Infant Baptism

Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page

Infant Baptism

Hi brother Rick,
     I came home early from work today, and I thought I would type out a message to you. I feel close to you in many ways and it seems I can express things openly to you and have always enjoyed discussing the Bible with you. Just because we do not agree totally on everything (and we do not) doesn't mean we cannot share our thoughts on the things of God. Indeed we should. A lot has been on my mind lately and I want to kind of "clear the air" so to speak. As you know, our group is in the process of coming up with a "Statement of Faith and Beliefs". We talked about this before (boy, did we ever!) and I want to say, a lot has happened in the past year. I remember the times Mike and I would talk over the phone on a nightly basis, and I enjoyed every minute. And we would share our thoughts totally, and at times there would be a three way with you. Sure, emotions would run high at times (including mine) but things were verbally expressed and out in the open. I just want to say, Rick, those were kind of hectic times because none of us were settled spiritually, but I enjoyed those times very much. I sense that things have changed somewhat lately. Mike no longer has time for me anymore (due to paltalk, so he claims), but I no longer sense a closeness from him as before.

I want to talk about him for a moment, and it is not something bad or of the gossip nature, if you know what I mean. I have nothing to hide, and you can feel free to print this message and give it to him. As a matter of fact, I will probably email or print it out for him too. I love Mike and hold nothing against him, and I am sure he will not be offended from reading this letter. Knowing him, he will come to me in no uncertain terms if he has "ought against me". I know you are close to him and I am sure you are aware that he has a problem with accepting some of our beliefs; namely "infant baptism". All the people that attend our group have no problem with it, other than maybe one man besides Mike, and he has stated he will accept it if everyone wants it in our Statement. Mike has also stated something to that effect. Many years ago I personally came to accept infant baptism by the teaching of Dan Gayman. I remember very clearly Dan explaining that he no longer could accept modern day theology, and therefore went to the Church fathers on doctrinal issues. Dan believed and accepted several doctrines including infant baptism.

Mike at one time also accepted it, simply because he had his son Mikey baptized last spring, but now he seems to question if it was even necessary. Allen and I had the honors of baptizing Mikey, and before God we used the name of Jesus Christ, therefore I for one certainly would like to believe it was not done in vain. I guess I am asking as to why Dan Gaymond was very convicted to baptize babies by the writings of the Church fathers, and why therefore did Mike get a complete different picture (I assume you did too)from also reading the Church fathers? Maybe you can help me out as to why this obvious difference of opinion. Some time ago, I mentioned something to Mike about Dan Gayman getting infant baptism out of the Church fathers, but I don't recall at the moment what his answer was.

Having said all that, I can say with conviction that the case for infant baptism is not dependent on the writings of the Church fathers. And I believe you and Mike, deep down, can also go along with that statement. So therefore, Rick, I want to take the time to explain from a biblical perspective why I personally choose to believe in infant baptism. I of course explain my understanding on this subject in detail in my booklet, "Abraham's Covenant and Baptism", and to this day no one has ever come to me with questions or explained from the Bible where I was wrong. I certainly would like to know if I am misleading people on this subject. Regardless of what you think of me or what I write in the booklet, it behooves us and it is our Godly duty to at least respect the Bible and believe what it says (or doesn't say), and not what I say or anyone. My brother Jerry has baptized babies and children for many years, and he has always taken the position that if it is the parents decision; he will honor it. That is exactly what he should do. Jerry has many times in his sermons made a biblical case for infant baptism, and he is very good at explaining it. Yet for some reason people have difficulty with it, and I understand why it is hard for people to accept it. I also did not believe in it for the most part of my spiritual life. I haven't talked to Jerry about this for a long time, therefore I do not know where he stands as of today.

The Bible teaches without question that death passed on all of Adam, simply because all of Adam are born in sin. I do not have to pull all the scriptures proving that point because you already are aware of them. I will only say that king David understood clearly that sin even starts at conception by saying, "in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psalm 51:5). Rick, I want to now ask you some questions. Are little babies and children the property and heritage of God (Psalm 127:3)? Are earthly parents therefore responsible to care for, provide, teach, and bring up in the ways of God what does not rightfully belong to them in the first place? Does God in his holiness and infinite wisdom want to look at the sinful condition of His children at birth? Did God in His holiness and infinite wisdom provide a way so that He could legally and lawfully cancel that sin that His children are born with at birth (even before birth); and actually forget the Adamic sin that His children have genetically inherited? Is this all possible with God? Did Jesus Christ say it is possible for little children to come unto Christ? He not only said that, but he said no one is to forbid them from doing so; and He also stated it is possible for little children to inherit the kingdom of God (Matthew 19:13-14). Are grown adults also called "little children" (John 13:33, Galatians 4:19, 1 John 2:1, and several others scriptures)? Is the example of the symbolic work called "baptism" actually able to wash away sins (from God's point of view) that were brought about by the original Adamic sin (Acts 22:16)?

Now, Rick, you will of course say, sure baptism can wash away sins, but only for adults. Says who? The Bible certainly does not forbid babies to be baptized, now does it? The early New Testament believers understood baptism, and that it could apply to whole households. You know the examples where this actually occurred. However as you know, the vast majority of times that baptism was called for was with adult repentant believers. And baptism therefore was explained the majority of times from the standpoint of adults (not children). This of course would explain why repentance, and the correct faith and belief was necessary. However the Holy Spirit inspired the biblical record of three examples of households being baptized, and I believe for a very important reason. I do not take those three examples lightly. Oh, you say, in these three cases it does not say infants were baptized. And I say, neither does it say infants were excluded. I am so amazed as to why there has to be confusion as to the correct meaning of the word "household". We have no problem at all by understanding what "household" means by reading other books and information, but when the Bible talks about households being baptized then it has to mean something different than simply a whole family.

Are babies and children included (or excluded) in the "whole family that is named" in Ephesians 3:15, or the "household of God" in Ephesians 2:19? And we wonder why God commanded little babies at eight days old (and older) to be circumcised in order to claim the eternal inheritance. We serve an "unchangeable" God, and Rick, I do not have to show the scriptures that explains the circumcision that is "made without hands", and that it is a "burial" with Christ through the act of baptism. Last Sunday at Church, Mike's implication was that only adults can "put on Christ" (Galatians 3:27), which therefore would exclude babies. I say babies can "put on Christ". However only from Jesus Christ's point of view, and only if we understand what is meant by the phrase "put on Christ". Keep in mind, Christ did say that little children can "come unto him", and from this statement it can biblically also mean to "put on Christ". I ask, what is the difference? But of course, responsible parents must make that happen for their children in the same manner and principle as they did under the covenant of circumcision.

Another problem people have is by asking, what is the "age of accountability"? Because in their minds this is the correct premise for baptism. That is the wrong question (and premise). From that premise and standpoint I have to ask, what is the age for child discipline? After all, why even spank a child if the child is not "accountable" for their actions? I am sure you have spanked your children when they "sinned", maybe even at a very young age; as you should have. Do you get my point? You never felt the need to determine the "age of accountability" for your children before you punished them? You started their training and upbringing at birth. Keep in mind, they were rebellious and were "in sin" at birth. It was told me, if I understood correctly, you mentioned to Mike that the early Churches that practiced infant baptism were also guilty of killing Christians. I say the Catholic Church was and still is the biggest cult in the world, and it was generally this Church that was responsible for killing Christians. It might be recorded and accepted as "infant baptism", but certainly not from God's viewpoint. Let me explain. The "sprinkling" method of baptism was practiced on infants (and adults), and came from Catholic origins and dogma. This method did not come from the Bible, and makes a total mockery of how and what the symbolic work of true baptism is all about.

Therefore you and I would have to agree that the Catholic church's version of "infant baptism" came from the Devil, simply because the Devil influenced them to kill true Christians. The Devil is a master at duplication, and is very good at "copying" the things of God. Baptism is a beautiful symbol of a "burial" with Christ that shows His death, and a pure "washing" of the Adamic sin. This is something a "sprinkling" could not do in the sight of God. Only by faith in a complete immersion under water in the name of Jesus Christ can this "work" be done. "Sprinkling" is a false pretence at a "washing", and straight from the clever mind of Satan with the profound and deliberate intention of turning a precious symbol of God into a mockery. Look at "sprinkling" from the Devil's viewpoint, if you get my drift. Much of the Christian world has fallen for that deception and think nothing of it. I need not remind you, Rick, never underestimate the deceptive power of the Devil. I also was "sprinkled" in the Amish faith, but I did not hesitate to get properly "washed" when I learned the truth.

