Enigma:

Naaah, I am not of 'the catholic persuasion'.  However, I have nothing against infant/child baptism; in fact, I support it positively.

Wahala dey oh! Have you already baptized my small husband? 

For now, I will just make two quick points: (1) Jesus said: "suffer the little children to come unto me" i.e. do not hinder the little children from coming to Him ----- think about the potential ramifications of that for infant/child baptism.

I'm thinking. But I'm falling short of seeing the connection you're making. I have no issues if the child is of age but more importantly understanding (shout-out to pastor AIO here ) to decide to be baptized. What are the motives for baptizing an infant that is not developed enough to know the red-hot stove is not the same as his red fire-engine toy truck?

(2) Do you reaaaaally think that John the Baptist would have turned away little children if they were brought to him for baptism (which was a very very very likely scenario)?

Very likely? maybe. But I insist the examples we're given in scripture of baptism candidates renders the likelihood less and less. Maybe JTB instead blessed and dedicated the children that were brought to him for baptism  . Once we cross over into "what was likely" the standard can be constantly adjusted and re-adjusted and that's a problem. And this goes back to my question - what's the motivation for baptizing an infant? vs simply dedicating her/him?

@Pastor aio
thanx for bringing u the Samuel example, i was going to bring it up as well earlier but i was feeling lazy cos i was browsing with my mobile phone and won't have been able to quote the relevant scriptures. Now going by the Samuel example of dedication, won't it be apt to describe the type of dedication we do today as a Joke? I mean Samuel was handed over to the temple priest as soon as he was weaned from his mum so he can be brought up and live a life completely dedicated to God in the temple. What we do today does not exemplify real dedication,i would rather call it a church tradition. Anyway i have nothing against dedication of children in churches today but i think it would be better labelled "special baby thanks giving" / special prayers to God for the life and future of the baby. That would beter reflect what is actually happening which is different to the Samuel/Biblical example of dedication.

@All
Even though the type of dedication we do today lacks sound biblical basis, it does not mean it is wrong as long as it does not contradict any biblical principle or is being used to manipulate the flock. We can not say that every single thing we do must be found in the bible. There are loads of christian traditions handed down to us that are not necessarily biblical like christmas and easter that we practise today and are not regarded as wrong.

Image123:


Your post above, for instance the bolded are very suggestive of a dump idea. You should type more carefully. Circumcision was commanded by God and Galatians 6v15 is also the Word of God, unlike your suggestive inference. Galatians 1v1,3

Have you heard of something called a Rhetorical question?  It is a common device in oratory.  if you notice I answer the question straight after, albeit with another rhetorical question.  'Is it not an ablution?'

And as for Galatians, for me to answer your question would be to open up another can of worms beyond the scope of this thread and one which I frankly am not interested in getting into with you.  But the long and short of it is that Paul wrote a lot of letter expressing himself and his opinion on various issues.  Full Stop.

Pastor, I think I read some parts of your post too quickly. Forgive any misapplications

@Jesoul, you keep making me jealous of the little guy aka enigmalet.  However, no we haven't 'done' him yet; we do plan to though.

In baptism of infants (and children) the parents and God-parents make promises to bring up the children in the Christian faith and the Church i.e. the Universal Christian Church promises to provide support in this respect; thus, it is connected to the 'suffer the children to come unto me' statement in that the parents/God-parents/Church all help the infant/child in 'coming unto Him'. It is thus important that the parents/Godparents/Church themselves understand their important duty and the gravity of the promises that they make.

I like your response on JTB, though I disagree with it.  You see we often make the debate in terms of 'infant/child' baptism but what of the 'household'? A good example was given in terms of some Old Testament 'rituals' e.g. circumcision which were based on God's promises to a people - a chosen people. The Passover was for the household; many people in the OT stated: 'as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord'. And as I said before, the 'household' of Cornelius was baptised ------ arguably after they were already saved.

Thus if the household is committed to the Christian faith, I see nothing wrong with the baptism of infants and children in the household.

I have deliberately, so far, kept away from the 'dedication' part of the discussion. A couple of brief points: firstly, Jesus was not in fact 'dedicated' as such but rather was presented in the temple which was a requirement concerning every male that opens the womb who was regarded as holy to the law Lord. Thus if we were strictly following that, no female child needs to be presented or 'dedicated' and no child, male or female, that is a second (onwards) child needs to be presented or 'dedicated'. Secondly, people have already made the distinction between the 'dedication' that is done today and the dedication of Samuel for example. However, I do not wish to speak per se against the type of 'dedication' that is done today.

Good point. And I would counter that we readily see in scripture multitudes of examples of baptism candidates, and that they were not just those who were of age, but more importantly those who were of age and of understanding to comprehend what baptism was, why they ought to partake of it, and how they ought to approach it. Infants do not have the ability to grasp any of the above.

