Infant Baptism and the Bible: Should Babies Be Baptized?

[Alabaster]

Re: Arguments from silence.

The posts that you have not dealt with have already been pointed out to you. They are posts 17, 18, and 81.

They were dealt with. You must have missed it.

 

[whitney]

I kind of doubt it. My line of argument has been that Paul says things that make it clear that repentence simply must follow baptism, not precede it. If that argument is correct, we can embrace infant baptism without having to speculate about whether infants can and do repent. I would bet that infants, in fact, cannot repent. But, to be fair to you, I do not think I can actually make a Bibical case for my position.

Seems how you brought this up in another thread to someone else, I would like to step in here and show that sprinkling for baptism is not adequate and therefore those babies being "sprinkled" are not truly baptized in the way the Bible instructed. They word baptism means to submerge, literally dip under.
908. Baptisma
Original Word: βάπτισμα, ατος, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: baptisma
Phonetic Spelling: (bap'-tis-mah)
Short Definition: the rite or ceremony of baptism
Definition: the rite or ceremony of baptism.

Cognate: 908 báptisma – baptism (note the -ma suffix, emphasizing it is a result, i.e. of sincere repentance.) 908 (báptisma) indicates submerging (dipping, immersion

907 baptízō – properly, "submerge" (Souter); hence, baptize, to immerse (literally, "dip under").

A simple sprinkling is not a thorough "washing away of sins". Nowhere in the Bible can you find that someone was simply sprinkled to wash away their sins.

 

[Alabaster]

Nowhere in Scripture are we told to force a baptism on someone. It is always a personal act of obedience. For parents to perpetrate a baptism on their children who have not received Christ, nor obeyed God's command to be baptized, is an act of spiritual abuse. They send the wrong message that they are saved which they can carry all their lives---and to their graves, and to hellfire.

I know many Catholics who are adults and have a false confidence that they are saved, never having made a profession of faith, but they were told they were baptized as babies! These people are some of the most difficult to reach concerning sin and repentance.

Do spiritually consciencious parents really want to be judged for teaching their dear children a false gospel???? They need to get into the word and let the Lord educate them before they make a huge blunder that can have devastating eternal consequences.

 

[Cornelius]

Sola Scriptura is not taught anywhere by the Bible.

1Co 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other. (ASV)

1Co 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men (Not in the original) above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

God saw to it that the Word is the only guide in truth. Everything else we add are merely our opinions and our own traditions.

 

[Cornelius]

Baptism is the outward sign, or step of faith, we take to show that we understand the "cutting off of the flesh", the "death to self". Baptism is the visual side of this these verses : Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: ....... We go into the water , which represents the Word. The Word is a sword that cuts off our flesh.Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

We enter into the water, like Israel entered into the Read Sea.1Co 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; The water of the Red Sea, drowned their "Egyptians" (Old sinful nature) and the water of the baptism shows how the water of the Word, drowns our old nature if we submit (go under) to the Word.

Coming up on the other side, Israel represents the spirit Man (Christ in us the hope of glory) We too come up into nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

So the believers baptism is an act of understanding the above and knowing what it means spiritually.

 

[Cornelius]

The word "name" does not exist in the Greek or Hebrew. Its full translation would be better when done in more words. It means : Nature, character and authority.

With this knowledge we will see a different picture when we look at this verse. (Please note that the word "in" actually means "into )
So here is the verse as written:
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

And here it is filled out :

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them into the nature, the character and the authority of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Jesus came to reverse the curse and to restore man to his authority which God gave to Adam in the beginning. That authority goes with the nature and character of God..............its a GIFT to all who believe.

 

[Drew]

Re: Arguments from silence.

They were dealt with. You must have missed it.

Which posts addressed the specific content of posts 17, 18, and 81. Please give the relevant post numbers.

 

[Drew]

deleted own post.

 

[Drew]

Nowhere in Scripture are we told to force a baptism on someone.

Incorrect argument for reasons that have been repeatedly pointed out to you. The absence of a specific directive to baptize infants is not evidence that God opposes infant baptism.

Is "sola scriptura" asserted in the Bible? No, it is not. Applying your logic here, we should reject sola scriptura since it is not asserted in the Bible.

 

[whitney]

Re: Arguments from silence.

