Baptism

Should baptism be done by immersion or by sprinkling? What about infant baptism?

Discuss!

Our church (HRBC) believes in believer's baptism. However, I have begun to sort of sympathize with Presbyterians who believe in infant baptism, because I understand their reasoning.

They believe that just as circumcision was a sign of the Old Covenant for the Jews, baptism is a sign of the New Covenant for spiritual Jews/the Church. Thus, just as babies were circumcised in the OT, babies should be baptized now in the NT.

I know what you are saying, Christian, but baptism IS just like circumcision.
What did you have to do to become a physical Israelite? First you have to be born, obviously, but to become an Israelite, you had to get circumcised, kind of like a new birth. What do you have to do become a spiritual Israelite? Well, you have to be born, again, just as obviously. but then you have to get baptized (because baptism is the outward sign of having been spiritually circumcised, the new birth). Presbyterians have kept baptism just as physical as circumcision, but true Israel is spiritual, though the sign of joining is physical.
Hope that made sense.

Yeah, no, that makes sense, and I agree. I think we've even had that discussion before. I didn't mean that I believe in infant baptism; I was just presenting the other view the way I think its proponents would present it just in case others had misconceptions about it.

I know.
What I meant is that baptism in both views is the anti-type of circumcision. We kinda believe the same thing they do, we just make baptism the sign of spiritually belonging to the church, they make baptism the sign of physical belonging to the church.

Oh…now I see what you were trying to say. Thanks for clarifying. :)

Okay, I understand why some people believe in infant baptism, but I've never really heard a definite reason as to why not to. Can someone please explain? :)

This conversation is missing some fire and gasoline so here goes:

Biblical Baptism is:

1. Not necessary for salvation in anyway, and does not affect ones standing in God's eyes in any way.

2. An outward sign.

3. Full immersion in water of a Believer as an outward sign of of what has already happened inside of the believer's heart.

Baptists don't believe in infant baptism because we believe that baptism as defined in scripture is FULL immersion AFTER a person professes faith and believe in Christ.
There is a verse that says "Believe and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Christ." Infants can't believe, so they shouldn't be baptized.

I agree with what Octavius said. I also think infant baptism is wrong because the Bible neither commands it nor gives any example of it.

Well said, Octavius! I was thinking of that verse and a few others when I wrote my post, but didn't have time to look them up.

Good point on infant baptism.

Yeah. If God had wanted us to baptize our infants, He would have told us. But He told us to baptize those who believe (and those can't be infants).

Very interesting… this is something that will take a lot of consideration, study and thought before I can make a decision… Thank you so much for replying. No one has ever explained (EDIT) -to me before- why they don't believe in infant baptism, and, until a few weeks ago, no one ever explained why they did believe in infant baptism.

Emily Hamilton–Actually, we have given a very good reason for not believing in infant baptism–the Bible does not command it or give any example of it. Also, it says to only baptize believers, and this cannot include infants. These have already been stated, and they give ample reason to not practice infant baptism.

However, how do those who believe in infant baptism justify their belief? Well, we'll let them answer that…

OK, so there's been some discussion about infant baptism, but anything about sprinkling vs immersion? I'm curious to see everyone's views on this point…

John the Baptist was at the river Jordan. He could have just gone to a fountain in the middle of Jerusalem if he wanted to sprinkle.

Also, consider this text from Mark 1: "In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”
It's kinda hard to "come up out of" a little bit of water sprinkled on your head, don'tcha think?

And baptism symbolizes death (going under), burial (being under), and resurrection (coming up from under) – Romans 6:4

I don't think I know of anyone who's been buried by having dirt sprinkled on his/her head.

Just sayin'.

Great point, WM!
Whenever baptism is brought up in the epistles as far as in reference to doctrine (not in cases of people being baptized, like in Acts and stuff), it's in reference to burial and resurrection, or cleansing. You aren't buried by a little dirt sprinkled on your head, like WM said, and you aren't cleansed by a few drops of water.

Besides all the points that have already been made, I'm pretty sure I've heard that the very Greek word used, which is translated as "baptized" or "baptism" means "to immerse with water." I don't see where the baby-sprinklers get the grounds for any other method.

They probably tried immersing the babies at first, but, well, you know, it had some immediate problems.

Thus, sprinkling was born.

(Maybe I should introduce this over at Wikipedia!? You can post anything there, and people will believe it.)

I'm sorry, I meant no one BEFORE had explained it. Yes, you all have given some very good reasons as to why not to… I'll have to ask some one who believes in infant baptism if he has answers to all your excellent points. Thank you all so much.

Here is a link that gives some supporting views for infant baptism -
http://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=276

Does anyone agree or disagree with that article?

I understand it, and can see where people who subscribe to it are coming from; but I still disagree with the practice. It leads too many children, as they grow up, to think they have some kind of "special covering" before God, or, worse, think they are in Christ.

