Talk:Infant baptism

Debates on Conservapedia talk pages are not normally permitted. The debate that developed below may be regarded as a useful companion to the main article. See also more debate here.

Note: November 3, 2019 all occurrences of the various forms of the words "justify/justification" and "saved/salvation" in the comments posted to this date have been emphasized with boldface type for clarification of the fundamental controversy.

Romans 10:9

Romans 10:9 is most often cited that no form of baptism is required for salvation. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 12:49, 6 October 2019 (EDT)

Thank you Rob. The dispute over this issue also includes a requisite follow-up by the believer
according to the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20
and the requirement of Mark 16:15-16 and Acts 8:35-39; Acts 9:17-19; Acts 10:47-48; Acts 19:1-6,
together with the commandment of Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:15.
According to 1 Peter 3:21 baptism (in Christ) is what saves us now (as cited in the article).
Infant baptism here includes a list-citation of undeniable Bible references which mention the requirement of baptism for salvation.
John 3:3-5; Matthew 28:18-19; Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38-39; Ephesians 5:25-27; 1 Peter 3:21.
Any preaching that ignores these verses is a good example of confirmation bias and of Cafeteria Christianity.

See also the general article on Baptism.
Peace be with you. --Dataclarifier (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2019 (EDT)

It's basically the difference between Roman Catholic and Protestant; Protestants say it takes the conscious will of the believer; Catholics say it doesn't. In the Mormon faith they practice intercessionary baptism for the dead, which isn't far removed from infant baptism. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 15:19, 7 October 2019 (EDT)

The resemblance is only superficial. See the article fallacy of analogy. The differences between Catholic and Mormon theology are profound, not to mention the fact that Catholicism is monotheistic and the Mormon faith posits a multiplicity of separately distinct god-beings comparable to the doctrine of Cosmic Humanism. --Dataclarifier (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2019 (EDT)

Not that far off; the idea of a ceremonial cleansing ritual necessary for salvation for a subject who hasn't given consent is ridiculous. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 16:23, 7 October 2019 (EDT)

Also, it might be worth noting that several manuscripts and numerous versions of the modern Bible include verse 37 in Acts 8:35-39. The NIV just leaves out this verse:

“

See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” [37] 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.” [38] So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.

”

This verse makes it clear that the belief is required prior to baptism. --DavidB4 ^(TALK) 16:42, 7 October 2019 (EDT)

The issue is salvation. And what is required for salvation. The answer is metanoia - repentance - a change of heart and change of mind. A change of heart and mind in your attitude toward God, sin, and what God says about sin. Ritual cleansing cannot satisfy God.

Here's the Express drive-thru scriptural interpretation:

• Satan defied God and when he said "I will exalt myself..."
• Jesus provided the way for salvation when he said "Father, let this cup pass, nevertheless Thy will, not my will..."
• In the proverb of the Prodigal son, which is a metaphor for all unsaved humanity, the prodigal son said, "I will return to house of my father...." (i.e. metanoia or repentance, a change of heart and mind toward his father) without any ritual cleansing on his part. When he arrived, he was clothed by his father. Only the blood of Jesus saves;.

And I should have included this part up front: remainder of Romans 10:9-10, "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. In all three examples above the "I will" part came out of the mouth. Salvation is not dependent upon any action (or "work") by us. "It is finished", as Jesus said. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 17:20, 7 October 2019 (EDT)

In the body of the article I covered both sides of that point as follows:

This doctrine of "regenerative baptism" which causes an ontological change that actually cleanses and washes away sins, by effecting in the soul a new supernatural life directly infused by the "washing of water with the word", is found by apologists for infant baptism in the following scriptural texts:

Ezekiel 11:19-20; 36:25-29a; Jeremiah 24:7; 31:31-33; Titus 3:5-6; 2 Peter 1:9; 1 Peter 3:21; Ephesians 5:25b-27; and Colossians 2:9-14.

