Artikel ini untuk menanggapi Tulisan Ko Iah-Iah (Hai-Hai) bahwa BAPTISAN ANAK 100% ALKITABIAH. Sebelumnya saya sudah menuliskan 6 artikel di Blog ini tentang Penjelasan Baptisan Bayi yang saya kutip dari banyak sumber dan saya renungkan dan pelajari. Dari 44 Kritik terhadap Gembala dan Gereja, saya menenpatkan BAPTISAN BAYI TIDAK ALKITABIAH dipoint 1, karena itulah yang paling gampang saya ingat KESALAHAN pertama yang muncul dalam Pikiran saya waktu membuat 43 Kritikan itu.
Hai-Hai mau mendiskon kesalahan itu dengan artikel yang beliau ajukan, sehingga Dia berharap saya mengurangi satu point dari 43 Kritik itu, 43-1=42 Point saja. Namun tentu saya tidak sembarangan ketika menulis itu, ada argumen2 dan pertimbangan2 dari perenungan dan pembelajaran Alkitab serta pengamatan terhadap pendapat dan argumen2 para Teolog yg bisa jadi pembanding Hasil Belajar Alkitab saya.
Dalam Artikelnya Beliau menulis:
"BAPTIS ANAK tidak alkitabiah apabila kedua syarat ini terpenuhi:
Karena Alkitab mengajarkan bahwa BAPTIS adalah METERAI yang menggantikan SUNAT, bukankah itu berarti tidak diperlukan PERINTAH BARU agar orang Kristen membaptis anak-anak mereka seperti keturunan Abraham menyunat anak mereka?
Kenapa gereja mula-mula mempraktekkan baptis anak walaupun para rasul tidak mengajarkannya? Karena ketentuan itu sudah diajarkan oleh Allah ketika memberi perintah SUNAT kepada Abraham.
Bagaimana dengan prilaku orang Kristen yang melakukan baptis ulang dengan alasan baptis anak tidak alkitabiah? Mereka harus mempelajari Alkitab dengan cara yang benar agar dapat memahami makna baptis anak dengan benar. Melakukan baptis ulang dengan alasan baptis anak tidak alkitabiah itu ibarat MELAKUKAN sunat ulang setelah disunat pada waktu kecil.
Bagaimana dengan prilaku orang Kristen yang melakukan baptis ulang dengan alasan baptis percik tidak alkitabiah? Mereka harus mempelajari Alkitab dengan cara yang benar agar dapat memahami makna baptis dengan benar. Melakukan baptis ulang dengan alasan baptis percik tidak alkitabiah adalah unjuk KESOMBONGAN dengan menjatuhkan VONIS gereja yang melakukan baptis percik SESAT dan Pendeta yang melakukan baptis percik TIDAK memiliki urapan Allah. Itu ibarat melakukan SUNAT ulang karena menganggap bengkong (tukang sunat) atau dokter yang menyunat sebelumnya tidak kompeten tanpa memperhatikan bahwa kulit katannya sudah disunat. Untuk mempelajari tentang baptis mana yang alkitabiah, silahkan klik di sini ."
Mengenai Cara Baptis, lain waktu akan lebih dalam dan spesifik cara Baptis yg Alkitabiah (sesuai dengan AJARAN ALKITAB) itu apakah CELUP, SIRAM, TUANG, PERCIK, SELAM, dll. Posisi Alkitab jelas SELAM, semua fakta dan bukti2 Alkitab memperkuat itu. Namun ini akan dibahas khusus, biara kita lebih fokus pada masalah BAPTISAN BAYI.
Baptisan bukan Meterai yg menggantikan Sunat. SETUJU 100%, karena Sunat adalah Tanda Perjanjian Allah dengan Abraham dan keturunannya yaitu Bangsa Israel hingga hari ini.
Jika Baptisan adalah Pengganti SUNAT, maka harus diingat bahwa dalam PL, hanya ANAK LAKI-LAKI yang DISUNAT (aturannya hari ke-8, kecuali Ismael waktu itu Disunat usia 13 tahun). Tidak Tercatat Anak Perempuan ikut diSUNAT, hal ini BERBEDA dengan BAPTISAN BAYI yg mempraktekkan baptis Bayi kepada anak laki-laki dan Perempuan.
