Infant "Baptism"

Matt. 19:14 says that of such (like children) is the kingdom of Heaven (the church). The church is made of those who are free from sin and in a right relationship with God. This is the primary nature and identify of the church. Thus, children are free from sin and in a right relationship with God. They do not need to be spiritually reborn (restored to God) through water baptism.
However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual.
And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man. 1 Cor 15
 
Except, of course that it all nothing but Catholic (Roman and othrwise) meaningless Ritualism. There's no such thing as a "Sacrament", Cat holic rituals accomplish nothing other that giving their victims a false sense of security. ANd Water Baptism imparts NOTHING (other than a baby with a slightly cleaner head - so not a total waste of time).

I was Baptized as an infant (like any self respecting Italian Baby) - got the pictures to prove it (I was a GOOD looking Baby!!). It meant nothing, of course. A Good Photo-op, and peace among my Italian In-Laws (Mom was a saved Baptist, and didn't need any of it).

When I was 20, I DID become Born Again (conviction of SIN, Surrender Repentance, calling on God for Jesus' SIN OFFERING to be mine in FAITH), and have been a practicing Christian ever since.

I did get Baptized by immersion 4 days AFTER becoming a Christian. It changed nothing (except my wet clothes), added nothing, and was nothing more than an act of Obedience. The Bible says for born again folks to be baptized, and so I was. Simple as that.

Eph 2:8,9 gives the mechanism of Salvation, and there's no "Water" in sight.
Of course there are sacraments. Even some protestant scholars acknowledge that.
 
So what? That's not proof of anything. Since the earliest days of the church sacraments have been taught.
Unimportant. Humans have a way of making worthless stuff "Important". And the Catholic church has made deception into an art form.
 
Unimportant. Humans have a way of making worthless stuff "Important". And the Catholic church has made deception into an art form.
Whats the most "horrific" deception perpetrated by the Catholic Church?

BTW. You don't think it's just the Catholic church that makes things up do you?
 
Whats the most "horrific" deception perpetrated by the Catholic Church?
Probably "Purgatorial Sanctification". Just imagine the poor Catholic who dies, and finds himself in "purgatory" - and then realized that it;s HELL, and he'll NEVER get out!! Purgatory is satan's BEST JOKE on Catholics. Of course their foolish "Salvation by faith AND WORKS" is the one that makes Jesus' crucifiction of no effect.
BTW. You don't think it's just the Catholic church that makes things up do you?
Nope. Protestants make up a fair amount of B.S. of their own.
 
Probably "Purgatorial Sanctification". Just imagine the poor Catholic who dies, and finds himself in "purgatory" - and then realized that it;s HELL, and he'll NEVER get out!! Purgatory is satan's BEST JOKE on Catholics. Of course their foolish "Salvation by faith AND WORKS" is the one that makes Jesus' crucifiction of no effect.

Nope. Protestants make up a fair amount of B.S. of their own.
There is no such teaching as "purgatorial sanctification". Where did you get that?

Glad to see you accept that fact.
 
There is no such teaching as "purgatorial sanctification". Where did you get that?
You're kidding, right??? You have heard of "purgatory"????
Glad to see you accept that fact.
JWs are "protestants" - like LDS, Shepherd's Chapel, Campbellite Church of Christ, and of course all the protestant "Catholic Copies" (Lutheran, Episcopal, Anglican, etc). It's obvious for anybody with their eyes open, and and Biblical knowledge at all.
 
Bob Carabbio said:
Probably "Purgatorial Sanctification". Just imagine the poor Catholic who dies, and finds himself in "purgatory" - and then realized that it;s HELL, and he'll NEVER get out!! Purgatory is satan's BEST JOKE on Catholics. Of course their foolish "Salvation by faith AND WORKS" is the one that makes Jesus' crucifiction of no effect.

Nope. Protestants make up a fair amount of B.S. of their own.
There is no such teaching as "purgatorial sanctification". Where did you get that?
You're kidding, right??? You have heard of "purgatory"????

JWs are "protestants" - like LDS, Shepherd's Chapel, Campbellite Church of Christ, and of course all the protestant "Catholic Copies" (Lutheran, Episcopal, Anglican, etc). It's obvious for anybody with their eyes open, and and Biblical knowledge at all.
It could be that you're saying the same thing. There is no trap door out of hell.
 
It could be that you're saying the same thing. There is no trap door out of hell.
Yup, and I've found that "Purgatory" to a Roman Catholic is what they think "Sanctification" means. Jesus wasn't ABLE to sanctify you in life, so He has to finish the job in Purgatory. Just another pagan inclusion into Christianity from about 1200 A.D.

There's no such thing as "Purgatory" - it's just Catholic B.S.
 
Yup, and I've found that "Purgatory" to a Roman Catholic is what they think "Sanctification" means. Jesus wasn't ABLE to sanctify you in life, so He has to finish the job in Purgatory. Just another pagan inclusion into Christianity from about 1200 A.D.

There's no such thing as "Purgatory" - it's just Catholic B.S.
Of course their foolish "Salvation by faith AND WORKS" is the one that makes Jesus' crucifiction of no effect.
For by the one offering He has perfected forever and completely cleansed those who are being sanctified [bringing each believer to spiritual completion and maturity]. Heb 10:14
 
Throughout the New Testament, only adults are shown to be baptised, but this makes sense when you read this in Josephus.

Flavius Josephus - Vita 2:7
He bathed himself in cold water frequently, both by night and by day, in order to preserve his chastity (ἁγνεία, נקיון)
 
I've made a couple of new friends here at CARM and in our discussions against those who reject water "baptism" as necessary for salvation, we have skirted around the topic of infant "baptism" in an effort to address a common opponent. I would like to offer this thread for us to discuss the topic of infant "baptism". There are a few things to lay out here in the Original Post (OP).

1. This discussion is for anyone who believes water "baptism" is necessary for salvation. Others may argue against those who post who reject this, but I will not.
2. I put "baptism" in quotes because the English word has become something that means a wider range of mode than what I believe the Bible is speaking about including sprinkling, pouring, and anything other than total immersion in addition to total burial in water. We can talk about that, too, but it is a secondary topic in relation to my purpose here.
3. I don't recognize any spiritual authority outside of the Bible so if anyone appeals to some other authority, I'm going to ignore that and focus on arguments from scripture only.

I will press hard on the topic, but I intend to focus on your doctrines and not you. I look forward to a discussion from scripture.

@Son Of Saxon @VDMA (feel free to tag others you think would enjoy this discussion!)
An infant baptism is very close to Jesus' baptism because they are both baptisms of sinless people. Now what was the purpose of Jesus' baptism if He had no sin? It's the reception of the Holy Spirit and that's what happens at infant baptisms also. If we bless inanimate objects then surely we should be able to bless with the Holy Spirit that which is most precious to us: our infants.
 
The gospel by definition is the objective true good news of the person and work of Christ to and for all men.
I've made a couple of new friends here at CARM and in our discussions against those who reject water "baptism" as necessary for salvation, we have skirted around the topic of infant "baptism" in an effort to address a common opponent. I would like to offer this thread for us to discuss the topic of infant "baptism". There are a few things to lay out here in the Original Post (OP).

1. This discussion is for anyone who believes water "baptism" is necessary for salvation. Others may argue against those who post who reject this, but I will not.
2. I put "baptism" in quotes because the English word has become something that means a wider range of mode than what I believe the Bible is speaking about including sprinkling, pouring, and anything other than total immersion in addition to total burial in water. We can talk about that, too, but it is a secondary topic in relation to my purpose here.
3. I don't recognize any spiritual authority outside of the Bible so if anyone appeals to some other authority, I'm going to ignore that and focus on arguments from scripture only.

I will press hard on the topic, but I intend to focus on your doctrines and not you. I look forward to a discussion from scripture.

@Son Of Saxon @VDMA (feel free to tag others you think would enjoy this discussion!)
If a person reads Romans while asking the questions of what does it actually say? and what does it then mean? then the following is abundantly clear.

Paul is writing to Christians who he has never met and doesn't know. Romans 1:1-14.

He is going to proclaim the gospel, the objective true good news of the person and work of Christ to those called saints at Rome. Romans 1:15-17.

Fast forward to Romans chapter six and the reader finds that Paul directs the called saints, the called believers, to the objective true good news to and for all men of baptism into Christ. “3. Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?" (Rom 6:3, KJVA)

The verb translated as "were baptized" indicates that the one that was baptized is passive. The one being baptized only receives the free gift of God through the person and work of Christ rather than the one being baptized is fulfilling a law or requirement.

What is excluded from any mention by Paul regarding the free gift of baptism into Christ? The answer is merit or worthiness of any kind on the part of the one being baptized. This excludes age, cognitive ability, and even a prior faith from meriting baptism.

This necessarily means that those who exclude infants from baptism deny Christ and the benefits which are in Him alone through faith aloje rather than a work on the part of the one being baptized. The baptized, like those who receive the true gospel through the word alone, can only receive what God is freely giving.

4. Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life...” (Rom 6:4..., KJVA)
 
Jesus said:

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.... unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:3,5

Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

But the obvious implications do not register in the minds of lost men.

And then lost men say:

Jesus didn't call the children to him and say, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these."

No, no these lost men tell us, he really meant, "Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like an adult cannot enter it.”

Jesus: you must receive the Kingdom like a child
Lost men: you must receive the Kingdom like an adult
 
Last edited:
Jesus said:

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.... unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:3,5

Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

But the obvious implications do not register in the minds of lost men.

And then lost men say:

Jesus didn't call the children to him and say, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these."

No, no these lost men tell us, he really meant, "Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like an adult cannot enter it.”

Jesus: you must receive the Kingdom like a child
Lost men: you must receive the Kingdom like an adult
Yes, the infant only receives the freely given birth from above, baptism.
 
3. I don't recognize any spiritual authority outside of the Bible so if anyone appeals to some other authority, I'm going to ignore that and focus on arguments from scripture only.
The only problem with this is that Tradition comes to use it two forms, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle," and that the Scriptures themselves teach us that, "if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15)."
 
1st Premise - Infants are not candidates for water baptism because they have no sin.

Ezekiel 18:20 says that the sins are not inherited from the father. So the guilt of sin is not transmitted across generations.

Matt. 19:14 says that of such (like children) is the kingdom of Heaven (the church). The church is made of those who are free from sin and in a right relationship with God. This is the primary nature and identify of the church. Thus, children are free from sin and in a right relationship with God. They do not need to be spiritually reborn (restored to God) through water baptism.

Since this is the first premise, it must actually be your primary argument against infant baptism. After all people put their best foot forward first. Your argument that children do not have original sin based on Ezekiel 18:20 is in error.

Ezekiel 18 and Original Sin

Ezekiel 18:20, The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor shall the father bear the guilt of the son.

The objection to the doctrine of Original Sin based on this verse cannot be sustained because the declaration is in respect to the New Covenant that God will give to His people.

1) The declaration is in reply to the Jews in exile who complained of God's justice with the proverb The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge. The Jews were exiled in accordance with God's law of idolatry that:

Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me - Deuteronomy 5:9

Now the Jews were right in that God laid upon them the iniquities of their fathers (Lamentations 5:7) but were wrong in accusing God of injustice in the matter. That is why God's reply to their proverb is What mean ye? (Ezekiel 18:2) as if to say "You don't mean this proverb as an indication of my justice, but accuse me of injustice."

2) The above is proved from the fact that God states, As I live ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Now as God laying the iniquities of the fathers upon the children gives occasion to the charge of injustice, God will remove that occasion at some future time such that the son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor shall the father bear the guilt of the son.

Now that particular occasion was removed after the Jews returned from captivity, but it seems to me that God had something far greater in mind.

3) For the prophet Ezekiel is not the only prophet to refer to the proverb. Jeremiah, speaking to the Jews in Judah, who used the same proverb in Jerusalem about the calamities they were experiencing upon God's judgement of king Manasseh, refers to it too. But he speaks of it as occurring at some future time, Jeremiah 31:29-30:

29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. 30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

This time is very clear to us with the benefit of the New Testament and history, for God immediately states in reference to the above: Behold, the days come that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah. And immediately preceding verses 29 and 30:

And it shall come to pass, that like as I have watched over them, to pluck up, and to break down, and to throw down, and to destroy, and to afflict (i.e. the Old Law); so will I watch over them, to build, and to plant, saith the Lord (i.e. the New Law).

Clearly delineating the law that is in force giving occasion to the proverb and the law that is in force in the then future new covenant state which will never give occasion to the proverb.

5) So far as Ezekiel 18 is from rebutting the justice of Original Sin, it confirms it. Why does it confirm it? Because we now know clearly that God gave His only Son and if it is just for Him to lay our sins upon him (as that is our only way of salvation) it was just for Him to visit the iniquities of the fathers upon the children, which gave occasion to the proverb. And if THAT was just, it certainly is just for God to impute the sin of Adam unto his posterity.

6) Now IN the New Covenant, man is no longer beholden to the iniquities of the fathers or their father Adam, for as put in the words of Article 9 of the 39 Articles of Religion of the Church of England, "there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized". But outside that covenant, man IS held to the iniquity of their father Adam.

So the idea that it is impossible for infants to be burdened with the sin of Adam is refuted by Ezekiel 18 with reference to Jeremiah and the New Testament. Indeed, the entire thrust of the passage is that God can justly visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, the very import of the doctrine of Original Sin.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top