No one answered my question the first time Where is infant baptism found in the Holy Bible? When and why the the Methodist faith embraced this belief. Where can you find sprinkling and pouring baptisms in the Holy Bible. Thank you and God Bless!!

Abundant life

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2003

Answers

Baptism (ritual washing symbolizing cleansing) is rooted in Bible tradition. I would suggest that you do a detailed study using some of the computerized bible such as the Libronix Library System. The easy answer is this: Believers baptism is a ritual, an outward sign or declaration of an inward change. Infant baptism emphasizes the faith of the sponsors, the parents, godparents; etc. Jesus commands that we baptize believers in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I suggest that this means to fully emerge them in the doctrines of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is one man's opinion in a subject that typically draws much controversy.

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2003

Rev. Alton you got it in a nutshell! Nutshells aren't that big so there you go (smile). Why do you think there is so much controversy regarding baptism? Well, faith is the substance of things unseen and we shall see what happens on the board as a result of this topic. Do you; abundant life, have an issue with baptism (infant included)? It is not required to worship the Lord or did I miss something. Don't get me wrong I allowed my child to be sprinkled by the preacher of the church and when she wanted to be baptised I was shocked (she was only 9yrs at the time if memory serves well). I talk to her about what it meant. That discussion made her think then again she wanted to be baptised. I thought thank you Lord! It was a proud day to see her emerced in the ocean. She wasn't required to, but she chose to. Faith is key to the christain walk that is very clear! Anyways why did Jesus ask John to baptise Him? Many questions starting...i am loosing myself in the possiblities...Thank you Lord for steady hand that I can't even see (spiritually) without my faith. So church is it required to be baptised to love the Lord? To worship Him in truth and spirit? To tell the story and testify about His goodness? Let me know. Felicia

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2003

Baptism, including infant baptism, is not unique to Methodists but a significant part of Judeo/Christian Belief. The Bible indicates that Jews as well as Christians were baptized. Since John's Baptism came before the establishment of the Christian Church, it was really Jewish rather than Christian also.

Baptism should hold much more significance than mere ritualistic beliefs. It is rather a Sacrament instead, which Christ himself commanded that we should do. This is indicated by practices in the Early Christian Church. Saint Paul indicates that the Early Christian Church baptized "proxies" for believers who died in the Faith without having received this Sacrament (I Cor. 15:29). Also indicative of the gravity of it is the fact that many Christian Churches, including our own, believe that once one has receive the Sacrament it may never be repeated again, since the Holy Spirit is aware of and a party to it.

As has been suggested it would be helpful to read what theologians have said on it. One of these is Bishop Benjamin Tucker Tanner, the Eighteenth Bishop of the A.M.E. Church, who wrote extensively on it. Bishop Tanner's exegeses on the subject of Baptism, (including infant baptism) may be found at the link below.

Baptism-An Excursus

-- Anonymous, November 25, 2003

Robert - I read a great biography last year about Bishop Tanner. He was truly an amazing man! Sometimes I look around and can't help but ask the "Jeremiah-like" question - Lord, where have they all gone? QED

-- Anonymous, November 25, 2003

God requires that we "Do justly, Love mercy, Walk humbly with our God. Micah 6 " Jesus summarized the law into: "Love God with all your heart mind and soul and your neighbor as yourself." The ten commandments are totally encompassed in Jesus' summary and also in Micah 6. Any practice that does not lead to these principles is not necessary. Our Sacraments and Traditions were developed to lead us to Justice, Mercy and a Humble walk with God; to lead us to Love God and neighbor. When we demand that certain things be done in a certian way, else God is not pleased, that is idolatry. Even our revered Sacraments become idols when we place our faith in them. Many of our Christian practices are simply the result of an aristocratic clergy trying to protect an assumed ignorant populace. For example, a leader of a major denomination that emphasizes works said to me: "If I teach my people about the "Grace" of God, they will go wild." Paul in the Galatian letter emphasizes the the entire bill of "requirements" have been "nailed" to the cross. Again, I am no theoligian, and I respect the works of the Church Father before me, but God has revealed his wisdom to all who put their trust in Him and not in works; by grace through faith, not of works, it is the gift of God. It is our nature (Adamic) to want to "earn" everything including salvation, so that we then do not "owe" even God anything. But my friends, we owe God everything.

BE Blessed

-- Anonymous, November 25, 2003

Thank you for your well though out responses. May God Bless you all. This is what the Baptist believe on baptism. This information is from a baptist web site. Again, may God bless and Happy Thanksgiving.

As a fact, Baptists do not baptize their infants. If there be any benefits springing from Infant Baptism, the children of Baptists miss them. If Infant Baptism is necessary to the salvation of children, then the children of Baptists are lost. The motive of the Baptists in refusing baptism to children is no secret. They hardly consider it necessary to say it is from no want of kindness or religious solicitude for their children. They expect many things to be said against them, and are ready to bear them, but can not believe that their worst enemies will seriously deny that they love their children and are concerned for their highest religious safety. Nor does their refusal arise from an unwillingness to consecrate their children to the Lord. This, every sincere and intelligent Baptist does. Nor is it from any desire to be eccentric or singular; but a deep conviction of duty which they cannot but regard. The Bible Does Not Teach It The one sufficient reason the Baptists have for rejecting Infant Baptism is, that the Bible does not teach it. With some this is nothing. They follow priests, creeds, and churches. But to the Baptists, the Bible is the end of controversy. They confess its authority as supreme, and accept nothing as religious duty except that which it teaches. They do not find that it teaches Infant Baptism. But some say that the Bible does teach it. It is there! Well, where? Dreamy fancies that it is taught somewhere in the Word of God are worth nothing. Give the chapter and the verse where, by law or example if taught. If your child's salvation depended on a passage in the Scriptures that taught this doctrine, which would you select? Jesus Did Not Practice It True, certain passages or incidents in the Bible are presented in support of Infant Baptism, but even the friends of the doctrine differ widely concerning them. Without attempting to notice all these texts, I will, as a matter of justice, select for notice those which are considered the strongest. Perhaps the most popular proof passage is found in Mark 10:14-16. This is to many a tower of strength - a refuge in weakness, and quoted on all occasions. What are the facts? Little children are brought to the Saviour and he takes them in his arms and blesses them. The surprise and displeasure of the disciples at the presentation of these children to Christ plainly indicated that the practice of Infant Baptism was not known to them. It was certainly a capital opportunity for instituting such an ordinance and explaining its object; but nothing of the kind was done. The silence of Jesus on the subject is itself a significant argument against it. The fact that he said nothing about Infant Baptism, and did something quite different from it, turns this passage into a strong proof-test against the practice. Household Baptisms Do Not Prove It But there are the Household Baptisms. It is claimed that if whole families were baptized, there must have been children among them. First in the list is the family of Crispus. Paul baptized that household. It is enough to say that it is expressly declared that Crispus "believed in the Lord with all his house," Acts 18:8. Next is the house of Stephanas, I Cor. 1:13. Here Paul simply speaks of it as the baptism of a household. Must there not have been infants? Not unless it can be shown that there are no households without infants. But observe that in I Cor. 16:15, Paul, in alluding to this family, calls them "the first fruits of Achaia," and says they "addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." Manknight is candid enough to admit that there could have been no infants in the house of Stephanas. Next is the household of the Philippian jailer. Acts 16:29-34. In reading the account, you observe that they spake the word of the Lord to all that were in the house of the jailer - that the jailer rejoiced, believed in God with all his house. That is unanswerably plain. Last in the list is the house of Lydia. Acts 16:14, 15-40. Before an argument in favor of Infant Baptism can be wrung from this case, several impossible propositions must be established: 1. That Lydia was married. 2. That she had children. 3. That any of these children were at that time infants. 4. That these infants were baptized. 5. That the term brethren in verse 40 is used independently of these children. Circumcision Has Nothing To Do With It There is also the argument from circumcisions. It is claimed that Infant Baptism is the substitute for circumcision. That such is the case nowhere intimated in the Word of God. The Jews that had been circumcised, when converted to Christ were baptized. Timothy was circumcised after he had been baptized. If baptism is the substitute for circumcision, where is the fact stated? Some who practise Infant Baptism do not claim clear Bible authority for it. They put it on the ground that it is a "form of consecration," - "can do no harm."That there is any wrong or injury in the simple act of sprinkling a child with water and praying for its salvation, no one would be foolish as to assert. But when this act is performed on the plea that it is commanded by the Word of God, it becomes an evil. It is to claim scriptural authority for what is not taught in the Word of God. Besides, the observance of this practice is a practical abolition of believer's baptism, which is clearly required by the law of Christ. It is an injury to the child. It infringed his right of choice in the matter of baptism. It confuses his mind in regard to his relation to the Church. It leaves him in doubt as to his regeneration. It is calculated to foster in his mind false religious hopes. It is an injury to the Church. The scriptural idea of the Church is that of a body of baptized believers. Only those who have been pardoned and regenerated are entitled to membership. Upon the preservation of this idea of a spiritual membership is dependent the purity of the churches. This idea is assailed by Infant Baptism, and the universal triumph of that doctrine would be the introduction of all classes of persons within the ranks of some external church. The truth of this statement is abundantly proved by the condition of the Lutheran Church in Germany, and that of the Established Church of England. If it be true that Infant Baptism is not taught in the Word of God— that it is injurious to those who are its subjects, and unfriendly to the New Testament idea of a Church, then the Baptists are amply justified in rejecting it.

-- Anonymous, November 25, 2003

Have you read the Infant Baptism ceremony in the AME Hymnal? Basically, it admonishes the child's parents, family and church family to take responsibility in the raising of a child in accordance with the teachings of Christ Jesus. Matthew 28:16 contains the Great Commission wherein Jesus instructed His disciples to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. This verse is read out at each Annual Conference when the pastor takes charge of his AME Church.

Once the child reaches the age where he can reason for himself, he then joins the "church." Not the AME church per se, but the body of Christ. This is a conscious decision made at the age of reason and in answer to the call.

Infant baptism is very important. When it was time for my daughter to be baptised, I did not attend church as I should. However, when the pastor read what was required of me, and I fully understood the oath taken by me before God, church attendance became regularly. It was not just a sprinkling of water....but an oath taken by me as a parent before God, and I considered this a very serious task. The church where she was baptized understood their part of the oath as well, and nurtured her in her walk. Her father, godparents, grand parents, aunts and uncles all understood their part as well. They never failed in their responsibility.

By God's good grace, I have a saved and sanctified 18 year old daughter, who made her decision to join the body of Christ when she was 12. She understood the committment (as a 12 year old would understand). The bible is so true. God's Word is never returned void. All power and praises be to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is not something I understand through study, but given through the mystery of faith.

-- Anonymous, November 25, 2003

Scripture suggests that Infant Baptism was done by Jews and Christians since Apostolic times. The Bible states that entire households were baptized (I Corinthians 1: 16; Acts 11: 14, 16: 15, 33, 18: 8). The word "household" suggests, even strongly implies, that adults, children and infants were all baptized. Also the fact that John was filled with the Holy Spirit in his mother’s womb, suggests that when we are born we already have a knowledge of God and our need for Him.

-- Anonymous, January 31, 2004

You are right.

-- Anonymous, January 31, 2004