It's not a Biblically supported practice, though it has excellent intentions behind it; and I think it can foster eternally dangerous results.

Do I condemn anyone for practicing it? Definitely not. But I admonish them to be careful in how they explain it to their children. I, personally, would rather not even go there and cause any confusion.

What do you all think? Could you give me verses that support your view?

It doesn't really make that much of a difference how old you are or how it's done. You get baptized, you're God's child, and pow! there you have it! It's like adoption. You can adopt a baby or you can adopt a teenager. Is one more "adopted" than the other? And does it make a difference if you sign the adoption papers with a blue pen or a black pen? And if you adopt a baby, what if the baby had a different opinion? You know it's best for him to be adopted and have a family.
Once you're a Christian, you're a Christian, and you're the only one who can ever change that. If you want to get baptized as an adult/teenager/preteen even though you were baptized also as a baby, go on ahead. If you were baptized as a baby and know you were and haven't changed your mind, then hallelujah! If someone is expecting a baby, what if the baby doesn't want to be born? A lot he can do about it! He can choose not to be alive later on in his life, but he can't choose not to be born. And it doesn't matter if he was born in a hospital or in his mom's bedroom, he's still been born.
I'm sorry this isn't very coherent; I have problems with keeping my thoughts in order and I've been typing things as I think of them.

Baptism is the outward sign of what has happened inside of a person. When someone is saved, they then want to tell others that they have been reborn, and do so by baptism.

So you're saying that it doesn't matter how or when you get baptized. And you're also saying that once you become a Christian you will always be a Christian even if you decide afterwards that you don't want to be a Christian?

Question 1: yes.
Question 2: no way! I did word it kind of confusing, and I'm sorry about that. But you can't change that you were, at one point, a Christian, even if you became an unbeliever afterwards. And it doesn't change the fact that you were a child of God, and that you can return and repent and be saved again, like the prodigal son.

Do you believe that people can lose their salvation?

If you mean that if someone was a Christian at one point but isn't any more, will they go to heaven, I'd say yes, you can lose your salvation, and no, that person will not go to heaven unles hee repents and again becomes a Christian.

Okay, thanks for clarifying. Just so you know, I don't agree with you there.

That's fine. If everyone agreed about everything, there wouldn't be any Theology Discussions threads on the forums.

"Baptism is an outward sign of an inward decision. How can you give an "outward sign" of something you haven't done? As for sprinkling/immersion, Romans 6:4 says, We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

I know some arguments for baptizing infants, some of them i heard from friends who believe in baptizing infants, others i found on the website of the German Protestant Church (Evangelische Landeskirche). I start by summarizing and translating the church reasoning:
There are many different reasons why parents decide to not baptize their children (like not going to church anymore, being unsure what faith means to themself, not wanting to decide for the child) And there are many different reasons to baptize the child (i personnaly believe the strongest arguments are grandparents and bc it´s a nice tradition and family gathering in Germany)

Typical for NT baptism was baptizing adults (believers) Acts 8:26-40 but there have been already whole households who were baptized together Acts 16, Acts 15:33. The family bonds were strong and when the family leader decided that the new faith was good, they wanted all in the house to join in being saved.

the child becomes a member of the christian family. it´s the wish of the parent, that their child will grow into their own faith. But of course all grown ups have to help the child and teach what faith means.

In the bible is no law about baptizing only adults there is only the order to mission and to baptize all nations (i thought at that point, silly that they use the same passage to state another point of view)

They write: "we believe that baptism is a sign, that somebody has received Jesus victory over death. Therefore baptism is unique, like death and resurection of Christ"

well the website seams to be for parents who are uncertain, if they want to baptize, because they don´t have a tight bonding to church and faith themselves. Not to give advice in the above question.

As far as i understood friends of mine, has infant baptism a sloighty different meaning: They baptize as a sign, that god loves the child (like the voice at Jesus baptism) and wants the child to believe in him (which is true to everybody, so you can baptize any child) and the child him/herself has to answer to this invitation when it is older. There is often a year of church education, when you are around 14 years, and after that you can confess your faith in a ceremony. So basicly the meaning of baptizing is different and the believers baptizing meaning of baptism is celebrated in an additional sign, but that is also found in Jewish faith "Bar/Bat Mizwa" for young grown ups. As a celebration that they are responsible before God in an adult way from that day on.

I think that baptizing newborns was a long time in history a big help for parents:

• and to deal with this big change in life to become a parent and start with all that big responsibility
• to entrust the children to the care of the Lord
• to deal with the early death of their children (which happend way more often), because they believed only baptized children where saved
  ( I know that that´s not what baptizing is for, but i think that ceremonies help us to deal with difficult changes in life and i like it when churches offer a blessing of the child instead of baptizing. Because that actually has the same meaning an infant baptism (see above) and it´s what child and his/her parents really need.)

i´ve not decided yet if my own infant-baptism counts for me or not. But i´m sure i wouldn´t let my babies be baptized, so that they don´t have such confussion about rebaptism…

Did you know that the baptist church had to migrate to Amerika because it was a law of the church here in old Europe (or maybe just Germany), that every child has to be baptized?

