view. (Also baptism is something done to us not by us, I'm not sure how that squares with being a profession. Perhaps the 'Testimony' has merged into the baptism proper in our speech). This isn't the dividing line between paedo and credo though, basically warrant for baptizing those whose faith is not 'credibly manifest' is the dividing line.

[@provotoprevo2609]

Hey Nicholas, I’ll offer a few thoughts. Baptism is most certainly a “profession of faith” - baptism isn’t called that in the bible but it is such by necessity when it comes to someone making their own decision to be baptised. But if you think about it, the reality of making a profession of faith in baptism can only be possible if baptism is primarily a message spoken to us. In other words, profession of faith in what? The gospel right? Which is exactly what baptism is, it’s the gospel conferred on us by water and the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38,39). When it comes to infants then, the believing parents of the child have promises from God that their child is an heir to the covenant promises - at whatever age - unless he apostatises. For example the promise “I will be a god to you and to your seed after you” in Genesis 17 is addressed to Abraham to be believed. Likewise in Acts 2:39 “for the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are a far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call”, is addressed to the parents. Thus until the child can consciously trust in the promises, the parents have every right to believe those promises for them, especially the promises of baptism in which salvation is conferred by faith (Romans 6:3-10; Colossians 2:11,12; Titus 3:5; acts 2:38,39). These promises obviously need to be passed on to our children, but first God gives the promises about the children to the parents for the parents to believe. I hope these thoughts are helpful, I’ll be interested to get your thoughts too.

[@pottymouthmexican]

this is not what baptism means. this is theatrics

[@provotoprevo2609]

That’s not a question 😉