Timbulnya Baptisan Bayi tidak terlepas dari Para Teolog Covenant yg percaya Baptisan itu Pengganti Sunat. Padahal di PB, umat Israel tetap di SUNAT dan TETAP DIBAPTIS, bagaimana bisa dikatakan BAPTISAN (BAYI dan Dewasa) menyimbolkan/menggantikan SUNAT atau Baptisan Anak/Bayi sebagai PENGGANTI/ METERAI yang menggantikan SUNAT????? Tanda Tanya Besar???
Kesalahan Fatal mereka yg percaya hal ini (Teologi Covenant/Teologi Perjanjian) adalah mereka tidak melihat bahwa ISRAEL dan GEREJA itu BERBEDA. Inilah satu ciri khas dari Teologi Dispensasi yg melihat bahwa ISRAEL dan GEREJA jelas-jelas berbeda.
masuk ke Point 2: Hai-Hai menulis: "BAPTIS ANAK tidak alkitabiah apabila kedua syarat ini terpenuhi: Alkitab menentang baptisan anak."
Saya sudah katakan berkali-kali kepada mereka yg masih percaya BAPTISAN ANAK/BAYI yaitu bahwa dalam PERJANJIAN BARU para Rasul tidak pernah mencatat adanya BAYI/ANAK KECIL yg DIBAPTIS. Indikasi tentang kata SEISI RUMAH TANGGA sudah Terpecahkan bahwa seluruh anggota keluarga itu MENDENGAR BERITA INJIL lalu memberi diri dibaptis. Para Rasul membaptis dengan cara SELAM, makanya Yohanes pembaptis membaptis di Sungai Yordan, Ainon, dan murid2 Yesus juga membaptis ditempat yg banyak airnya, indikasinya SELAM, atau simplenya MASUK KE DALAM AIR dan KELUAR DARI AIR. jika cuma butuh sedikit air, tidak perlu repot ke sungai atau tempat yg banyak air. indikasi ini juga membuat BAPTISAN BAYI/ANAK adalah TIDAK MUNGKIN, karena Masuk ke dalam air dan KEluar dari Air. Kalo mau paksakan, Bayi pastilah sudah dibaptis selam sama para Rasul, seandainya praktek Membaptis Bayi/Anak kecil ada di PB.
Jadi karena di Alkitab PB tidak ada Catatan sedikitpun tentang BAPTISAN BAYI/ANAK, maka Alkitab tidak perlu HARUS MENULIS BULAT-BULAT LARANGAN MENENTANG MEMBAPTIS BAYI/ANAK. Kiranya MENJADI JELAS bagi orang2 pada zaman Para Rasul, bahwa Bayi memang tidak pernah DIBAPTIS oleh para Rasul.
Ada beberapa yg menyarankan JANGAN BAPTIS ANAK/BAYI, tapi PENYERAHAN ANAK, ini memang baik, namun saya tidak akan mengganggap ini perlu dilakukan, yg PASTI BAPTIS BAYI/ANAK KESALAHAN FATAL terhadap Arti, Makna, Subjek, Cara Baptisan. Karena itu Tidak dibenarkan MEMBAPTIS BAYI.
Baptisan Bayi ditinggalkan karena tidak ada DASAR OTORITAS dari Alkitab.
Bayi Baptis ditinggalkan karena tidak ada otoritas atau landasan dalam Kitab injil. Iman sebagai prasyarat baptis ditandai, menyiratkan, atau yang dituntut oleh Kitab injil yang menyentuh pertanyaan itu. Dalam Alkitab PB jelas menyebutkan Praktek Baptis, tetapi tidak menyebutkan bayi.
Beberapa paedobaptists (yg praktekkan dan percaya Baptis Bayi), punya beban untuk memberi bukti yg lebih BERAT untuk melawan mereka yang MENENTANG BAPTISAN BAYI, Dalam Alkitab ada kiisah ara ibu mempersembahkan anak-anak mereka ke Tuhan sebagai Hana melakukan Samuel, tanpa penggunaan air, " . Apa TIDAK BOLEH untuk menggunakan air?" Argumentasi seperti itu menyerah gagasan bahwa baptis adalah " suatu tanda regenerasi, atau kelahiran yang baru." Kebanyakan SARJANA paedobaptist tidak akan mencoba untuk memelihara baptis bayi itu sebagai institusi apostolik.