They point to these texts as teaching that according to the Bible baptism saves us now by regeneration of the soul unto new life, as a "new creature", and that Jesus sanctifies and cleanses his church with the washing of water with the word as a sign of the cleansing of the soul by his blood, to present the whole church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. They point to the fact that Paul teaches by a typological analogy that baptism replaces circumcision, which is done when a child is only eight days old, which made that baby a genuine member of the people of God, to be raised and taught the way of the Lord in truth, by the priests of the faith.

This doctrine of baptismal regeneration, which includes infant baptism, is repudiated as being totally against the teaching of the Bible. Abraham, our father in faith, was converted, regenerated, forgiven and had righteousness reckoned (imputed) to him by faith (an unborn or newborn child cannot exercise faith), being circumcised in the heart by faith, apart from physical circumcision, baptism, or any other statute, or ordinance. Those who reject infant baptism as regenerative or salvific in any manner accept that the outward symbol of washing of water with the word is an ordinance to be faithfully obeyed, not a sacrament, an outward testimony to faith in the salvation of God through believing in the promises of Jesus Christ alone. They obey His ordained ordinances, including baptism, because by faith in Him they are regenerated, not in order to be regenerated; and as a result of having a new heart, not that they might receive a new heart.

No one can say that I didn't present both sides. The scriptures listed here are the best response I can give to the objections raised here regarding the need for conscious repentance, and the fact that infants unborn and born are incapable of it before they are able to walk. You have clearly articulated the position for credobaptism, reiterating the arguments for it which I was very careful to represent without distortion as more extensively explained in the article. Having been an ardent Conservative Baptist and anti-Catholic in my youth, I know the arguments for it from the inside. See the related article giving both views in Salvation: declarational salvation and ontological salvation. Both cannot be true at the same time. Only one is probably right. Either that, or both are wrong. Meanwhile, look at Revelation 22:11 and Matthew 15:14. It remains a matter of faith and discernment and being "honest to God". In accordance with your own tradition of preaching, be very certain that your position is correct before you die. I cannot fault your obviously genuine sincerity and your passion for scriptural proof in defense of your position. This response above, and the whole of the article itself, is all I have to say to your position that baptism is not required for salvation. As a Bible believer, I cannot ignore the whole of the scriptural context of the Bible. I wish you well. pax vobis. --Dataclarifier (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2019 (EDT)

Thank you. I wasn't intending to get into an argument over the merits of one side or the other. Th Protestant version is quite straight forward - Romans 10:9-10, and Ephesian 2:8 By grace are ye saved...not of works, attributing baptism as a "work" on the believers part, nullifying the work on the cross. In Protestantism, physical baptism is symbolic, and not necessary for salvation. Even in John the Baptist's day, it was symbolic; it wasn't lepers "going out in the wilderness to see," as Jesus said, it was lost sinners to hear the word of God, and be "immersed" or "baptized" in the word. John the Baptist performed a ritual, which was only symbolic, while delivering the word. This is the Protestant teaching in a few words. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 15:15, 10 October 2019 (EDT)

Even in Catholicism, infant baptism is symbolic, because babies are not immersed, only sprinkled. The word baptism means immersed. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 15:21, 10 October 2019 (EDT)

The regular Catholic rite of baptism is by infusion (pouring), or by immersion (being immersed) or submersion (standing in water, with water poured over the head), not by aspersion. You have been misinformed by sources that cannot be trusted, since it is evident that what they told you about Catholic baptism is not true.
Look at Hebrews 10:22 "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts [already] sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." And John 3:5 "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." And 1 Peter 1:2 "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied."
According to Catholic doctrine the sacrament of water baptism is an actual application of the blood of Christ directly to the soul through the washing (λουτρόν loutron, not solely immersion βαπτίζω baptizo) of water with the word (both word and water are required). As Moses sprinkled (ραντίσμος rhantismos) the book and all the people with blood, purifying them, "purging them", so also the sprinkling (of the blood of Christ) in baptism purges away sin (Hebrews 9:18-23). "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus [Baptism], By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the vail, that is to say, his flesh [Eucharist]; And having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts [already] sprinkled (ραντίσμος rhantismos) from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed (λουτρόν loutron) with pure water." The evil conscience is the stain of original sin in the sight of God which makes us aware that we already from the moment of conception fall short of the glory of God, and the additional defilement of an evil conscience by any personal sins committed after birth. Thus infants and babies are cleansed of an evil conscience because of original sin. If they didn't have sin, they could not die (Romans 5:12), but many babies and newborns do die. Baptism saves 1 Peter 3:21 by washing away sins Acts 22:16. Catholic tradition since the time of the catacombs and the imprisonment of converts not yet baptized (the Romans even condemned babies of converts) taught then and teaches now the act of baptism into the blood of Christ unto salvation was held to have been accomplished in emergency with the least droplet of "water with the word" in accordance with the command in Matthew 28:19 to [first] baptize making them disciples, to be followed in Matthew 28:20 by [second] the teaching of the faith of belief, "all that I have commanded you". In the article I listed those several verses which are cited to support regenerative baptism.