Sorry if this is not a very smooth entry. It was difficult for me to get all this written down in English.

When should a person be baptized? How young should a child be baptized? Is there ever a case where a person should be baptized again? Can any Christian baptize, or just ordained ministers/pastors?

Discuss!

(I know there's probably already been a discussion of a couple of these things on this topic, but maybe having reflected on it for nine months, people might have different perspectives. :)

May I ask what you believe on that point? EDIT: I meant this to go to Cari, sorry. :(

May I ask what you believe on that point? EDIT: I meant this to go to Cari, sorry. :(

Can you quote what you are asking me about…that way I know :-)

I'm sorry that I wasn't clear! :'(

Abi said "If you mean that if someone was a Christian at one point but isn't any more, will they go to heaven, I'd say yes, you can lose your salvation, and no, that person will not go to heaven unles hee repents and again becomes a Christian."

You said that you didn't agree with her, I would like to know what you don't agree on! I hope that was better!

Ah, okay. Thanks :-) I'll respond soon…it's just a little hard to do so on a phone :-)

She (Abi) believes that someone can lose their salvation. And I do not agree with her on that point. If you'd like to discuss it with me we could talk over on "Can You Lose Your Salvation" :)

How about this type of situation? A person gets baptized very young, without making a really serious commitment to truth. He/she walks in the path of life for a little while, but soon walks off on a rabbit trail and totally gets lost spiritually. For the next 5-6 years he/she lives not at all according to the Spirit. Then he/she has a spiritual renewal, confesses all past sins, and strives to run the race well. Should they be baptized again? Why or why not?

I don't know that person's heart. But I would say that it is quite possible that he/she were never saved in the first place. In that case I would say that they need to be re-baptized.

If they were saved in the first place…?

Even if they were saved when they were baptized the first time, I would think that it would be good to be baptized again, kind of like a renewal of the vows.

I would say that it is not necessary for them to be baptized again.

Okay. Well, I'll tell you - I am that person, only my situation was a little different. I got baptized when I was 9, and now in my opinion, that was a little too young. I didn't understand the commitment it took, and I'm sure the partial reason was to gain favor in the sight of others. (There's that pesky pride again. :P) For a few years I was just sinning when I felt like it, and then half repenting, (I don't know, maybe unconsciously trying to win my way into heaven by making my good works outweigh my bad ones - flawed intuition, I suppose :P) before finally making that serious commitment to walk in the paths of life about a year ago. This is my experience in a nutshell.

@Dani: that could work, I suppose, but I renew my vows to Christ almost every day. :P :) Besides, the way I reason to myself, baptism is the outward sign of becoming a child of God. Even if you fall away from God's ways for a while, you are still a child of God (I think, I haven't quite figured that one out yet). A renewed commitment is between you and God - you don't have to make an outward sign of it to the world. Make any sense?

When I first got on Memverse I enjoyed reading through the discussions and writing my thoughts for myself. Since the TD have been really quiet for such a long time I thought maybe we could try re-hashing some of them together. I'm not completely sure I agree with my old views anymore… but anyway, we can dig in and start over. I know there are a lot of new people on the Forums now so maybe we can get some new input! :)

Sarah B.
(Written: May 14, 2012)
Should baptism be done by immersion or by sprinkling?
What about infant baptism?

The Greek word 'baptizo' means to make fully wet, dip, or submerge. I believe that immersion baptism is a biblical sign of a believer’s faith in Jesus Christ. And can be a symbol of many things such as our sins having died with Christ and we are born again (Romans 6:4, Colossians 2:12-14). The water can also symbolize the washing away of sins. But these are just symbols; Jesus blood is the only thing that washes away sin.

Immersion baptism is Biblical because Matthew 3:16 says, “when He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water…”

I do not think infant baptism is even in question. The Bible says nothing about it. Baptism is not required for salvation. It is a sign of a believer’s faith. A baby has no chose or faith when it is baptized (1 Peter 3:21, Mark 16:16).

I believe that being baptized is a part of obeying and following Christ, (Matthew 28:19, Matthew 3:15, John 3:5) and it is a sign to all watching of a life dedicated to following Christ.

As far as infant baptism goes, it really needs to be made clear whether baptism is a sign of faith or whether it is a sign of entering the covenant community (which is what circumcision was). Granted, we never directly see infants being baptized in the NT (though there are debatable cases concerning "entire households"), but at the same time the early church does seem to have baptized babies. In the NT believers are baptized upon making profession of faith - at which time they would also be entering the 'covenant community', meaning the catholic (universal) body of professing believers. Likewise, circumcision in the OT represented the baby's entering the covenant community of God's chosen people (Israel). However, it is likewise true that that we nowhere see infant baptism being clearly practiced in the NT.