And let me throw this into the mix, what is the motivation for baptising an infant in the first place? (that is if you're not of the catholic persuation)

does that also mean we should stop taking our kids to church nor teaching them about God until they are of age and understanding to partake of them ?

In otherwords one cannot be a christian until he/she is an adult what a ridiculous teaching.What a ridiculous teaching


here is what the scripture teaches


Acts 2
37Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

39For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

40And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

41Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Enigma:

@Jesoul, you keep making me jealous of the little guy aka enigmalet.  However, no we haven't 'done' him yet; we do plan to though.

I wish I could be a fly on the wall in the church when that happens. I've never witnessed an infant baptism ceremony.

In baptism of infants (and children) the parents and God-parents make promises to bring up the children in the Christian faith and the Church i.e. the Universal Christian Church promises to provide support in this respect; thus, it is connected to the 'suffer the children to come unto me' statement in that the parents/God-parents/Church all help the infant/child in 'coming unto Him'. It is thus important that the parents/Godparents/Church themselves understand their important duty and the gravity of the promises that they make.

Maybe I'm crazy, but all this may be much ado about nothing as the above to me perfectly super-imposes on the practice "child dedication" - at least in its modern carnation. Is this just a matter of semantics?

In addition, it seems it's predominantly the[b] family [/b] that is really undergoing the ritual not the infant - the promise to bring the child up right, the public declaration etc . . . the child itself is completely clueless as to what is happening . . . and we've come full circumference, why term it baptism at all? if this is what happens. Which is a perfect segway to your next point . . .

I like your response on JTB, though I disagree with it.  You see we often make the debate in terms of 'infant/child' baptism but what of the 'household'? A good example was given in terms of some Old Testament 'rituals' e.g. circumcision which were based on God's promises to a people - a chosen people. The Passover was for the household; many people in the OT stated: 'as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord'. And as I said before, the 'household' of Cornelius was baptised ------ arguably after they were already saved.

Thus if the household is committed to the Christian faith, I see nothing wrong with the baptism of infants and children in the household.

I understand that in a christian household, there is a collectivity to the faith - it is the family business so to speak. But the individuality of the faith obviously trumps and outranks the corporate one - and I would argue that scripturally, the act of baptism falls under the jurisdiction of 'individuality'. What I mean by that is this -

Littered all over the NT, we see baptism as a consequence of repentance. Which is why I completely believe the households (as you noted too) baptized together were already of the faith. Jesus' and the apostles commands were "repent - and be baptized". The repentance part it would seem to me must come first, then followed by baptism - and infants are incapable of repentance at that stage.

  But hey, if a christian sincerely wants to perform the act out faith and hope in Christ that their child will grow up into the Lord, fitted in the body of Christ - then I have no beef with 'em. I still believe the practice its poster child(pun intended) for baptism misappropriation. But to each his own abi?

I have deliberately, so far, kept away from the 'dedication' part of the discussion. A couple of brief points: firstly, Jesus was not in fact 'dedicated' as such but rather was presented in the temple which was a requirement concerning every male that opens the womb who was regarded as holy to the law Lord. Thus if we were strictly following that, no female child needs to be presented or 'dedicated' and no child, male or female, that is a second (onwards) child needs to be presented or 'dedicated'. Secondly, people have already made the distinction between the 'dedication' that is done today and the dedication of Samuel for example. However, I do not wish to speak per se against the type of 'dedication' that is done today.

Good points. And I think is why many of us were clear to state it is based on biblical examples. And again I think its all a matter of semantics. In the modern arena, child "dedications" are simply the presentation of children to the church for prayer and thanksgiving.

chukwudi44:

does that also mean we should stop taking our kids to church nor teaching them about God until they are of age and understanding to partake of them ?

In otherwords one cannot be a christian until he/she is an adult what a ridiculous teaching.What a ridiculous teaching


here is what the scripture teaches


Acts 2
37Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

39For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

40And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

41Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Chukwudi, I know what the catholic stance on this is and respect their beliefs and respectfully decline to engage in a tussle-match with you on it. I believe we have already talked about this once before here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-420977.msg5797330.html.
Cheers.

chukwudi44:

does that also mean we should stop taking our kids to church nor teaching them about God until they are of age and understanding to partake of them ?