Ini kita akan melihat catatan dari Para Sarjana PaedoBaptist. 100 Sarjana PAEDOBAPTIST (yg percaya Baptis Anak) mengakui bahwa Ajaran Baptisan Bayi tidak dikenal dalam Perjanjian Baru.
The testimony of pedobaptist scholars on infant baptism.
Kesaksian Sarjana PaedoBaptis tentang Baptis Bayi
"The Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Church, South" (1930), P. 4.
LUTHER-"It cannot be proved by the sacred Scriptures that infant baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the apostles."
ERASMUS-"It is nowhere expressed in apostolic writings that they baptized children."
OLSHAUSEN-"There is altogether wanting any conclusive proof-passage for the baptism of children, in the age of the apostles, nor can any necessity for it be deduced from the nature of baptism."
GEORGE EDUARD STEITZ,--SCHAFF-HERZOG ENCY.—Art. Bapt.-
"There is no trace of infant baptism in the New Testament."
A. T. BLEDSOE, LL. D.-
"It is an article of our faith (Methodist Episcopal), that the baptism of young children (infants) is in any wise to be retained in the church, as most agreeable to the institution of Christ. But yet, with all our searching, we have been unable to find in the New Testament a single express declaration or word in favor of infant baptism" (Southern Review, Vol. 14). And this same writer says: "Hundreds of learned pedobaptists have come to the same conclusion, especially since the New Testament has been subjected to a closer, more conscientious, and more candid exegesis than was formerly practiced by controversialists."
H. A. W. MEYER, Th. D. (called "the prince of exegetes").-
"The baptism of the children, of which no trace is found in the New Testament, is not to be held as an apostolic ordinance . . ."
"Baptism, at first, was administered only to adults, as men were accustomed to conceive of baptism and faith as strictly connected. There does not appear any reason for deriving infant baptism from an apostolic institution; and the recognition of it, which followed somewhat later, as an apostolic tradition, serves to confirm this hypothesis" (Church History).
"The recipients of baptism seem originally to have been persons of mature life. The command, 'Go, teach all nations, and baptize them,' and the two conditions, 'Repent and be baptized,' and 'He that believeth and is baptized,' indicate adults" (The Episcopal Church, It's Faith and Order, p. 51).
A. C. McGIFFERT-
"Whether infants were baptized in the apostolic age, we have no means of determining" (History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age, p. 54').
ROBERT RAINY, in treating the period A. D. 98-180-
"Baptism presupposed some Christian instruction, and was preceded by fasting. It signified the forgiveness of past sins, and was a visible point of departure of the new life under Christian influences and with the inspiration of Christian purposes and aims" (Ancient Catholic Church, p. 75).
HARNACK, in dealing with the post-apostolic period- "There is no sure trace of infant-baptism in the epoch; personal faith is a necessary condition" (History of Dogma, Vol. 1, p. 20).
H. M. GWATKIN-
"We have good evidence that infant-baptism is no direct institution either of the Lord Himself or of His apostles. There is no trace of it in the New Testament" (Early Church History to 313, Vol. 1, p. 250).
Space forbids that we continue. These quotations show the majority position of pedobaptist scholars.
But, notwithstanding, in the face of a that has been said, there are some who
make a determined effort to prove the apostles practiced infant baptism.
Hence we notice-
(2) Arguments for Infant Baptism Answered,
A. The boldest attempt that has been made to justify infant baptism is by seeking to prove that the child is saved. "The babe and the converted person are both in a state answering to regeneration. If one is entitled to baptism, so is the other. If it is necessary to baptize a converted adult, then for the same reason it is necessary to baptize an infant . . . We can never be sure that the adult is saved when we baptize him, but concerning the children there is no possibility of mistake."* And the ceremony used by the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in administering "baptism" to infants, reads in part as follows: "Dearly beloved, forasmuch as all men, though fallen in Adam, are born into this world in Christ the Redeemer, heirs of life eternal and subjects of the saving grace of the Holy Spirit, etc."