Which posts addressed the specific content of posts 17, 18, and 81. Please give the relevant post numbers.

POST 17

The actual text here does not support the assertion that one must believe prior to baptism:

15And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16"He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

Verse 16 asserts that belief and baptism together suffice for salvation. But there is nothing whatsoever in this text that requires us to believe that a person must already believe at the point of baptism.

Are you using a "paraphrase" as your source for Mark 16:15-16?

I will address this now Drew, In Mark we see that the word "believed" is used, which would mean a past tense and an on-going event. It is a verb that requires action on the person who is believing. If we use your assertion, then this word "believed" would need to be in a different tense, such as "will believe" or "believe in the future".
God is very careful with His Word and in this case He used a word that is past tense/on-going.
God bless.

 

[A-Christian]

Re: Should Babies Be Baptized?

Are you able to make relevant Biblical case against infant baptism?

Of course -

Since Paedobaptism is never indicated, nor even HINTED at in the Bible, and since ALL the baptisms presented in the Bible are of ADULTS who consciously BELIEVE either at the level of salvation after the crucifixion, or at John's level of repentance before only - then there is NO BASIS for paedobaptism - period. It's nothing but a "religious superstition" based on nothing.

And since there's no reason whatsoever to believe in it to begin with based on the Word of God, then the Biblical refutation is complete.

Simple as that.

Bob, your statement just doesn't hold water. This is why personal interpretations will lead many down the wrong road. For some reason, you has ignored that entire households were baptized. You can't possibly have a clue as to the ages of the various household members. Let's look again Bob. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).

 

[francisdesales]

Re: Should Babies Be Baptized?

You are making a fundamental error of logic - that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

It is simply not logically correct to conclude that infant baptism is "inappropriate" simply because the Bible never affirms it.

There are plenty of things that are never affirmed in the Bible that are nevertheless true and / or appropriate.

The OP asserted that infant baptism is not Biblical. One can show that position to be false without having to make a positive case for infant baptism.

The Bible does not give us "clear" evidence of the practice of infant baptism. There is neither an absolute statement in either way (one that specifically includes or excludes children from baptism). Thus, a historian looking to determine whether the Church practiced baptism, we must take the neutral position within the Bible, using those citations that speak of "whole families" as a clue that opens the possibility.

Next, we look at what the Church wrote in addition to what the Church wrote from the hand of Paul and Peter and James. Again, to the historian looking for the answer, it doesn't matter whether the writer was an apostle, but only if the person gives a reliable witness to the practice of Christianity. It does not matter whether the source is "inspired" or not. We are looking for whether the practice occured.

Here are some historical witnesses to the practice:



"And many, both men and women, who have been Christ's disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixty or seventy years..." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 15:6 (A.D. 110-165).

"And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God [baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins." Aristides, Apology, 15 (A.D. 140).

"Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and Saviour?" Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, 9 (A.D. 156).

"For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God--infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180).

"I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord." Polycrates, Fragment in Eusebius' Church History, V:24:7 (A.D. 190).

"And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family." Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).

"[T]herefore children are also baptized." Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233). "For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too." Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).


As noted by the "Apostolic Traditions" and Origen, the practice is traceable to the Apostles. Note the several witnesses that speak of being a follower of Christ since childhood, which further corroborates the witnessed made in the third century. A follower of Christ is naturally a baptized individual, since it is at THAT point where one is united with the Death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Thus, from a historical point of view, there is very little to show that the Church as a whole REJECTED infant baptism, but indeed practised it. What prevents people from seeing this is a stubborn adherence to "sola scriptura" applied to history and theology.

Next, such people will tell us that the Great Wall of China did not exist, because it wasn't in the Bible...

Regards

 

[whitney]

Re: Should Babies Be Baptized?

The Bible does not give us "clear" evidence of the practice of infant baptism. There is neither an absolute statement in either way (one that specifically includes or excludes children from baptism). Thus, a historian looking to determine whether the Church practiced baptism, we must take the neutral position within the Bible, using those citations that speak of "whole families" as a clue that opens the possibility.

Hi Francis,

If this was so in the NT, "whole families" were baptized, and this was the way it was from the beginning of the church, then why the wait to require the implementation of infant baptisms into the church?
I have seen where the dates of requirement for the Catholic Church were not implemented 100-200 years and maybe more after the start of the church.
Don't quote me on the implement date, but I do know it was much later, which makes it appear this was a decision made by leaders of that church and not what was intended.
Thanks.