In otherwords one cannot be a christian until he/she is an adult what a ridiculous teaching.What a ridiculous teaching


here is what the scripture teaches


Acts 2
37Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

39For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

40And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

41Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

My brother,defend the truth and not ur church.Note that after Peter's preaching,only those that accepted his message were baptised.That illustrates that the baptised ones were all adults.How can an infant that doesn't know anything be sorry for his sins and accept Peter's message? Besides,read down that acts chapter 2 and see that after their baptism,they dedicated their lives to the lord's work which included selling their possesions and goods to help the needy.What is in the possesion of an infant that he should sell or are we talking about super kids like in hollywood sci-fi movies?Neverthless Jesus would have added ''and baptise them in the name of the lord'' after he spoke about allowing the children to come to him.Jesus himself was not baptised as an infant rather he was only dedicated.If you're not following Christ's examples,then whose are you following?.Why cant you face the truth? Neverthless I'm surprised that some people mentioned the name of 'Samuel' in their arguement about dedication.Samuel was offered as a sacrifice unto the lord as promised by Hannah because of her condition.After the dedication of Christ Jesus,was he left at Jerusalem? May Jehovah Nissi stand as your banner in Jesus name.

You're talking about your answering my questions in a post where i neither asked a question nor used question mark. And you're our rhetorics and oratory 101 teacher right? Thanks for reminding me, i should be sleeping.

@topic.Benstino expository is loaded and indept.that is the truth and some church;our daddy said,our papa said.no longer the bible instruct's.

My brother,defend the truth and not your church.Note that after Peter's preaching,only those that accepted his message were baptised.That illustrates that the baptised ones were all adults

Could you please adduce any scriptural basis for this your conclusion.Is there any where in acts that you read Children (whether infants or little children) were not baptised on the day of the pentecost.Did jesus himself not scold those who were trying from prventing little children from comming to them?


And they were bringing children to him, that he might touch them; and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it he was indignant, and said to them, "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it

circumcision was what made a personn a children of God in the OT ,how come God commanded it administered to infants who were merely 8 days old.If an infant can be circumcised in the OT what stops someone baptising infants now in the christian erafrom

You complain about about baptism of children because you think they are not old enough to make decisions for themselves.Now listen t this

I cor 15:29

Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead?

Obviosly from the above quote the early church practised baptism of the dead.This totaly nullifies your argument since if the dead who are unconcoius could be baptised why not infants

Benstino:

We christians follows the footsteps of our lord Jesus and if Jesus was dedicated when he was born,then why should't we dedicate our children?(luke 2vs22)

Luke 2 : 23 - 39

23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord

24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name [was] Simeon; and the same man [was] just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. . . . .

What was done for Jesus was:
1. A sacrifice done for for Only male children
2. And only for the first male child that opens the womb

This is in total contrast to what is being done today. How can this be clasified as dedication

1. We dedicate female children
2. We dedicate from the first born to the last born

I think this whole issue depends on whether or not there is an actual influence that passes from the baptismal water to the person being baptised.

Let me come from a different angle.  If a baby has a cough and it is given cough medicine, the baby does not have to understand what cough medicine is and what it does before the medicine starts to work on alleviating the babies cough. We know that the medicine is able to influence the babies ailment without need of an intellectual understanding of what is going on.  

Now, baptism is an ablution but the question I ask is whether it is actually an ablution or is it merely symbolising an ablution that has taken place already.  If it is merely symbolic then why the bother of ensuring that it is done.  JeSoul has addressed this but I believe she inadvertently contradicted herself.  She says:

In the same way baptism is an act of obedience to Christ who commanded that we be baptised - hence it is important. However, it is not the act of baptism itself that saves - but instead the repentance. The physical act of baptism is simply the manifestation of the repentance.

And then she says:

JeSoul:

Is baptism an act that is empty of power? of course not. Why then would we be commanded to perform it? There is power in all the spiritual traditions handed to us by Christ such as communion, and yes baptism too. But it is also not an isolated impulsive act, but rather follows a change that has already occured in the heart - this is what I mean by understanding my pastor.
 

If there is power in it then I ask, 'power to do what'?  Since the saving has been done already then what is it that the baptism does?  And if we are only doing it simply because Jesus told us to do it then how does that amount to an understanding that babies are incapable of.  
It is either that an influence passes from the act of baptism to the person being baptised, or not.  Just like an influence passes from the cough medicine to the coughing baby, regardless of the babies understanding.  Just like when Jesus raised a dead girl it was not necessary for the girl to have faith or to understand that she was about to be raised from the dead.  Just like a discernible influence passed out of Jesus to the haemorrhaging woman who managed to touch the fringe of his garment.  Jesus felt that an influence had passed out of him.  
What we are talking about can almost be understood as a substance, or an energy and it is discernible.  Sometimes we get so bamboozled by the attitude of modern science that do not realize that there is more than what we've discovered so far.  So we are skeptical when we hear about stuff like Prana that is contained in foods, air, our bodies etc.  Chinese have what they call Chi, the Japanese have what they call Ki.  Yoruba have what they call Ase.  When they come up with efficacious drugs and herbs instead of listening to what they have to say about the ase of the herbs or the prana in the herbs instead we start to look for the active ingredient, we try to isolate the chemical in the plant that effects the healing.

Anyway, I'm rambling again.  Where were we . . . ?  Baptism.  I say that there is something about water that when we 'bless' it or 'sanctify' it can bring about wonderful healing effects including the ablution of sins.  It is not only in Christianity but all over the world.  I know that in yoruba land we especially believe in the healing power of fresh water from springs especially when it is fetched first thing in the morning before the world stirs.

As dirty as the river ganges is the hindu still believe that bathing in it purifies them and has healing benefits.
The Jews believed that the Pool of Bethsaida could heal infirmities and Jesus even used water from a pool in Siloe to heal a blind man.

6 When he had said these things, he spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle and spread the clay upon his eyes, 7 and said to him: "Go, wash in the pool of Siloe," which is interpreted, Sent. He went therefore and washed, and he came seeing.

John Chapt 9.

Check this out at 7:40 into the video  :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zb0IqZS37ag

Dalby:

Luke 2 : 23 - 39

23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord

24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name [was] Simeon; and the same man [was] just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. . . . .

What was done for Jesus was:
1. A sacrifice done for for Only male children
2. And only for the first male child that opens the womb

This is in total contrast to what is being done today. How can this be clasified as dedication

1. We dedicate female children
2. We dedicate from the first born to the last born

Brother,it is not meant only for the first male child;females are also inclusive.Apostle Luke picked up his quote from the laws of moses in LEVITICUS 12 VS 6 and you never expected him to write down the entire chapter. ''When the days of her purifications are fulfilled,whether for a SON or a DAUGHTER,she shall bring to the priest a lamb, '' vs8 ''and if she is not able to bring a lamb,she may bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons.You must be clarified by now.

chukwudi44:


Could you please adduce any scriptural basis for this your conclusion.Is there any where in acts that you read Children (whether infants or little children) were not baptised on the day of the pentecost.Did jesus himself not scold those who were trying from prventing little children from comming to them?


And they were bringing children to him, that he might touch them; and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it he was indignant, and said to them, "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it

circumcision was what made a personn a children of God in the OT ,how come God commanded it administered to infants who were merely 8 days old.If an infant can be circumcised in the OT what stops someone baptising infants now in the christian erafrom

Jesus never rebuked those preventing the children from coming to him because he wanted to baptise them.He only did it to teach his apostles and others that they heart ought to be as that of the children (pure)before they would see Gods kingdom. Besides you mentiond circumcision. ''For in christ Jesus, neither circumcision or uncircumcision avails anything, ''Galatians 5 vs6.In the old testament,they thought that circumcision made them pure but alas!it never did.So dont bring anything about old testaments circumcision into this.You also mentioned something about infants/pentecost day.I've already proved that before;Those that were baptised were those that accepted the good news and repented.How can an infant that has never spoken accept Peter's speech and repent? Obviously,infants were exclusive in the baptism that took place in the day of the pentecost.

chukwudi44:

You complain about about baptism of children because you think they are not old enough to make decisions for themselves.Now listen t this

I cor 15:29

Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead?

Obviosly from the above quote the early church practised baptism of the dead.This totaly nullifies your argument since if the dead who are unconcoius could be baptised why not infants

Bros I love the way you argues.There is a reason that made the early church to do it.The reasons are in this passages ''Jesus answered,most assuredly,I say to you,unless one is born of water and of spirit,he cannot enter into the kingdom of God''John 3vs5. ''For this reason,the gospel was preched to those who are dead,that they may be judged according to men in the flesh, (1 peter 4 vs 6) ''By whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison,who formerly were disobedient,when once the divine long suffering waited in the days of Noah,while the ark was being prepared, in which a few,that is eight souls were saved through water''1peter 3vs19.Even though it appears to us that the dead have no knowledge,but in the spirit world,they do.Jesus preaches to them through spirit and they that accepts him will be saved and then redeemed through the baptism done on their behalf for they cant enter the kingdom of God unless baptised as Jesus spoke in John 3vs5.So brother,the dead are concious and have knowledge in the spirit world while infants who are of this physical world have none.