There are two passages that are used to prove that infants are saved. One of them is mentioned by the Methodist discipline quoted above just following the words quoted. This passage is found in Matt. 19:14; Mark 10: 14; and Luke 18:16. In it, in speaking of children, Jesus said: "Of such is the kingdom of God," or "to such belongeth the kingdom of God." The following quotations show the truth of this passage: "'Such' certainly means childlike persons, and apparently does not mean children at all. So the Memphitic, 'for persons of this sort, theirs is the kingdom of heaven.' And the Peshito takes great pains, 'for those who are like them, theirs is the kingdom of heaven.' All the Greek commentators explain it as meaning the childlike, none of them mentioning children as included, and several expressly stating the contrary. Nor does any Greek commentator, so far as we can find, mention infant baptism in connection with this passage, though they all practiced that rite" (Broadus, on Matthew).
"Not little children, but men of childlike disposition" (Meyer).
"Of that reference to infant baptism which it is so common to seek in this narrative, there is clearly not the slightest trace to be found. The Saviour sets
*Methodism, by Ethalmore V. Cox, published by the Board of Managers of Christian Literature, Methodist Episcopal Church, South.
The Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South,
before the apostles as symbols of spiritual regeneration, and of the simple childlike feeling therein imparted" (Olshausen). But, regardless of the meaning of this passage, it does not authorize infant baptism. The purpose of the bringing of children to Him is stated explicitly, and the objection of the disciples shows clearly that this was even unusual. So the passage is dead against infant baptism, no matter what interpretation is put upon the words "of such is the kingdom of God."
The other passage used to probe that infants are saved is 1 Cor. 7:14-"For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean but now are they holy."
But, first of all, it needs to be noted that this passage proves too much for pedobaptists according to their use of it. If it proves that children of a union between a believer and unbeliever are entitled to baptism by virtue of their connection with the believing parent, then the unbelieving parent is also entitled to it, without further qualifications; for the same holiness that is imparted to the children of such a union is imparted to the unbelieving member.
The holiness mentioned in this passage is clearly not moral holiness, but only an outward sanctification making the association in the home lawful for the saved member. "The pertinence of Paul's argument may be more obvious, if it is borne in mind that a Judaising influence was already working powerfully in the church. It is, therefore, probable that these Christians who had come under this influence, and who had unbelieving husbands or wives, were in fear of ritual contamination by conjugal intercourse with the unbelievers. This, however, Paul declares to be a groundless fear; for, as every kind of food is hallowed by prayer (1 Tim. 4:5), so that a Christian may receive it without ritual contamination, every lawful associate or companion in life is hallowed to the Christian" (Alvah Hovey).
And this passage really proves the falsity of the contention that infants are saved. If infants are saved, then all are holy; and Paul's argument would be inapposite. Furthermore this idea of infant salvation denies the universal necessity of regeneration. When correctly translated, the words of Jesus to Nicodemus about the new birth are not, "Except a man," etc., as though they apply to adults only; but they are, "Except one," etc. Roman Catholics use this passage to prove that infants must be born again to be saved, and thus, because they wrongfully believe that baptism is necessary to regeneration, find ground for infant baptism. If they were right in their view of baptism, then they would be wholly right in their whole view of this passage. This passage does teach that all, not excepting infants, must be born again in order to be saved. When infants that die receive regeneration is not revealed in the Bible. But it is plain that they are not born saved, and it is plain that they must be regenerated to be saved. Our opinion is that regeneration in dying infants takes place the moment of the separation of the soul from the body. We have dealt at length with the salvation of those dying in infancy in the chapter on Human Responsibility.
B. There is likewise no scriptural warrant whatsoever for the assertion that baptism came in the room of circumcision. Not a hint of such a thing appears anywhere in the New Testament, not even in the discussion at the conference over circumcision in Jerusalem. In fact, this conference clearly proved that circumcision did not give way to baptism; otherwise the question at issue could have been settled promptly by simply saying that the Gentiles were not to be required to be circumcised because baptism had taken the place of circumcision. A pedobaptist would have been sure to propose that solution if he had been there. And that, by the way, is proof that there were no pedobaptists there. Jewish believers continued to practice both circumcision and baptism without a hint from the apostles to the contrary.
