How many denominations are there in the world, and what do they all teach?

[intricatic]

Originally Posted by Psalms2

It is when they tell someone who had been baptized as an infant that they must get re-baptized by full immersion in water but for someone who was never baptized that a "spiritual" (without water) baptism is enough. Or am I confusing Baptist dogma with non-denominational dogma?

If someone who was baptized as an infant converts to Baptist and they refuse to have a water re-baptism but they do everything that Baptists say is necessary for salvation, would Baptists be okay with that? Yes or No?

Depends on what doctrine of baptism they adhere to. I can't speak for all Baptist churches, but from what I've come to understand, it's not necessarily a requirement except as a symbol of rebirth and regeneration that has already occurred. It's sort of a testament made before the ecclesiastical community of that regeneration.

[Psalms2]

Originally Posted by intricatic

Depends on what doctrine of baptism they adhere to. I can't speak for all Baptist churches, but from what I've come to understand, it's not necessarily a requirement except as a symbol of rebirth and regeneration that has already occurred. It's sort of a testament made before the ecclesiastical community of that regeneration.

How does a Baptist or a non-denom know whether or not that rebirth and regeneration had already occured?

[intricatic]

Originally Posted by Psalms2

How does a Baptist or a non-denom know whether or not that rebirth and regeneration had already occured?

Good question, but I'd restate it to say: How does a person know if they have faith? It's hard not to know.

[Psalms2]

Originally Posted by intricatic

Good question, but I'd restate it to say: How does a person know if they have faith? It's hard not to know.

It must have been a good question for it to be a stumper.

[stlyn]

Originally Posted by Psalms2

Who baptizes infants in the name of John the Baptist? Every Church that I know of that baptizes infants does it with water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. In other words, with water and Spirit.

John's baptism was water alone. But Jesus' baptism that came after was with water and Sprit. The Bible says we have to be born again of water and spirit, not water or spirit. This is the point that keeps getting missed.

The point of the verses I gave wasn't really who's baptism they had received first, but that they had received it before they knew everything. Paul judged that it was important for them to renew this step once they could understand the truth of the Messiah.

In the same way, and infant, no matter whose name it's being baptized in, doesn't have any sort of understanding of the process. They aren't choosing baptism as either a symbol or to wash away their sins, however you look at it. They have no control over the matter, and the baptism is meaningless. Once they have an understanding of the Bible and can choose on their own to follow God and obey him with this step, it makes sense that they would be baptized again, and have it actually mean something.

[Psalms2]

Originally Posted by stlyn

The point of the verses I gave wasn't really who's baptism they had received first, but that they had received it before they knew everything. Paul judged that it was important for them to renew this step once they could understand the truth of the Messiah.

In the same way, and infant, no matter whose name it's being baptized in, doesn't have any sort of understanding of the process. They aren't choosing baptism as either a symbol or to wash away their sins, however you look at it. They have no control over the matter, and the baptism is meaningless. Once they have an understanding of the Bible and can choose on their own to follow God and obey him with this step, it makes sense that they would be baptized again, and have it actually mean something.

The apostle Paul asserts that baptism is the new circumcision (Colossians 2:11-12). So this being the case, why did God call for infants to be circumcised (Genesis 17:12)? And why is it that there was never any prohibition against infant baptism in the early Church?

The only question that ever came up in the early Church concerning infant baptism was whether a baby could be baptized immediately after birth or if the baptism should wait until the infant was 8 days old as how it was done with circumcision. But the Church quickly and unanimously decided that a baby could be baptized immediately after birth.

Luke 18:15-17
Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and 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."

Matthew 21:15-16
When the chief priests and the scribes saw the wondrous things he was doing, and the children crying out in the temple area, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they were indignant and said to him, "Do you hear what they are saying?" Jesus said to them, "Yes; and have you never read the text, 'Out of the mouths of infants and nurslings you have brought forth praise'?"

[stlyn]

Originally Posted by Psalms2

The apostle Paul asserts that baptism is the new circumcision (Colossians 2:11-12). So this being the case, why did God call for infants to be circumcised (Genesis 17:12)? And why is it that there was never any prohibition against infant baptism in the early Church?

He never says baptism is the new circumcision. I suppose you could read that verse to say it is A new circumcision, but he definitely never says it replaces the old and should be done according to the practices of the first circumcision. Verse 12 says "buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God" (bold mine). Faith is an important element of baptism. The baptism means nothing if you don't have faith. These two verses talk about baptism as symbolizing Christ's death and resurrection, which is a big part of what we're meant to have faith in. How can an infant have faith in this? Just like those people who'd only received John's baptism, an infant has no knowledge of the Messiah. The baptism is meaningless.

That said, there are two reasons infant baptism wouldn't be prohibited. The most obvious is that there's no reason to. It wasn't happening, so there was no reason to address it. People were baptized as they believed. I think it's more telling that there isn't a single verse I can think of where an infant baptism takes place. Please let me know if I'm wrong here.

The second reason is that I would say there's no reason to prohibit it in the first place. Paul didn't say they were wrong to be baptized by John - even the Messiah was baptized by him, which I think shows that there certainly wasn't anything wrong with it. But there is clearly a difference between the two, and Paul makes a point of saying that they must be baptized again once they have the knowledge of what this baptism means.

If you forcibly baptized an adult who hated or didn't believe in God, would you expect the baptism to have any meaning? Would they then be circumcised and added to the believers?

Originally Posted by Psalms2

The only question that ever came up in the early Church concerning infant baptism was whether a baby could be baptized immediately after birth or if the baptism should wait until the infant was 8 days old as how it was done with circumcision. But the Church quickly and unanimously decided that a baby could be baptized immediately after birth.

Can you tell me where this is? Is it in the Bible or are you talking about the later church?

[intricatic]

Circumcision was of the flesh:

1Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord! It is no trouble for me to write the same things to you again, and it is a safeguard for you. 2Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. 3For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh— 4though I myself have reasons for such confidence.
If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.

(Philippians 3)

Further, circumcision as a seal of the Abrahamic covenant was not just an outward sign (that was meant to convey the hope of a future promise);

4 Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there the LORD your God will gather you and bring you back. 5 He will bring you to the land that belonged to your fathers, and you will take possession of it. He will make you more prosperous and numerous than your fathers. 6 The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.
(Deuteronomy 30)

Now, God cannot circumcise the heart of a child if that child might in the future fall away from the faith, or not chose it of their own will.

1 "If you will return, O Israel,
return to me,"
declares the LORD.
"If you put your detestable idols out of my sight
and no longer go astray,
2 and if in a truthful, just and righteous way
you swear, 'As surely as the LORD lives,'
then the nations will be blessed by him
and in him they will glory."
3 This is what the LORD says to the men of Judah and to Jerusalem:
"Break up your unplowed ground
and do not sow among thorns.
4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD,
circumcise your hearts,
you men of Judah and people of Jerusalem,
or my wrath will break out and burn like fire
because of the evil you have done—
burn with no one to quench it.
(Jeremiah 4)

Truly, the first circumcision was abused as a ritual act of righteousness even up until the New Testament times. I don't understand this urge to treat baptism in the same manner. Circumcision was meant as a symbol of a future promise, and baptism likewise symbolizes a future promise. The difference is that circumcision was meant for the peoples of Israel as a testament to the fact that they carried the seed of the original promise; baptism testifies to the seed of faith which points to the new promise in Christ.

9Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
(Romans 4)

[intricatic]

Originally Posted by Psalms2

It must have been a good question for it to be a stumper.

Not really a stumper at all, it just needed to be clarified.

[Psalms2]

Originally Posted by stlyn

He never says baptism is the new circumcision. I suppose you could read that verse to say it is A new circumcision, but he definitely never says it replaces the old and should be done according to the practices of the first circumcision.

Then I guess you must believe that the early Church fathers, who were either taught directly by the apostles or who were only two or three generations removed from them, got it wrong when it comes to baptism and salvation and that 2,000 years later you finally set Christianity back on track.

Originally Posted by stlyn

Can you tell me where this is? Is it in the Bible or are you talking about the later church?

The sign of circumcision was the requirement for people to enter into the covenant with God, and God said that it should happen to infants. And baptism is the new requirement. If baptism were not a requirement, Jesus would not give the commandment to baptize "all nations" in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Since Jesus is God, everything that He tells us to do is a commandment, not an option.

The Bible also says that whole households of people were baptized, but there is absolutely no prohibition against baptizing infants in the Bible and no reason to believe that infants are less favored by Jesus.

In fact, the Bible says the opposite, that the kingdom of God belongs to infants and children and that we adults have to become like them for us to enter into Heaven. The Bible also tells us not to lean on our own understanding, but the Bible tells us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

There is no "age of reason" doctrine about baptizing found anywhere in the Bible. And, historically, the early Church never prohibited baptizing infants. The first time that anyone ever decided that infants should not be baptized was after the 1500's. Even Martin Luther did not prohibit it.

The Bible says that he who believes and is baptized will be saved. But this does not say anything about those who incapable of making a statement of faith. Besides, how do we know that a baby doesn't believe in Jesus but that they just can't express it? I think that people are putting themselves in the place of God when they make this assumption. Maybe children start out believing and they learn from people as they get older to not believe. Maybe this is why Jesus tells us that we have to become like an infant or child to be saved. It makes me think about how no child is born a racist.

Bottom line:
The prohibition against baptizing infants is a man-made tradition that was non-existant in the early Church and was not invented until about 1,500 years after the time of Jesus and the apostles.