I wonder, if Judaism and jewish law is so irrelevant to christianity, why didn't the first christians just stop going to synagogue and observing jewish customs?  All they did was pick and choose which one's they would continue to adopt.  So circumcision goes out of the window, and keeping the sabbaths was not so forcefully enforced etc.   It wasn't until about 100AD when christians were forcefully kicked out of the synagogues that christianity became a different religion separate from judaism. 

another point of interest is in the difference between the Baptism that John Practiced and the Baptism that the disciples of Jesus practiced (though Jesus himself never baptised anyone).  Paul made a distinction between christian baptism and the baptism of John in the Book of Acts.  I've just found a website talking about this.  I haven't properly read the website but I'll put it here anyway to stimulate discussion. 

http://www.gospelway.com/topics/salvation/baptism-john.php

Sometimes people wonder whether or not the baptism of John should still be practiced today. Some claim that they do practice John's baptism.
Please read Acts 19:1-6. When Paul came to Ephesus on his third preaching trip, he found some disciples there and asked them whether they had received the Holy Spirit when they believed. Paul evidently assumed they were already saved. If he had not, he would have asked them to begin with about their relationship to Jesus. Hence, Paul's question implies he assumed they had been saved but might not have received miraculous powers of the Spirit (cf. 1 Cor. 12:29,30; Acts 8:12-19).
The men responded that they had never heard of such a thing as the Holy Spirit (vv 1,2). This would imply they did not know much about the gospel and specifically they had not heard of the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. Since Pentecost, men had been preaching the gospel by the guidance of the Holy Spirit and had confirmed their message by miracles. The fact these men were ignorant of all this raised doubts about whether they heard the true gospel which was being preached since Pentecost (Acts 1:. Therefore, Paul moved to the very basics and asked about their baptism.
The men then stated that they knew only the baptism of John. Paul responded by explaining why John's baptism was insufficient (v4). John's baptism, though it required repentance, yet looked forward to the coming of the One for whom John was a forerunner (Jesus). Jesus had not yet died when John baptized people. His was a baptism of preparation looking forward to Jesus' death (cf. Matthew 3:3; etc.).
This shows that John's baptism cannot be the baptism which Jesus commanded people to receive under the gospel (Mark 16:15,16; Matthew 28:18-20). The baptism of the gospel, looks backward to Jesus' death and resurrection as accomplished facts. We are baptized into His death, picturing His death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12). Before we can be baptized, we must believe in Jesus as God's Son who has been raised from the dead (Rom. 10:9,10; cf. Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36-38). Clearly, John's baptism cannot be Scripturally applied to anyone after Jesus' death.

[b]
(1) If a person received a form of "baptism" which does not agree with the Scriptures, that baptism is not valid. The person has not really obeyed the gospel in baptism. Since baptism is essential to salvation, it must be done properly for the person to be saved. (See our web site at www.gospelway.com/instruct for a study that shows the importance and proper purpose of baptism.)
(2) Specifically, it matters what understanding a person has about the purpose of baptism at the time when he is baptized. The men in this passage had been baptized by immersion (the proper action) and had even done it because God commanded it. Yet that was not enough. They also had to understand the proper connection between baptism and Jesus' death and resurrection. It follows that, in order to be Scripturally baptized, one must understand and believe that baptism is necessary to receive forgiveness by Jesus' blood, and he must do it for that reason (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Mark 16:16; Rom. 6:3,4; Gal. 3:26,27).[/b]

PastorAIO, no contradiction at all.

Performing the act of baptism does not have the power to save or is not necessary for salvation. But this does not mean it is devoid of any power at all. Again, why do we take communion? isn't it a symbolic spiritual act? does it have power when we perform it? of course, if it were just a meal then why do it at all. The real issue I think (and as you noted too) is what is the "power" contained in the act of baptism? but then one might as well be asking, what is the "power" contained in the act of "praising" or "worshipping" or taking "communion"? you cannot quantify the spiritual, it just is and I think is different from believer to believer.

Your analogy of a child taking medicine is insufficient in this case I think. Please see some of my responses to Enigma. The command to be baptized was directed at those who have already come to believe - not to random people who felt like taking a dip in the red sea - this is central to my argument. As far as I can scripturally see, you don't baptize and then hope through the act that they come to the faith.

@OP,
As I have said in some of my posts, some customs under the law are still valid in Christianity because they are based on spiritual principles. The fact the the law is done away with does not take away such practises . Thats why we dedicate children in the house of God, that's why we give thanks over food, that's why we give tithes still and that's why we still honour our parents, they didn't pass away with the law.

Children dedicated to idols always have demonic problems until such is broken by the blood of Jesus . Even when they are unaware of such dedication. It's based on spiritual principles. If we dedicate a child to God. It sets the life of that choked on a course of Gods purpose .

Joagbaje:

@OP,
As I have said in some of my posts, some customs under the law are still valid in Christianity because they are based on spiritual principles. The fact the the law is done away with does not take away such practises . Thats why we dedicate children in the house of God, that's why we give thanks over food, that's why we give tithes still and that's why we still honour our parents, they didn't pass away with the law.

. . . and as long as we don't turn around and declare these "practises" as a law and requirement for today's christians.