C. The next argument for infant baptism that we shall take up is based on Acts 2:39. It has been stated thus: "Peter, addressing a multitude of Jews on the day of Pentecost, said (Acts 2-39): 'For the promise is unto you and to your children.' Can you comprehend this statement? These Jews had been taught to receive children and give them the token of the Abrahamic covenant. There is no doubt with us about children being baptized on the day of Pentecost."
But this statement very tactfully omits the last part of the passage quoted, according to the usual tactics of pedobaptists. This last part explains the passage; and, if properly considered, will show that any children baptized on Pentecost, or at any other time in the New Testament age, were only such as were called of the Lord. This necessitates their being old enough to receive the gospel and act upon it. The part of the passage we refer to reads: "Even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him." We shall be happy to baptize all the children that the Lord our God calls, but not more; for we have no ground for baptizing those whose baptism God has not authorized. D. The next and last argument for infant baptism that we shall notice is based upon the household baptisms mentioned in the New Testament.
(a) Such an argument assumes two things for which there is no proof:
(1) That there were infants in these households.
(2) That these infants were baptized, and that in direct opposition to everything revealed in the Bible about the meaning of baptism and the qualifications of the recipients of it.
From Knapp's Theology (Knapp was a pedobaptist) we read: "It may be objected against those passages where the baptism of the whole families is mentioned, viz., Acts 10:42-48; 16:15-33; 1 Cor. 1:16, that it is doubtful whether there were any infants in those families, and if there were, whether they were then baptized."
(b) An inspection of the five household baptisms recorded in the New Testament leaves no proof whatsoever of infant baptism, but rather, in most cases, it furnishes conclusive proof to the contrary.
Cornelius is said to have been "a devout man, and on that feared God with all his house" (Acts 10:2). And we read that "the Holy Spirit fell on them that heard the word" (Acts 10:44), which thing was evidenced by their speaking in tongues (v. 46). If there were any infants in the family of Cornelius, they were not included when his house was mentioned in its relation to God, and hence would not be baptized. And again, if any infants were baptized on this occasion, then they also received the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues.
The strong probability is that Lydia was not a married woman. She was a merchant woman, and at the time of her conversion was far from her home in Thyatira. Even if she had been a married woman, the fact that she was in business would make it unlikely that she had infant children. Her household, no doubt, consisted of servants and employees, as in the case of "Caesar's household" (Phil. 4:22). This expression cannot refer to or include any of Nero's children, for certainly none of them were members of the church at Rome.
When Paul said to the jailor at Philippi: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house," his words mean that the other members of the jailor's family were to be saved by their personal faith, and certainly not by the jailor's faith; for if so, then adults in the family were to be saved without personal faith. And it is said that the jailor "rejoiced greatly, with all his house, having believed in God." All of this shows that there were either no infants in the jailor's family or else they were not taken into consideration in the things that went on that night. Nothing is given of the details of the conversion of the household of Stephanas. Paul tells us that he and his household were among the few he baptized at Corinth (1 Cor. 1:16). But three or four years later Paul wrote to the church at Corinth and spoke of the household of Stephanas as having, "set themselves to minister unto the saints" (1 Cor. 16: 15). It is unlikely that this would have been said if the household that was baptized a few years previous had included infants.
In the case of Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue at Corinth, it is distinctly said that "he believed in God with all his house." No infants here. So this is the case of the household baptisms that pedobaptists depend so much upon. Not a scintilla of evidence that there were infants in any of these households, and far less that they would have received baptism if there had been.
We shall not waste time answering the attempts of pedobaptists to justify infant baptism by arguments other than those drawn from Scripture. These studies are prepared for those who believe in following Christ and the apostles, and no argument can induce such a countenance that which is subversive of their practices; and this is certainly true of infant baptism.
There are a number of groups that practice infant baptism. This is viewed as an entrance into the church body and regeneration is definitely in their minds. We need to look at this topic for a moment. Others desire infant baptism for much less spiritual reasons. I recently heard of a young mother that wanted her baby baptized because she had heard that baptismal certificates were acceptable if you lost the child’s birth certificate.