What I have shared with you in this message is how I personally believe. I can understand why you and Mike are in the Church fathers in a big way, and I believe these writings are very informative on certain doctrines. But I have cautioned Mike many times that they are not scripture. I told Mike that I have seen over the years the fruits of people that are convicted to "improve" over what is clearly stated by the Bible. This reasoning has come by thinking that some the Church fathers were taught by the apostles, therefore why not trust in these writings. So what if some were taught by the apostles? What if some were not taught by the apostles? Which is the case many times, and therefore obvious contradictions would come up. That fact remains, the writings of the Church fathers are in no way designed to "improve" on the pure Word of God. It is dangerous to think otherwise, and that premise has not and cannot produce good fruits. The Bible can be understood just as it written, and we can be convicted by it just as God intended without the writings of the Church fathers. After all, God was able and He has preserved His Word. If we have trouble believing that, then we are indeed in trouble. These early Church writings are very interesting on certain things, but they must not interfere with a Statement and document that explains what a group of believers truly are convicted on. There are many writings that are not the Bible, such as the book of Enoch. I personally believe the book of Enoch, the book of Jasher, and other writings carry a lot more "weight" that the writings of the Church fathers. But we certainly do not build doctrine from it, simply because it is not included in the Bible. It doesn't mean we don't believe other writings, and the same goes for the Church fathers.

All the people in our group that attend regularly are involved in this, and it does not mean the Statement will be exactly biblically correct, neither indeed can be; simply because it is done by fallen flesh. Therefore the Statement is not and cannot be something "salvational". It is not binding on anyone, and therefore does not have to be agreed upon for people to attend services and fellowship. It is only done to serve and be useful for us to have unity as members of a Church. Rick, I am about at a loss what to write about next. I have written enough to express my concerns and thoughts openly with you. I suppose you are wondering why or what is the purpose for this lengthy message; or why I chose you to "pick on", or to "unload" on. Rick, all I can say is, I have been moved to write this message, but I am not sure for what purpose or what it will accomplish. I just felt like doing it, plain and simple. For what its worth to you, I at least shared with you what I believe. All I know is I am called and committed to help build something, and we as a group want to get it right as we understand God's Word. Anyway, again Rick, for what it's worth. God bless you, my brother in the faith. In Christian love.

http://users.tk7.net/bibletruths
In His Service, Mahlon

---- Original Message -----
From: ccoe
To: Mahlon
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 12:15 AM
Subject: Baptism

Mahlon,
     I would like to address several points you made in your letter and will also attempt to explain what I believe about baptism and why I believe this way. The issue, of course, is infant baptism, should we baptize our babies and children. Like I told you the other day I have never felt right about doing it, even before I completely studied this subject. And now that I have a better understanding I would never do it. "I remember very clearly Dan explaining that he no longer could accept modern day theology, and therefore went to the Church fathers on doctrinal issues. Dan believed and accepted several doctrines including infant baptism". Do you not see an error in this way of thinking? If Dan had a problem with modern theology why would he go to the "church fathers" instead of the scriptures? As I recall you have said before we should never use these writings to form our doctrines. If that is right why would we allow Dan to get away with that? Why would we except Dan's interpretation of the early writings without lining them up with scripture? If we do a study of this issue in the early fathers we will in fact learn that they did not all agree on this issue. Some said we should, others said we should not, baptize babies. I myself can find no writings supporting it before the end of the second century. And at that time there was difference of opinion in the leadership. I believe this was the time when this practice was being introduced into the church and there was some opposition to something "new". One man said "He came to save all persons by means of himself -- all, I say, through Him are born again to God -- infants, children, boys, youth, and old men". Another man, at the same time said "Let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ." So the point here is why did Dan choose the writings of those who supported infant baptism rather than those who did not? "I guess I am asking as to why Dan Gaymond was very convicted to baptize babies by the writings of the Church fathers, and why therefore did Mike get a complete different picture (I assume you did too) from also reading the Church fathers ?" Good question. I would also like to know the answer to that one. Why was Dan so convicted?

As for why Mike changed his mind I can only venture a guess and it is this. Mike was simply going along with the crowd at the time and had never given it much study or thought. I believe when he really got into a study of the subject he came to see it differently. Perhaps he could give a better answer but that is how I see it. However I will say for myself I did not get a complete different picture from the writings.  What I found in the writings simply CONFIRMED what I had believed prior to reading them. I found it very interesting the issue of baptizing babies is never spoken of until late in the second century, and when it came about it seemed to cause some controversy. Apparently not everyone excepted it without opposition. Why would that be so? If it had been in practice since the time of the Apostles why would there be any opposition to it around 200 AD? I truly believe this is the time in history that infant baptism began to be practiced and within a generation or two it was commonly excepted by all in, what was to become, the false church. However like I told Rex the other day I have never seen any evidence that the true church of God ever practiced infant baptism. In fact it soon became a point of contention between the catholics and the true church. The catholics soon began to force infant baptism onto the "anabaptists", those who believed in a "believers baptism". Those who would not except this were hunted down like animals and killed in every imaginable way down through the centuries. "Having said all that, I can say with conviction that the case for infant baptism is not dependent on the writings of the Church fathers. And I believe you and Mike, deep down, can also go along with that statement."

Of course, why would we base any doctrine on church fathers? All our beliefs must be supported by scripture. However we must use all scripture not just the parts that say what we like. "Jerry has many times in his sermons made a biblical case for infant baptism, and he is very good at explaining it. Yet for some reason people have difficulty with it, and I understand why it is hard for people to accept it." I have a problem excepting it because it is not scriptural. Nowhere are we commanded to baptize our babies. The bible tells us what baptism is and what it is for. To baptize someone who is not able or willing to understand and except the implications of that baptism, is simply to make a mockery of the ordinance. God did not lightly command us to be baptized and as one of the church fathers said, "If anyone understands the weighty importance of baptism, he will fear its inception more than its delay." Nothing could be more true in regards to baptism. It is not something to take lightly and casually. "Rick, I want to now ask you some questions. Are little babies and children the property and heritage of God (Psalm 127:3)?" Yes they are. "Are earthly parents therefore responsible to care for, provide, teach, and bring up in the ways of God what does not rightfully belong to them in the first place?" Yes they are. "Does God in his holiness and infinite wisdom want to look at the sinful condition of His children at birth?" I would think not. "Did God in His holiness and infinite wisdom provide a way so that He could legally and lawfully cancel that sin that His children are born with at birth (even before birth); and actually forget the Adamic sin that His children have genetically inherited?" Of course He did, but why would we believe it is simply a bath at 8 days old? "Is the example of the symbolic work called "baptism" actually able to wash away sins (from God's point of view) that were brought about by the original Adamic sin (Acts 22:16)? Now, Rick, you will of course say, sure baptism can wash away sins, but only for adults. Says who?" NO NO NO I would never say the act has that power for anybody.

Here is where you miss the point. Baptism in itself NEVER HAS THE POWER TO CHANGE ANYONE. The washing in the water does NOT wash away our sins. IF IT IS PROPERLY APPLIED it is simply a symbol that the heart has been washed, or changed. It is an OUTWARD symbol of an INWARD change. Now of course you will want me to prove that statement. That can be done with one simple question we both know the answer to. Will everyone who was ever baptized make it into the kingdom of God? The answer is NO. Therefore we are left to believe that the washing does NOT save us for if it did then ALL who were washed would be saved. The point is that if the change has not taken place in the heart then the washing does not take place either. "The Bible certainly does not forbid babies to be baptized, now does it?" Hmmmm, neither does it command us to do so. Why not? "The early New Testament believers understood baptism, and that it could apply to whole households. You know the examples where this actually occurred. However as you know, the vast majority of times that baptism was called for was with adult repentant believers. And baptism therefore was explained the majority of times from the standpoint of adults (not children). This of course would explain why repentance, and the correct faith and belief was necessary". Now this is simply a contradiction of interpretation. You say the some people must be repentant and have correct faith and belief but others don't need that? Where is the consistency in that theology? And how do we decide which is which? The problem this raises is if a baby is baptized should he be rebaptized when he comes to the faith and belief? Also what if he never comes to that point? Does his baptism save him anyway? I would think not. Am I right? If it doesn't then why do it in the first place? I believe we are misapplying the ordinance of baptism by applying it to those who are not able to "repent and have the correct faith and belief". I believe that baptism DOES NOT wash away Adamic sin if the heart is not changed first. Perhaps you could give me scripture to show otherwise if I am wrong. "However the Holy Spirit inspired the biblical record of three examples of households being baptized, and I believe for a very important reason. I do not take those three examples lightly. Oh, you say, in these three cases it does not say infants were baptized. And I say, neither does it say infants were excluded.  I am so amazed as to why there has to be confusion as to the correct meaning of the word "household".

You are right, it does not say the babies were excluded, nor does it say there were babies baptized. So this leaves me with one simple question. Why would we want to build doctrine on inconclusive scriptures??? Wouldn't this be a case where we must go to other passages to allow scripture to interpret scripture? Why would we interpret this passage in a way that is not consistent, or even in contradiction, with the rest of scripture on the issue of baptism? "And we wonder why God commanded little babies at eight days old (and older) to be circumcised in order to claim the eternal inheritance." Mahlon, do you really believe this is all that was necessary for an Israelite to be "saved"? You are now equating the act of circumcision with the act of baptism and giving both acts the power to save us from hell. Is this not a case of placing our faith in the law instead of the Lawgiver? "We serve an "unchangeable" God, and Rick, I do not have to show the scriptures that explains the circumcision that is "made without hands", and that it is a "burial" with Christ through the act of baptism." Perhaps we should look at this scripture because I do not understand it quite like you are explaining it. Col 2:6-13 6... As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: 7...Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. 8... Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9... For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10... And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 11... In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12... Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13... And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; The context here is receiving Christ. vs. 6 How does this happen? Through Baptism? No, look at Rom 10:9... That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

I believe that baptism is to be a symbol that this has happened. Under the old covenant did circumcision of the flesh save the soul? No it did not, it simply pointed to the need to circumcise, or change, the heart. That has been the point since Adam fell. We must be changed from the inside out. The change MUST come from the heart first. Without that change the circumcision or the baptism is of NO EFFECT. The circumcision of the flesh simply pointed to the fact that the heart MUST be changed. The water baptism is simply supposed to be a sign that the change has taken place. I believe that change MUST take place before the Adamic sin is washed away. Am I wrong there? To be buried with Christ means to kill the old man. To be put under the water just like Christ was put under the ground. The important part though is the rebirth or raising up again as a new creation. We are risen with him through faith. It is our faith in Christ that saves us not our faith in the water. I don't know any other way to say it than that. Are we saved by the water? "Another problem people have is by asking, what is the "age of accountability"? Because in their minds this is the correct premise for baptism." Why is this even an issue? It means nothing to me. The bible tells us the only way to be saved is through faith in Christ. Period. I see no other way. To say that we can save those under the age of accountability, without going through faith in Christ, by baptizing them, is again a contradiction of interpretation. A double standard perhaps? "The Devil is a master at duplication, and is very good at "copying" the things of God. Baptism is a beautiful symbol of a "burial" with Christ that shows His death, and a pure "washing" of the Adamic sin. This is something a "sprinkling" could not do in the sight of God. Only by faith in a complete immersion under water in the name of Jesus Christ can this "work" be done. "Sprinkling" is a false pretence at a "washing, and straight from the clever mind of Satan with the profound and deliberate intention of turning a precious symbol of God into a mockery."
Once again you are displaying a double standard. You say "only by faith..." Where is the faith of a baby? Also why would you say sprinkling is a mockery but baptizing an UNREPENTANT sinner is not? Mahlon we must remain consistent in our interpretation here. Both points came from "the church of Satan", so why do you except one but reject the other? I believe the point is you are looking to the letter of the law here and not the spirit of the law. It is not the washing of the water that saves but rather it is the washing of the Holy Spirit. "I also was "sprinkled" in the Amish faith, but I did not hesitate to get properly "washed" when I learned the truth." Are you saying there will be no one from the Amish who will be in the kingdom?? If you had died before you were immersed would you have been lost? "I can understand why you and Mike are in the Church fathers in a big way, and I believe these writings are very informative on certain doctrines. But I have cautioned Mike many times that they are not scripture. I told Mike that I have seen over the years the fruits of people that are convicted to "improve" over what is clearly stated by the Bible. This reasoning has come by thinking that some the Church fathers were taught by the apostles, therefore why not trust in these writings." Mahlon this is not my reason for studying these writings. I have no desire to improve anything except my own understanding of scripture. If that can be done by reading the early church fathers then I will read. If it can be done by reading early anabaptist history and theology then I will read. I will also read anything else that has the ability to lead me closer to Christ.

Having said that I will also say that anything that I read is judged by the simple light of the word of God. If it does not agree with the scripture it will be discarded as the doctrine of men. Why is that so threatening? Are we to be so arrogant as to believe that we know it all already? I certainly will not say that about myself. My desire is to come ever closer to the truth and a proper understanding of God's Word. Well in summary I will say that I am a believer in "believers baptism" only. I cannot see any other way to salvation. I cannot find in scripture any passages to justify baptizing a non-believer. To do so simply makes a mockery of the ordinance of Holy Baptism. I have not written any of this in judgement of your beliefs but rather in response to your letter and the points that you raised. Perhaps there is something I am missing. If that is so I would hope you could show me what it is. Another point that I have not even talked about is the fact that baptism is looked at as a requirement for membership in the church. I do believe that to be true in a spiritual sense also. We are brought into the true church of God by this act. Therefore why would we bring in those who are not converted and have not made the commitment to follow Christ? I hope you can make sense of this. If you would like to discuss this further please respond or we could get together sometime.

God Bless, Rick

PS... I just finished talking with Jerry. He has changed on this subject. He has just told me he does not believe it is right to baptize babies. Now what could be the cause of such a radical change? Has he also fallen into apostasy? Or could it be that he has opened himself to the working of the Spirit of God?

Hi Rick,
     Thank you for your response. After reading what you had to say I must conclude we simply have to agree to disagree. You are coming from a different premise than I am. That is fine. Your premise is, if I understand you correctly, a changed heart must take place before the act of baptism. My premise is that God wants to and is able to wash away the Adamic sin at birth. This I believe is where we disagree, but in a sense we are both right if we are honest. I did a search on "infant baptism" on the google search engine and I found very good information on this subject. The first ten pages or so confirmed my premise, and I want to send you two sites that are very good. Please read them, and try to understand the premise. Get back with me and let me know what you think. http://www.goarch.org/access/orthodoxy/infant_baptism.Html http://www.christreformed.org/resource/00000060.shtml Of course other pages also confirmed your premise, but the majority of sites confirmed what I have been saying.

I in no way implied that other writings such as the Church fathers should be avoided from reading. I have read many writings over the years and I must say they have helped me understand the Bible. I only said we must not build doctrine from other writings of which you also will agree. I probably should have stated that Dan Gaymond only accepted infant baptism because he firmly believed the Bible supported it. The writings of the church fathers only confirmed it for him. I am sorry if I mislead you. Rick, do you honestly think that I believe the act of baptism is actually able to save someone? You certainly implied it. The act of baptism only has the power to wash away sins, however only from God's point of view and only at the time of baptism. I keep saying from "God's point of view" and I only hope you understand why I keep saying that. Are sins in a real sense (from our point of view) "washed away"? I think you know the answer. I am confused by some of your comments.

Your comment... Here is where you miss the point. Baptism in itself NEVER HAS THE POWER TO CHANGE ANYONE. I never stated baptism has the power to change anyone, especially little children. Why do you assume that? I must say, this is where you miss the point of my premise. All I am saying, I believe God is able and has the power to wash away sins; which is not speaking from our point of view. Your comment... The washing in the water does NOT wash away our sins. Your statement directly contradicts Acts 22:16 because baptism does indeed "wash away" sins, and I keep saying only from God's point of view. Again, I hope you understand why I keep saying that. The work of baptism is the work of God (not us), but it must be done in obedience on our part. I am very confused as to why you would say, "NO NO NO I would never say the act has that power for anybody. Why would you say that, Rick, when it goes directly against Acts 22:16 and that you do not believe this power is meant for infants? Again I say, says who? You cannot have it both ways. Why make a difference? Either God wants to and therefore has the power to wash away the Adamic sin for both adults and children, or he doesn't. However only from His point of view (I keep saying that).

Again, correct me if I am not understanding what you are saying. I can only advise you to please accept and believe Acts 22:16. Your quote... The circumcision of the flesh simply pointed to the fact that the heart MUST be changed. How can eight day old circumcised babies be pointed to a changed heart? Again, please by all means correct me if I misunderstood you. The fact is, Rick, if those babies were not circumcised they were cut off from the people and have broken the covenant. That is what is clearly stated in Genesis 17:14. The blame of course would be on the heads of households. Now Rick, that covenant is the same covenant that the early believers had faith in, and we therefore as believers today are also under that covenant. I know you believe what I have just said. Faith in the Abrahamic covenant is what moved the apostle Peter in his sermon on baptism to proclaim "the promise is to you and to your children" (Acts 2:38-39). What promise was he talking about, and why were children included? The children could not repent as Peter instructed, yet Peter included children in the same context and condition of inheriting the promise. It was even said in the same breath and statement. Children are included, and of course as you know, circumcision made it possible for them to be included in the covenant under Abraham. Peter meant that children were included simply because they were to inherit the covenant.

Do you want to talk about what the Godly laws of inheritance are all about? Maybe we can understand a little bit what circumcision was all about, and why male children were excluded from their inheritance if they were not circumcised. As you know female babies could not be circumcised but they came under the decision of the heads of households, and if that male head of household and his boys were not circumcised that would exclude all (male and female) from the covenant. However after Christ died, the question is, did Peter mean that children were therefore to be baptized to be included? Rick, remember they could not repent with a changed heart, therefore it behooves us to understand what baptism was all about in the New Testament. It is not what you might think. We know that children are in the care of heads of "households', and the adults were called on to repent and believe the gospel, and therefore the "households" automatically came under that calling. This is exactly why whole households were baptized. Incidentally, you never explained what the word "households" mean. We both know what it means, if we are both honest with ourselves.

Let us become "as little children" as Jesus Christ instructed, and not close our eyes to the very plain and simple meaning of that word and how it is used in scripture. Rick, you can not explain it away, nor should you even try. You have to face it squarely because the Holy Spirit got it in there. Could it possibly be that "households" simply means the obvious? By the way, Jerry has taught these things for years, and you say he has now changed (which doesn't surprise me). I would advise you to be very careful of someone that "changes" on such an important subject as baptism. You implied he is now being led by the Holy Spirit. Are you saying he was for many years not being led by the Holy Spirit? Hmmmm... very interesting. You certainly do not want to tell him that. Not only are you implying he was not being led by the Spirit on infant baptism in the past, but you are also implying that I am not being led by the Spirit for believing in infant baptism; in the past as well as now. I for one, will not make that judgment and assertion about you. Rick, I would love to do lunch with you sometime. Just for fellowship, and I realize that I will not change you (nor you me) on infant baptism. So we do not have to talk about it, unless of course you want to. I just plain enjoy you company and consider you as a brother. Please let me know the time and place and I will meet you (if I am not working that is). God bless you.

http://users.tk7.net/bibletruths
In His Service, Mahlon

----- Original Message -----
From: ccoe
To: Mahlon
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 2:52 PM
Subject: Re: Baptism

Mahlon,
     Thx for the reply. Let me clarify my premise. I believe that the baptism cannot have the desired effect, which is washing away the sin, if the heart is not right first. Perhaps I am missing a scripture or two here. Is there any passage that says God will forgive a sinner if he is not in a repentive state? Why would God forgive the sins of someone who has not asked Him to do so? To me that sounds a bit calvinistic. Also I am gonna need help understanding this one. "Rick, do you honestly think that I believe the act of baptism is actually able to save someone? You certainly implied it." Mahlon you say baptism has the power to wash away the sin. If we are washed of our sins why would we not be saved?? Is that not the condition of someone who is in right standing with God? Perhaps where I am lost is understanding the difference between Adamic sin and other sin. Could you join us on paltalk tonight and we could discuss this issue?

Later, Rick

Rick,
     Boy that was quick! Thank you for the reply. If you will check again I only stated that baptism washes away sins at the time of baptism. It is very possible for believes to fall away from their conversion, which is sadly the case many times. This would make their baptism no longer valid and therefore they will not be saved for the last trumpet resurrection. This is also the reason Paul thanked God he did not baptism certain believers (1 Corinthians 1:14). If baptism is so important (and it is) why did Paul not want to baptize certain believers? Paul thanked God that he had the Godly wisdom to not baptize certain believers that he felt in his heart would not take their baptism seriously. It is very wise to not use the name of Christ in vain, which is why elders should never baptize without proper fruits before hand. However on the other hand, it is also possible for believers to "recover" themselves from the snare of the devil and get back on the straight and narrow. As you know, these conditions could not apply for baptized infants and children under the care of parents, which would make the parents responsible. It is very unlikely that disciplined baptized children would depart from the care of responsible parents that truly loved them. I hope this helped explain why I said that statement you mentioned. If not, let me know. I don't want to get on Paltalk tonight. Keep in touch.

http://users.tk7.net/bibletruths
In His Service, Mahlon

Rick,
     I forgot to address one of your points. I was occupied last night and I kind of hurried in the reply to you. You asked about the difference in the Adamic sin with other sins. Rick, the original Adamic sin is the sin that caused Adam to lose his glory that he was created with.  The Godly laws of biology simply means we were created "in Adam" genetically, because that is where we physically came from. Adam was created both male and female with "seed" in himself. When Adam lost his glory, all of the future "generations" of Adam with also seed in themselves, carried the effects of that original sin. This is why and how death passed on all of Adam (Romans 5:12). Rick, we were never meant to have aging, sickness, pain, and death. All of the "generations" of Adam are in an unnatural state of death, unlike the other breathing creations of God. This is the sin that all of the generations of Adam cannot repent of; adults as well as infants. This is the sin that must be cancelled in the eyes of God, and keep in mind, it is a sin that we cannot repent of. However if we are symbolically "buried" with Christ in baptism (showing that we "died" also with Christ), God can therefore look on us as he looked on the first Adam before he sinned.

It was Jesus Christ living a sinless life as the second Adam, and then giving himself in sacrifice that cancelled and forfeited the effects of the first Adam's sin. This is the salvation that is talked about in the Bible. John the Baptist was the man chosen to introduce how that salvation would be possible. John baptized for "repentance" for the remission of sins, but he always stated that the one coming after him (Christ) would baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire. People repented with John's preaching but they were not baptized in the "name of Christ" because Christ had not yet died. This is why some people in the book of Acts that were baptized under John, and then were "rebaptised" in the name of Christ to receive the "Holy Ghost" (Acts 10:47-48).

In answer to your question; the Adamic sin cannot be repented of, but this original sin caused the sins that can be repented of. This is the purpose of the ten commandments to identify in code and letter form to show Israelites how and what they needed to repent of. Repentance of this type is very possible but it can not save anyone and restore Adamite Israelites to the standing of the first Adam before he sinned. This was what John the Baptist wanted to make the Israelites of his day to understand that he was not the one; but to look to the one coming after him (Christ). God has to completely remove the Adamic sin that caused all sin through the act of baptism on our part. Since no one is able to repent of this sin, why not have God do that for infants as well as adults? The early believers understood this, Rick. They understood the very important role of circumcision in making possible the inheritance of the Abrahamic covenant, but they also understand it could not remove the Adamic sin they could not repent of. Circumcision (the snipping of the foreskin) pointed to the original Adamic sin, in that it was a sexual sin that Adam committed with his defiled wife Eve. The role of baptism now wipes that sin away in infants as well as adults, and it is exactly as Paul explained; a circumcision "made without hands" that enables believers to be "buried with Christ"; however only in the eyes in the God. God Bless you, and I hope this helps.

http://users.tk7.net/bibletruths
In His Service, Mahlon

Back to Home Page

Questions or comments?... Email: wickey777@verizon.net