Benstino:

There is a reason that made the early church to do it.The reasons are in this passages ''Jesus answered,most assuredly,I say to you,unless one is born of water and of spirit,he cannot enter into the kingdom of God''John 3vs5. ''For this reason,the gospel was preched to those who are dead,that they may be judged according to men in the flesh, (1 peter 4 vs 6) ''By whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison,who formerly were disobedient,when once the divine long suffering waited in the days of Noah,while the ark was being prepared, in which a few,that is eight souls were saved through water''1peter 3vs19.Even though it appears to us that the dead have no knowledge,but in the spirit world,they do.Jesus preaches to them through spirit and they that accepts him will be saved and then redeemed through the baptism done on their behalf for they cant enter the kingdom of God unless baptised as Jesus spoke in John 3vs5.So brother,the dead are concious and have knowledge in the spirit world while infants who are of this physical world have none.

Two questions sir,

Can we say the dead (at the time) have all repented of their evil ways? Who brought the message back to the living family members that their dead relatives have repented of their sins at the ‘other side’?

Do you really think its right for anybody to be baptized on behalf of another party?

Zikkyy:

Two questions sir,

Can we say the dead (at the time) have all repented of their evil ways? Who brought the message back to the living family members that their dead relatives have repented of their sins at the ‘other side’?

Do you really think its right for anybody to be baptized on behalf of another party?

Obviously,they did it blindly in the sense that if the dead accepts the truth,then the baptism is useful and if they reject it,the baptism is then useless for them.It was done in the old era because not everyone had the opportunity of hearing the word.But it is different today because the gospel has almost reached everywhere.Morever,if any of my relative or my closest friend is not a believer,it is my obligation to speak the good news to them but if they refuse to adhere and they eventually die,I must never be baptised on their behalf.Let the dead bury themselves.Ezekiel 18vs 20 ''The soul that sinneth,it shall die;The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son.The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon.This is the word God.

Benstino:

Brother,it is not meant only for the first male child;females are also inclusive.Apostle Luke picked up his quote from the laws of moses in LEVITICUS 12 VS 6 and you never expected him to write down the entire chapter. ''When the days of her purifications are fulfilled,whether for a SON or a DAUGHTER,she shall bring to the priest a lamb, '' vs8 ''and if she is not able to bring a lamb,she may bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons.You must be clarified by now.

Luke 2: 21-23

21And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

22And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;

23(As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord


LEVITICUS 12 VS 6-8

6And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:

7Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.

8And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.

You see from all the blue text the similarity of both verses, but what you would also notice is that the sacrifice is for the cleansing of the mother and not the dedication of the child.

Obviously,they did it blindly in the sense that if the dead accepts the truth,then the baptism is useful and if they reject it,the baptism is then useless for them.It

Yiou have already answered my questions.

Infannts are equally baptised to receive the spirit with the hope that they will continue in it when they grow up.Of course if the grow up and reject if the baptism becomes ineffective.

It was done in the old era because not everyone had the opportunity of hearing the word.But it is different today because the gospel has almost reached everywhere

The corinthians whom it was addressed to had the opportunity of hearing the good news so your assertion here is baseless.

Performing the act of baptism does not have the power to save or is not necessary for salvation.

Sorry to contradict you maam, But baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation because without it one cannot become a christian.why did youi think Jesus was baptised by John
John 3:14-15

3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?  
3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

Why do you cornelius and his household still had to be baptised even after they had reiceived the holy spirit ?

This pertinent question of salvatio were asked by the firsts converts as to what was necessary for salvation

37Now when(A) they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers,(B) what shall we do?" 38And Peter said to them,(C) "Repent and(D) be baptized every one of you(E) in the name of Jesus Christ(F) for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive(G) the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Chukwudi, like I mentioned earlier, we have already discussed the issue of baptism and salvation before. There's no need to take up Seun's cyberspace with repition. If you or anyone else is interested, here's the thread:

Would Someone Go To Hell If He Doesn't Do Water Baptism? https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-420977.msg5797330.html

JeSoul:

. . . and as long as we don't turn around and declare these "practises" as a law and requirement for today's christians.

Christians don't have laws to obey. What we would have called a law for us is in our nature "LOVE" whatever our practise today , they are our expressions of love for God. The love of God compels us to do things that are pleasing in his sight.

chukwudi44:



Yiou have already answered my questions.

Infannts are equally baptised to receive the spirit with the hope that they will continue in it when they grow up.Of course if the grow up and reject if the baptism becomes ineffective.

The corinthians whom it was addressed to had the opportunity of hearing the good news so your assertion here is baseless.

Sorry to contradict you maam, But baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation because without it one cannot become a christian.why did youi think Jesus was baptised by John
John 3:14-15

3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?  
3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

Why do you cornelius and his household still had to be baptised even after they had reiceived the holy spirit ?