THE SUGGESTED PROOF OF INFANT BAPTISM
1. The rite of circumcision is introductory to the old covenant, so the rite of baptism is the introductory rite to the new covenant. Since Circumcision is done on infants, then so should baptism.
2. The scriptures show that entire households were baptized. Acts 16:33. The assumption is there were children and infants in the households.
3. The New Testament shows that whole households can be saved if one parent is, thus we should baptize all members. 1 Corinthians 7:14.
4. Since baptism saves, we must baptize immediately so the child will not slip into hell if it should die.
5. Matthew 28:19-20 tells us to baptize all nations. That includes babies and senior citizens.
INFANT BAPTISM REFUTED (8 ALASAN BAPTIS BAYI HARUS DITOLAK)
1. There are no New Testament references of babies being baptized. If it were important to them for salvation, the writers of Scripture would have told us about it.
Tidak ada referensi/catatan dari Perjanjian Baru bahwa Bayi dibaptis. Jika Baptis Bayi penting bagi keselamatan mereka, Penulis Alkitab pasti akan mengatakan pada kita tentang hal itu.
2. The New Testament shows that baptism follows, repentance, believing, or accepting or some combination of these. An infant can do none of these things. (Acts 2:38-39 stipulates repentance before baptism)
PB menunjukkan bahwa Baptisan mengikuti Pertobatan, Percaya atau Menerima atau kombinasi dari hal-hal itu. Seorang Bayi tidak dapat melakukan hal-hal itu. (Kis 2:38-39 menetapkan pertobatan sebelum dibaptis)
3. The early church fathers rejected this thought. From the Didache we read, “Before the baptism, moreover, the one who baptizes and the one being baptized must fast, and others who can. And you must tell the one being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.” (125-135) You cannot tell an infant something, and infants do not fast.
Bapa-Bapa Gereja Awal menolak pikiran ini. Dari Didache kita membaca, “Sebelum Pembaptisan, lebih dari itu, orang yang membaptis dan orang yang dibaptis harus cepat/puasa, dan yang lain juga. Dan kamu harus mengatakan kepada orang yang dibaptis untuk puasa satu atau dua hari sebelumnya” (125-135). Anda tidak dapat mengatakan hal ini pada Seorang Bayi, dan Bayi tidak dapat puasa.
4. Let us consider the baptizing of households. We have no indication that infants were present or indeed if there were, they were baptized. In one of the household texts is Acts 16 and in verse 32 we see, “And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.” They spoke. If they were speaking then all that heard must have heard. That would mean understanding minds and not infant minds.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia raises a question that is probably tongue in cheek, yet very appropriate. They ask if we are going to press the thought of “household,” if we should suggest that dogs and cats need to be baptized.
1 Corinthians 16:15 mentions the house of Stephanas as serving God. Infants cannot serve. If the household idea is to be carried forth there is a problem in using this text.
Mari pikirkan pembaptisan sekeluarga. Kita tidak punya indikasi bahwa Bayi-Bayi hadir atau termasuk jika memang ada, mereka dibaptiskan. Dalam satu keluarga di Kis 16:32 kita mengerti, “Lalu mereka memberitakan firman Tuhan kepadanya dan kepada semua orang yang ada di rumahnya.” Mereka menginjili. Jika mereka berbicara lalu semua yang mendengar harus telah mendengar. Ini berarti pikiran yang mengerti dan bayi-bayi tidak mungkin bisa berpikir.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) memunculkan sebuah pertanyaan yaitu mungkin…... mereka bertanya jika kita memaksakan pemikiran dari “seisi keluarga/rumah tangga”, maka kita bisa menyatakan bahwa anjing and kucing perlu dibaptis.
I Kor 16:15 menyebutkan Stefanus sekeluarga melayani Tuhan. Bayi tidak dapat melayani. Jika ide sekeluarga digunakan untuk mendukung Baptis Bayi maka ada masalah dalam penggunaan ayat ini.
5. Baptism is not related to salvation other than a picture. Mark 16:16 shows that disbelief is that which causes damnation. John 1:12 mentions receive — you cannot do that as an infant.
Acts 10:47 shows they had the Holy Spirit before they were baptized. If baptism is needed before regeneration, then how could they have been indwelled by the Holy Spirit?
Baptis tidaklah dihubungkan dengan keselamatan selain dari suatu gambaran/symbol. Markus 16:16 menyebutkan Orang yang Tidak Percaya akan berakibat penghukuman. Yoh 1:12 menyebutkan yang Menerima--anda tak dapat melakukan itu sebaga Bayi.
Kis 10:47 menunjukkan mereka menerima Roh Kudus sebelum dibaptis. Jika baptisan dibutuhkan sebelum lahir baru, lalu bagaimana mereka dapat didiami oleh Roh Kudus?
6. In the case of likening circumcision to baptism, we have a slight problem. If this is true then we should only baptize men, for only men were circumcised in the Old Testament. Indeed Genesis 17:12 mentions that it is to be done on the eighth day or older.
Dalam kasus menyimbolkan sunat dengan Baptisan, kita punya sedikit masalah. Jika Hal ini dibenarkan, lalu kita hanya boleh membaptis laki-laki saja, karena hanya laki-laki yang disnuat di PL. termasuk Kej 17:12 menyebutkan bahwa itu harus dilakukan pada hari ke-8.
7. Matthew 28:19-20 mentions discipling and teaching. This also is impossible with an infant.
Matius 28:19-20 menyebutkan pemuridan dan pengajaran. Ini tidak mungkin dilakukan pada Bayi.
8. Ephesians 2:8-9 Mentions that salvation is of grace, and that works are not involved. Baptism is a work — something that man does and it can have nothing to do with salvation.
Efesus 2:8-9 menyebutkan bahwa keselamatan itu anugerah, dan bahwa perbuatan tidak termasuk. Pembaptisan adalah sebuah perbuatan—yang dilakukan manusia dan ini tidak berhubungan dengan syarat keselamatan.
The whole thought of infant baptism is tied up in the thought of baptismal regeneration, the idea that baptism is an integrated part of regeneration. I would submit two more points to refute the idea of baptismal regeneration.
Keseluruhan pemikiran tentang Baptis Bayi dikaitkan dengan Lahir Baru karena Baptisan (Baptismal Regeneration), yaitu ide bahwa baptisan adalah bagian yang terintegrasi dengan Lahir Baru. Saya akan menunjukkan dua point untuk MENOLAK ide Baptismal Regeneration
1. Paul mentions that he baptized few (1 Corinthians 1:17). If this is the case, and if it were the case that salvation was part of baptism, then wasn’t Paul very remiss with his evangelism? If baptism is required for regeneration then Paul would have baptized those that he talked to.
2. A very clear proof that baptism is not a part of salvation is seen in the thief on the cross. The Lord told him he would be in paradise, yet the thief had not had the opportunity to be baptized. I was in a class where a man from the Christian church was invited for a visit. We asked him about the thief on the cross and he said this was a special case. No other explanation was forth coming.
Some might wonder why people believe that baptism is part of salvation? Might I suggest a few possible reasons?
a. The “tower of Babel syndrome.” (Attempting to reach God by their own accomplishments.) They think there must be something they can do to help in the process of salvation.
b. The “I’d rather do it myself syndrome.” They haven’t trusted Christ to take care of all there is to do.
c. The “that’s the way it’s always been done syndrome.” That is what they have been taught and that is the way it’s been and that’s the way it’s going to be no matter what you say, and no matter what the Scriptures say.
My employers wife once asked me just before their grandchild was going to be baptized if I thought infants should be baptized. I told her that I did not think that the Scriptures taught that concept. I sat down that night and put down some references for her and took them in the next day. She did not listen to a thing, and felt that it was right and proper to have their grandchild baptized.
Baptism, to some, brings some benefit to the one that is baptized. The Roman Church sees the rite of baptism as a means of accepting grace and it is part of their salvation. “The sacrament of Baptism confers grace.” (Morrow, Louis LaRavoire; “MY CATHOLIC FAITH”; Kenosha, WI: My Mission House, 1955, P 252)
Some Lutherans feel that baptism is part of their being saved. I’d like to quote from a Lutheran in Makoti, North Dakota. “Baptism is not merely a symbol. It is the means God uses:
(1) to forgive sin,
(2) to save us,
(3) to create spiritual life through the giving of the Holy Spirit, thus beginning of formal membership in the church,
(5) [not sure where 4 went — it was missing] to adopt us into His family wherein we become legal heirs of His Kingdom, and
(6) to make us partners in Christ’s death and resurrection.” (from a church bulletin)
In considering baptism another question might come up. Is there any reason for an unsaved person to want to be baptized? In my childhood I was not well taught in the Bible though I was in Sunday School and church every Sunday. I had no idea what baptism was all about. The church I was taken to as a child, believed in baptismal regeneration. About ten or so my mother pushed me physically into the aisle to go forward for baptism. I returned to my seat though a few weeks later did ask to be baptized. I was taken into the church and all was proper even if I didn’t know what it was about. Others might be baptized because of popularity, or for an increase in stature in the community, however the scripture speaks to the thought of unsaved people being baptized. a. Matthew 3:7-9 John The Baptist condemned some for wanting baptism when they were unrepentant. b. It is a picture of the death burial and resurrection, so why would any unsaved person want to identify with it? c. It is an identification with Christ and His church — why would a lost person be interested. It is only an empty work if they should be baptized. It would have no meaning to the world, nor to them.
Another question. Is there any reason why a person would, or should be rebaptized? Yes. This was what the anabaptists were all about. They were catholics that had been sprinkled or poured upon as infants. When they had understanding of salvation they were rebaptized as believers. This is also seen in the case of the disciples of John the Baptist in Acts 19:1-7.
This by the way shows there was a difference between the baptism of John the Baptist and Christian baptism. If a person was baptized before they were saved then the proper step would be for rebaptism. This was the case in my own life. When I was saved there came a time when I knew that my baptism had no meaning to me or anyone else, so took steps to be baptized again in the church where I was saved.
Occasion Of Baptism: When should a person be baptized, after they are saved? Some Baptists desire and push for immediately. Some independents tell their converts whenever, and they do it as they feel they want to. The sad part of this approach is that some never do. Most independents feel that it is to be done as soon as the believer fully understands it. This may be awhile or it may be immediately.
1. Never baptize without talking with the person concerning their salvation, the purpose and intent of baptism, and the ramifications or responsibilities of being baptized.
2. Never push, but do encourage them — teach them the how and why soon after their conversion. For many years there was no real strong significance to baptism in this country, but more and more it is a real testimony of leaving an old life and beginning a new one. In other countries it is very significant and may be the act that solidifies your conversion to the world. In Ireland that is the last thing that the catholics will allow.
They may allow going to the Bible Church, even maybe being saved, but the baptism is the BREAK with Holy Mother Church and the believer is in for ostracism from friends and relatives. We have not discussed the baptismal formula that the Lord specified. Matthew 28:19 “...baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” Just what is the implication of this formula? To the Jew they were making a commitment to a belief in Christ as the Messiah and a public recognition of his deity. God The Father, God The Son — the Messiah come, and God The Holy Spirit. There is a difference between the baptisms that are mentioned in the New Testament. We will not go into detail on these aspects of our topic. There is a short listing of thoughts in Appendix five at the end of the book for further study. In brief: Baptism shows the inward death of our sin nature and the creation of our new nature. It also shows our belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. These three are also pictured by the mode of immersion.
As in other topics we would like to apply the truth that has just been studied. The obvious application is to the believer that has not been baptized. The ordinance is something that comes under the thought of obedience. If a believer understands baptism properly and does not move toward being baptized, then they are involved in the sin of disobedience. May we encourage anyone in this position to consider moving toward a complete obedience to their Lord’s command? A side application might be that, as teachers of the Word, we should see to it that new believers understand the major doctrines of the faith and call them to obedience. We trust the reader now has a complete understanding of the ordinances so that we can move on to the final portions of our study.
sumber Tambahan diambil dari:
Teologi Sistematika Simmon,
Teologi Sistematika Derickson.
mohon maaf jika terjemahan bhs inggris saya tidak begitu baik : ).