The necessity of baptism for salvation is seen by the majority of Christians as divinely revealed by God in the following Bible texts:
John 3:3-5; Matthew 28:18-19; Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38-39; Ephesians 5:25-27; 1 Peter 3:21.

"You are badly misled" Mark 12:27. (James 5:20) —Peace be with you. --Dataclarifier (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2019 (EDT)

John 4:10, "I will give you living waters" [1], spoken by the same guy who said, "unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit (he said nothing of immersion in either context).

I was baptized Catholic I think at about 10 days old. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 19:13, 10 October 2019 (EDT)

Take a look at the new section presenting a comparative analysis of Faith and Works relating to infant baptism Infant baptism#Faith and works. If this is not balanced, or unfair, please let me know. I hope this helps. --Dataclarifier (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2019 (EDT)

Thanks. And the link to Eternal security (salvation) is a big help. It all comes down to the simple Question of What is Salvation?

From there we ask Why did Christ die?, or What is the work of the cross?

When those questions are answered, then comes the question What is necessary for salvation?, which leads to the question surrounding "baptism", and what does it mean "to be baptized."

IOWs, we sort of started in a reverse order here. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 14:19, 12 October 2019 (EDT)

Article completed, request that it be locked

I have finally completed the whole article, after carefully reviewing and representing all of the relevant controversial views and sources historical and contemporary both pro and con. Due to the intense controvery and polemic attending this topic that I found still evident online during my researches, I humbly ask that the article be locked to prevent both vandalism and any re-editing by subtle deletions and additions intended to slant it more toward or away from any one particular doctrinal view. "Just the facts, Ma'am." (Det. Sgt. Joe Friday–Dragnet TV series).
Peace be with you. Semper Fi ! --Dataclarifier (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2019 (EDT)

Given that I have a lot to do off wiki, I added a small amount of information, yet the information I did add made very important points.

After all is said and done, I think you knew the article had its shortcomings in terms of not adequately representing views other than your own. And that is why you wanted the article locked. But Conservapedia has a number of conservative Protestant editors, so you cannot expect Conservapedia articles not to adequately cover the Protestant view. If you do this, you will just cause unnecessary edit warring, etc. Wikignome72 (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2019 (EST)

I relied on what I found online at Wikipedia "Infant baptism" and with search "Denominations that practice infant baptism". Both searches provided the statements made in the body of the article re denominations that do not practice infant baptism, for example the "Oneness" groups. I repeated the same information further down, that the credobaptist position condemns to hell the whole specific list of denominations that practice infant baptism. I appreciate what you added and have absolutely no objection to it. However, you seriously misjudged my motive for requesting a lock according to reasons I explained to Andy Schlafly on his talk page regarding the hot-button topic of infant baptism as treated online. He apparently agreed with my reason. The behavior of RobSmith, below, is a perfect example of intrusively prejudicial one-sided editing imbalance that should be kept from a balanced article on such a sensitive doctrinal issue. I wish you well. Thank you, again. --Dataclarifier (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2019 (EST)

Debate: Infant baptism

The rest of the debate has been moved to Debate: Infant baptism.

All additional comments directly pertaining to the structure of the main article here and to the sources of information cited in it are welcome here.

All other general comments on the topic of infant baptism not directly pertaining to the structure of this article and to the sources of information cited in it should be directed to Debate: Infant baptism.