This pertinent question of salvatio were asked by the firsts converts aas to what was necessary for salvation

37Now when(A) they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers,(B) what shall we do?" 38And Peter said to them,(C) "Repent and(D) be baptized every one of you(E) in the name of Jesus Christ(F) for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive(G) the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Chukwudi,I never answered your question,you just picked up something that fits ur arguement and called it an answer.The dead have no other opportunity except that which I already mentioned but infants are still of this world and will eventually grow and decide whether to accept and be baptised or reject and be doomed.So never compare the dead and the undead. Besides,the corinthians did baptism of the dead for their ancestors who are dead and never heard the good news;They never did it for their immediate families.So it is ur conclusion that is baseless.Chukwudi,do you know the sine qua non to baptism? Okay,it is repenting and believing.The apostles never baptised anyone that doesn't repent and believe.So can infants believe?and what can infants repent of if their have never sinned? Moreover,Jesoul is 99% accurate in her posts.Baptism is not a prerequisite to salvation.Baptism is like a wedding ring.Buying a wedding ring and putting it on does not mean that you are married.But when you are married and puts it on,it then signifies that you are married.A married woman might wear her ring and commit extra marital affair and the husband will chase her out.So if you are baptised and yet goes on to sin,then you are doomed to be cast away.So from this,you can see that baptism is just a document that you'll sign and not a ticket to heaven.Abraham was called a righteous man.Was Abraham baptised?

Dalby:

Luke 2: 21-23

21And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

22And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;

23(As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord


LEVITICUS 12 VS 6-8

6And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:

7Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.

8And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.

You see from all the blue text the similarity of both verses, but what you would also notice is that the sacrifice is for the cleansing of the mother and not the dedication of the child.

you're right about the fact that the cleansing is meant for the mother but I must clarify you further.During the old testament,God said that all the first born male children of Isreal belongs to him(The purpose is in numbers 3vs12-13) They served as levites together with the sons of Aaron.They offers burnt,peace,guilt and sin offerings in the house of God.In other words.they were priests.But the Isrealites also dedicated to God females and Non first born male children Leviticus 27 vs 3 and4(through vow).They also served with the sons of Aaron as levites.So it is not only first born male children that were dedicated.Meanwhile,Jesus christ was dedicated to God,yet he was not a levite.In conclusion,as far as Jesus was dedicated to God(as first born male child)yet he never served as a levite.Also females and non first born males who are dedicated to God might also not serve as levites.DEDICATION WAS 4 EVERYONE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND SO IS 4 EVERYONE TODAY.

The dead have no other opportunity except that which I already mentioned but infants are still of this world and will eventually grow and decide whether to accept and be baptised or reject and be doomed

this is your personal opinion,it has no scriptural basis.

So can infants believe?and what can infants repent of if their have never sinned?

Have You ever heard about Original sin ?

have a look at this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin

Was Abraham baptised?

Was Abraham a Christian ? Circumcision stood for baptism in the OT and yes abraham was circumcised and so were infants in the OT.

WHY DO YOU THINK GOD COMMANDED INFANTS TO BE CIRCUMCISE D EVEN BEFORE THEY CAN DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES? DO YOU THINK HE WAS JUST BEING STUPID.

Baptism is not a prerequisite to salvation.

Sorry sir it is,Jesus himself said that unless a man is[b] born of water [/b] he cannot enter the kingsdom of God

chukwudi44:

this is your personal opinion,it has no scriptural basis.

Have You ever heard about Original sin ?

have a look at this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin



Was Abraham a Christian ? Circumcision stood for baptism in the OT and yes abraham was circumcised and so were infants in the OT.

WHY DO YOU THINK GOD COMMANDED INFANTS TO BE CIRCUMCISE D EVEN BEFORE THEY CAN DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES? DO YOU THINK HE WAS JUST BEING silly.

Sorry sir it is,Jesus himself said that unless a man is[b] born of water [/b] he cannot enter the kingsdom of God