 

[francisdesales]

Re: Should Babies Be Baptized?

Hi Francis,

If this was so in the NT, "whole families" were baptized, and this was the way it was from the beginning of the church, then why the wait to require the implementation of infant baptisms into the church?
I have seen where the dates of requirement for the Catholic Church were not implemented 100-200 years and maybe more after the start of the church.
Don't quote me on the implement date, but I do know it was much later, which makes it appear this was a decision made by leaders of that church and not what was intended.
Thanks.

You are obviously asking for my opinion. My opinion is that Christianity was not an established religion as it is now. During the first century, baptism was primarily given to adults because initial evangelization requires that we first teach the parent and adults. The emphasis was on those who could respond to the Gospel "now". We do have several reliable witnesses that the practice was apostolic, which means dated to the first century.

Did Jesus teach this specifically? We don't know. Did Jesus teach that some day, there would be no need to circumcise? No, but they later did judge that, and the Spirit agreed with that... Thus, forget about sola scriptura regarding what the Church does or can do, it is a false mindset... Perhaps some of the Apostles understood Jesus' saying "don't prevent the children from coming to me" in that way and that provided the catalyst for infant baptism (coupled with its similarity to circumcision).

What we DO know is that the Church, led by the Holy Spirit, saw the practice as a valid one that more clearly pointed to the role of baptism in the life of a Christian - one where God does everything. Thus, we are "born from above". WE don't control when we are born, and infant baptism does indeed best express this concept.

Regards

 

[farouk]

Re. the 'established' thing.

It's best to keep things simple as in the Bible. I don't want tradition piled on top.

 

[whitney]

Re: Should Babies Be Baptized?

You are obviously asking for my opinion. My opinion is that Christianity was not an established religion as it is now. During the first century, baptism was primarily given to adults because initial evangelization requires that we first teach the parent and adults. The emphasis was on those who could respond to the Gospel "now". We do have several reliable witnesses that the practice was apostolic, which means dated to the first century.

Did Jesus teach this specifically? We don't know. Did Jesus teach that some day, there would be no need to circumcise? No, but they later did judge that, and the Spirit agreed with that... Thus, forget about sola scriptura regarding what the Church does or can do, it is a false mindset... Perhaps some of the Apostles understood Jesus' saying "don't prevent the children from coming to me" in that way and that provided the catalyst for infant baptism (coupled with its similarity to circumcision).

What we DO know is that the Church, led by the Holy Spirit, saw the practice as a valid one that more clearly pointed to the role of baptism in the life of a Christian - one where God does everything. Thus, we are "born from above". WE don't control when we are born, and infant baptism does indeed best express this concept.

Regards

The Word of God is sufficient, relying on it is not a false mindset, it is what was intended. No one needed to judge if circumsion should cease, God spoke to the Israelites of a new covenant and circumsion was never given to us in the new covenant, same with all the other rules which ceased.

Is there some significance between circumsion and baptism to you? Do you believe one replaced the other?

 

[Cornelius]

There are tow ways people view baptism;
1) From the view of their denomination
2) From the Bible.

 

[whitney]

There are tow ways people view baptism;
1) From the view of their denomination
2) From the Bible.

....and only one is correct.

 

[farouk]

'Thus saith a denomination' is no way to settle matters.

 

[Cornelius]

Paul warns us about baptism to not be taken in by the traditions of men.

Col 2:8 Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ:
Col 2:9 for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,
Col 2:10 and in him ye are made full, who is the head of all principality and power:
Col 2:11 in whom ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ;
Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Paul is confirming what I posted a few posts before this one. During circumcision there was a loss of real flesh. It was cut off. Now we do not do that anymore. Now we have to come , after the Father has drawn us : Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him:.... (This in itself is enough proof against infant baptism ! No infant has ever been drawn . They must first come into a time where they can hear the call. Before this they are all innocent and not accountable before God, they all belong to Him at this stage.)

We loose our "flesh" (circumcision ) in our hearts in the New Testament. Our attitude changes (repentance) We loose our "old man" or "sinful nature" . This circumcision of the heart is demonstrated by the believers baptism when we go under the water, after repentance.

Act 2:38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized........