Infant Baptism and the Bible: Should Babies Be Baptized?

[Drew]

An infant has absolutely no understanding of the gospel or of repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and an infant has no need of repentance, it's not guilty of anything before God.

Where does the Bible tell us that baptism should only be performed on an individual with either "understanding" or repentance. Please give specific texts from the Bible.

Consider this: Does a vaccination help an infant? Obviously it does. Do we choose to not vaccinate because the child does not understand what is going on? Of course not - we vaccinate them anyway. So where does the Bible tell us that one has to "understand and repent" before baptism?

Every scriptural example provided for us in the word of God involves a concious decision to be baptized and a fundamental understanding of what that means.. to die to sin and to self and to be raised new in Christ Jesus. For many early Jewish Christians it meant forsaking all to follow Christ.. it 'should' mean that much to us as well.

Two points:

1. There are stories of entire households being baptized - how do you know there were no infants?

2. Even if there are no examples of infants being baptized, I trust you understand that a set of examples do not justify a generalization. If I see five women going into a restaurant, should I conclude that this restaurant is only visited by women? Such a conclusion is not justified.

Again, something that an infant has no comprehension of.

You have to make an actual Biblical case that one must "understand" prior to baptism.

No one has succeeded in doing so in this thread. They all either do not understand that they cannot assume the very thing they should be proving or they make the error of assuming that examples establish a general principle.

 

[whitney]

Dear Drew, Whether one is born again in baptism as an infant, or born again

in baptism as an adult believer, the truth is but the same. Being born again,

being baptized, is just the beginning of Christian life.

This is not accurate, to be born again does not mean baptism. We have 2 births, one is physical and the other one is spiritual. The spiritual rebirth happens when we realize who Jesus is and make Him Lord of our life, we die to ourselves, we carry His cross, and He abides in us and we in Him. This all happens when we KNOW what Jesus did for us BEFORE baptism.

And then, in obedience to Him, we are baptized with water, a complete immersion in water, no sprinkling!

Your wording makes it look like you don't understand this process, nor what "born again" means.

 

[Drew]

I want to point out another error that people can make in arguing against adult baptism. The basic argument is as follows:

1. All the examples of people being instructed to be baptized are adults who are enjoined to repent and then be baptized.

2. This is compelling evidence of a general principle - baptism has to follow repentance and "understanding".

There is an error in this thinking and it is this: It is, of course, the nature of the case that any "instruction" would only be given to those who can understand it, that is adults.

Does it make sense to instruct an infant that s/he should be vaccinated? Of course not - the infant cannot understand what is going on. So, of course, there will never be any "record" of people instructing infants to get vaccinated.

But it would be a logical error to assume, based on the absence of such instructions to infants, that infants should not be baptized.

 

[Drew]

This is not accurate, to be born again does not mean baptism. We have 2 births, one is physical and the other one is spiritual. The spiritual rebirth happens when we realize who Jesus is and make Him Lord of our life, we die to ourselves, we carry His cross, and He abides in us and we in Him. This all happens when we KNOW what Jesus did for us BEFORE baptism.

Not Biblical. Note what Paul has to say on this matter:

Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his

Paul states - three times no less - that baptism effects the death of the person (clearly to the "old self"). So baptism is indeed an organic part of the "born again" process - in order to be born again, one must first die.

And Paul tells us here that this death is effected through baptism. Paul is clear - baptism precedes any "spiritual" rebirth.

Now I will sit back and watch as people try to make Paul say something other than what he actually writes. However, to be fair, if someone can actually make a non question-begging case that is speaking of baptism in a "symbollic sense", that would be a legitimate argument. In the absence of such an argument, I see no reason not to take Paul literally.

 

[whitney]

1). Phillip taught the eunuch
2). The eunuch believed
3). The eunuch asked to be baptized
4). Phillip said - IF YOU BELIEVE, YOU MAY
5). The eunuch was baptized.

Acts 8:36 And as they went on the way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch saith, Behold, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.

Now, let's see someone say this did not happen in the process it happened.

 

[whitney]

Belief comes first, then baptism.

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.


Acts 8:18 Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized.

 

[whitney]

After they were taught, they believed, then they confessed their sins and only then they were baptized.

Mark 1:5 The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

Acts 8:13 Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.

Acts 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

 

[Drew]

1). Phillip taught the eunuch
2). The eunuch believed
3). The eunuch asked to be baptized
4). Phillip said - IF YOU BELIEVE, YOU MAY
5). The eunuch was baptized.

Fair enough - we have an example. However, an example does not establish a general principle. This is not "my opinion" - it is a universally accepted principal of logic (except, of course, in this thread apparently).

Acts 8:36 And as they went on the way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch saith, Behold, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.

So? Another example. I just watched two young women enter the coffee shop where I am presently sitting. Does this mean that I should leave since these two example prove this coffee shop is for women only?

Now, let's see someone say this did not happen in the process it happened.

Of course, I do not deny that what happened in these two examples did indeed happen.

But these examples provide no support at all for the position that we should not baptize infants.

 

[Drew]

Belief comes first, then baptism.

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.


Acts 8:18 Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized.

More examples. And examples do not make the general case.

Most examples of professional hockey players are men. Does this legitimize the conclusion that there are no female professional hockey players? Of course not.

 

[whitney]

More examples. And examples do not make the general case.

Most examples of professional hockey players are men. Does this legitimize the conclusion that there are no female professional hockey players? Of course not.

Yes, the NT is an example for us so we know HOW to be the Body of Christ. Jesus is our example, too, Paul is an example, should we disqualify all their examples they set for us because there are not enough examples for us to follow?

Nowhere does it state that any infant was baptized, they were all adults and I just gave you 3 posts worth of examples, you are disregarding the New Testament in the examples it sets for us.

 

[jasoncran]

Yes, the NT is an example for us so we know HOW to be the Body of Christ. Jesus is our example, too, Paul is an example, should we disqualify all their examples they set for us because there are not enough examples for us to follow?

Nowhere does it state that any infant was baptized, they were all adults and I just gave you 3 posts worth of examples, you are disregarding the New Testament in the examples it sets for us.

while i dont agree with infant baptism as its kinda pointless since the child must understand what he or she is getting into.

kinda here take this medicince so that you dont get sick, but the person doenst know that the illness they had was caused by their actions or lack thereof.

drew is using logic to defend his position, we cant rule out the possibility of the household have infants in it.

since the members werent listed.

can we all agree to disagree?? its not a salvinic issue here.

 

[whitney]

while i dont agree with infant baptism as its kinda pointless since the child must understand what he or she is getting into.

kinda here take this medicince so that you dont get sick, but the person doenst know that the illness they had was caused by their actions or lack thereof.

drew is using logic to defend his position, we cant rule out the possibility of the household have infants in it.

since the members werent listed.

can we all agree to disagree?? its not a salvinic issue here.

LOL. I am getting kind of tired.
I think Drew should go baptize as many infants as he sees fit.
It's been a pleasure, Drew, you debate well.

 

[Drew]

Yes, the NT is an example for us so we know HOW to be the Body of Christ. Jesus is our example, too, Paul is an example, should we disqualify all their examples they set for us because there are not enough examples for us to follow?

Nowhere does it state that any infant was baptized, they were all adults and I just gave you 3 posts worth of examples, you are disregarding the New Testament in the examples it sets for us.

Your logic is simply not correct. You seem to not understand that a set of examples of some phenomena do not establish a general principle. Yes, there are examples of people believing first and then being baptised. But, and as much as you may not want to believe this, this does not establish a general principle.

This is not my "opinion" - it is a well-recognized principle of reasoning.

And, of course, I am not disregarding the examples - I have acknowledged them. I am simply agreeing with the well-established principle that a set of examples do not establish a general principle.

 

[Drew]

while i dont agree with infant baptism as its kinda pointless since the child must understand what he or she is getting into.

No - this begs the question. Since so many people are doing this, let me post some material on this error of logic:

From wikipedia:

Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.

Example

• Person 1: Bob is annoyed right now.
• Person 2: How do you know?
• Person 1: Well, because he is really angry.

This is happening in spades throughout this thread - in fact, I would bet that every opponent of infant baptism in this thread has made this mistake.

I know this, and perhaps other posts, make me come across as patronizing. Sorry about that, but I must point out that people repeatedly beg the question in respect to this topic.

can we all agree to disagree?? its not a salvinic issue here.

I agree that this not a "salvation" issue, but that does not mean it is not important. Obviously, I have no desire to endlessly debate a point where an impasse has been reached - while my limit is higher than for many, it is not without limit.......

 

[Vince]

I don't know if this error has been discussed yet, but it is sometimes taught that baptism is the new birth. Baptism is always described as a death and burial, but never as a birth.

 

[Drew]

LOL. I am getting kind of tired.
I think Drew should go baptize as many infants as he sees fit.
It's been a pleasure, Drew, you debate well.

Fair enough - you are a very polite debater and that is not saying something small - a lot of people, myself included, can take a lesson from your pleasant and peacable style of debate.

 

[Drew]

I don't know if this error has been discussed yet, but it is sometimes taught that baptism is the new birth. Baptism is always described as a death and burial, but never as a birth.

My kneejerk response is to agree with you on this point.

 

[Free]

Yes, the NT is an example for us so we know HOW to be the Body of Christ. Jesus is our example, too, Paul is an example, should we disqualify all their examples they set for us because there are not enough examples for us to follow?

Nowhere does it state that any infant was baptized, they were all adults and I just gave you 3 posts worth of examples, you are disregarding the New Testament in the examples it sets for us.

Whitney,

In the past there have been those on these forums who have used the exact same reasoning to conclude that true Christians only go to house churches and that meeting in large church buildings, as the majority of Christians do, is unbiblical.

This will not become a debate about such matters. This is only an example of the exact same reasoning you and others are using, only you are not using it consistently. It would seem to be a matter of convenient theology.

 

[jasoncran]

No - this begs the question. Since so many people are doing this, let me post some material on this error of logic:

From wikipedia:

Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.

Example

• Person 1: Bob is annoyed right now.
• Person 2: How do you know?
• Person 1: Well, because he is really angry.

This is happening in spades throughout this thread - in fact, I would bet that every opponent of infant baptism in this thread has made this mistake.

I know this, and perhaps other posts, make me come across as patronizing. Sorry about that, but I must point out that people repeatedly beg the question in respect to this topic.


I agree that this not a "salvation" issue, but that does not mean it is not important. Obviously, I have no desire to endlessly debate a point where an impasse has been reached - while my limit is higher than for many, it is not without limit.......

i disagree, as vince just stated that baptism isnt birth symbolic of death and burial.

if we all agree to that logic or interpretation then how can a infant choose to die and be buried in the actions of the cross?

few churches here aside from the rcc and may the lutherans to my knowledge (in my county) do the infant baptism.

the anti-padeobaptism is far larger in number here. problably two or three to one.

 

[Free]

My kneejerk response is to agree with you on this point.

Ditto. Just as Christ's new life came after his resurrection, it would make sense that ours does as well. This question also arises: Can there be new life if there is no death?

(Edited to add: this is probably too far off topic to be discussed here. I just think it should be kept in mind.)