Alas! I never knew that some people are still under the yoke of original sin.If so why then did christ die? Romans 5 vs 19''for as by one mans disobedience,many were made sinners,so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous'' When a child is born,he is born pure for Christ have died for us thereby redeeming us from the yoke of slavery (original sin)! Moreover you mentioned Abraham.To clarify you,Abraham was already righteous before he was circumcised ''how was it then reckoned?when he(Abraham) was in circumcision or in uncircumcision?Not in circumsision but in uncircumcision Romans 4vs10.So you are wrong.Circumcision never accounted for righteousness in OT ''But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God,it is evident:for the just shall live by faith''Galatians 3 vs11. Besides never bring up the fact that Abraham was not a christian.The bible recorded that Abraham believed God and know ye that Abraham is our Father by faith.So as Abraham was considered righteous(because of his faith)even without circumcision;so shall we his children be considered righteous even without receiving water baptism(only if we follow his footsteps) So this takes us to the issue of Jesus,Nicodemus and baptism. John 3 vs3 ''Jesus answered and said unto him,verily,verily I say unto you,Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God'' this means that a man has been born once.vs 4and 5 ''Nicodemus saith unto him,how can a man be born again when he is old?can he enter the second time into his mothers womb,and be born again? Jesus answered,verily,verily I say unto you,Except a man be born of water and of the spirit,he cannot enter into the kingdom of God''vs 6 ''FOR THAT WHICH IS BORN OF THE FLESH IS FLESH;AND THAT WHICH IS BORN OF THE SPIRIT IS SPIRIT'' Note the relationship b/w vs 5 and 6 and mark out the context word ''BEING BORN OF WATER=NATURAL BIRTH(born of the flesh) ''BEING BORN OF THE SPIRIT=HOLY GHOST BAPTISM(filled with the spirit of God) So what Jesus said here is not water baptism,rather it is holy ghost baptism.In conclusion,water baptism is never a sine qua non to salvation.Galatians 3vs11''the just shall live by faith'' and never by water baptism. Lest I forget,Chukwudi and my beloved nairalanders,non of us is under the yoke of ''original sin''cos we are born pure.Romans 6vs14''for sin shall not have dominion over you:for ye are not under the law,but under grace''May the lord be with us in Jesus name, (Amen)

When a child is born,he is born pure for Christ have died for us thereby redeeming us from the yoke of slavery (original sin)!

Sorry to contradict you here when a ma child is conceived he is conceived in sin as plainly stated in psalm 51:5.This is the main reason why a child is baptised to cleanse him of original sin and open up the grace of the Lord Jesus to him.Only then can he benefit from the sacrificial death of christ.

Circumcision never accounted for righteousness in OT

Circumcision was vital to being among God's chosen people in the OT,it was only removed by the death of Jeeus on the cross of calvary which abolished the mosaic law.

Note the relationship b/w vs 5 and 6 and mark out the context word ''BEING BORN OF WATER=NATURAL BIRTH(born of the flesh)

This your own private interpretation which is dangerous and defective and can lead souls sraight to hell fire.Why do you Jeus got baptised ?was it not to show us the way to follow

I would repeat my quote in te previous post for you


This pertinent question of salvation were asked by the firsts converts as to what was necessary for salvation

37Now when(A) they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers,(B) what shall we do?" 38And Peter said to them,(C) "Repent and(D) be baptized every one of you(E) in the name of Jesus Christ(F) for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive(G) the gift of the Holy Spirit


This implies that before forgiveness of sins can take place one must be baptised

[size=18pt][center]THEORY    VS.      PRATICAL[/center][/size]

Mehn.  I see a lot of theory here.  What I would call religion[b]ism[/b].  ideological gymnastics.  Intellectualism.  But hardly any practicality.

Whether baptism does one thing or the other doesn't amount to an odourless fart if the effect is only in the mind.  

There are a lot of things that seem to need clarification.  Such as what we each understand by Salvation.  What we each understand by Sin.  What we each understand by being a christian.  etc

What is the Kingdom of God, or the Kingdom or Heaven?  

JeSoul:

PastorAIO, no contradiction at all.

Performing the act of baptism does not have the power to save or is not necessary for salvation. But this does not mean it is devoid of any power at all. Again, why do we take communion? isn't it a symbolic spiritual act? does it have power when we perform it? of course, if it were just a meal then why do it at all. The real issue I think (and as you noted too) is what is the "power" contained in the act of baptism? but then one might as well be asking, what is the "power" contained in the act of "praising" or "worshipping" or taking "communion"? you cannot quantify the spiritual, it just is and I think is different from believer to believer.

JeSoul gets right to the crux of the matter here with this quote, for me.  Though she failed to answer the question of what does baptism do.  She simply asked more questions of what communion did or praising did.
However I believe that those are very pertinent questions and we ought to all try to answer those questions for ourselves.

I say that there is an actual effect that occurs due to the partaking of the eucharistic meal.  And this effect is more than just having a full belly where a few minutes earlier you have an empty one.  A divine influence is actually imparted to the partakers of the meal.
The same with Singing praise songs.  Song has the power of attuning the human soul to the right frequency in which to connect to the divine.  
Similarly Baptism has a real tangible effect.  It is indeed an ablution.  A purification, a washing away of what was.  Holy Spirit cannot abide with filth so it is necessary to purify oneself before the Holy spirit can take it's place within someone.  Contrary spirits cannot co-exist together in one person at the same time.  

I say that communion, baptism, praise singing etc are not representations of something else that is occurring on another level but are rather the event themselves.  Although I would hesitate to say that Baptism is the only way in which a man can be made pure.