Infant Baptism and the Bible: Should Babies Be Baptized?

[whitney]

Please tell me the specific text where anyone is told to repent and then be baptized. Then we can talk about those texts. And remember, a statement of the form "repent and be baptized" does not make the case.

If my wife says "take out the garbage and wash the car", is she insisting that I take out the garbage first? No she is not. If sequence were important, she would say this: "take out the garbage and then wash the car"

And you need to address post 154. Why is no one taking responsibiliy for actually dealing with the argument presented in post 154?

Elijah did answer it and so did I, he did a much better job though.

 

[Elijah674]

Your [post] goofed bigtime as 'i' see it! One needs to 'teach' that 'this is the way that I see it' to stay away from false stuff! Eccl. 3:14 & Rev. 22:18-19.
Parents can rightfully dedicate their young to God, but baptism is not scriptural.

And baptism signifies that sinful man dies & [is BURIED] in the watery grave and has accepted Christ's Eternal Plan by Faith (Phil. 4:13 2 Cor. 12:9) and that he will live 'IN' Christ by His power. (Rom. 8:1)

Christ stated CLEARLY when asked of Saul in Acts 9:6 what 'would Thou have me to do?' and Christ told him what 'thou must do'! Christ sent Saul to the N.T. church to be healed & baptized. ibid. 18 And even that opens up Truth to why He did so? Instead of healing the blind Saul Himself, He sent him to the Church that He had just shortly before intrusted the keys of heaven with!

And that was not any pope Peter either!;) Matt. 18:17-18 finds the church body making the decision if one was to be added to the church by baptism. (or removed if that was the need) Christ gave authority to both bind or loose on earth & in heavens record books. And even the church was saved on CONDITIONAL Obedience! Rev. 2:5, Rev. 3:16, Matt. 23:38

Yes, And this is the way that I see it!

--Elijah

One more point is that of Matt. 28:20's teaching of Commandment, to teach ALL TRUTH. For one to teach that Peter was needed to be involved in this Church Decision, would find that person not accepted by any church body in baptism!

 

[Hardcastle]

Please tell me the specific text where anyone is told to repent and then be baptized.

Already provided - see Acts 2:38. The sequence is established by Peter - belief - repentance - baptism - remission of sins - gift of the Holy Spirit. Jesus states belief - baptism - salvation (Mark 16:16). Paul believed, repented and was then baptized in water so that his sins could be washed away by the blood of Christ...

And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'
(Acts 22:16 ESV)​

The eunuch heard the gospel preached - he believed - he repented - he confessed his Lord and he was immersed in water to have his sins washed away.

Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?" [And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he replied, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."] And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. (Acts 8:35-38 ESV)​

Easy concept - those who believed were commanded to repent and be baptized and then their sins were washed away.

 

[Hardcastle]

Re: Arguments from silence.

With all due respect, this text simply does not say repent and then be baptized. It says repent and be baptized.

The text is quite clear - those who believed were then commanded to repent and be immersed in water.

 

[Drew]

Already provided - see Acts 2:38. The sequence is established by Peter - belief - repentance - baptism - remission of sins - gift of the Holy Spirit.

No - you are simply not reading the text correctly. How can I deal with you if you change the text - the text does not say "repent then be baptized", it says "repent and be baptised". Big difference.

More later.

 

[Drew]

Re: Arguments from silence.

The text is quite clear - those who believed were then commanded to repent and be immersed in water.

With all due respect, you are either intentionally distorting the text or your pre-conceptions prevent you from reading it properly - the text, as actually written - does not mandate that people repent first and then be baptized.

How can I deal with people who do not read the text as actually written?

 

[Hardcastle]

No - you are simply not reading the text correctly. How can I deal with you if you change the text - the text does not say "repent then be baptized", it says "repent and be baptised". Big difference.

More later.

You are mistaken - the text is clear - the ones who believed what Peter preached regarding the risen Savior were then required to repent and be baptized. The passage is what it is...

"Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins..."​

 

[Scotth1960]

You are quite mistaken my friend - Peter was given the ‘keys’ to the kingdom of heaven and whatever he bound on earth was bound in heaven. On the day of Pentecost he commanded those who believed that Jesus was the Christ to “repent†and then be baptized in water ‘for the remission of sinsâ€.

Infants cannot repent – they have nothing to repent from. Infant baptism is a non-biblical concept that should be rejected on biblical grounds. Baptism in the NT is ‘believer baptism’ – only those who first believed where to be baptized. Baptism without confessed faith in the risen Lord only leaves one wet. Baptism preceded by faith and repentance is ‘for the forgiveness of sins’.

"Infant baptism is a non-biblical concept that should be rejected on biblical grounds". Friends, "Sola scripture" (by "the Bible alone" is a non-biblical concept that should be rejected on biblical grounds". The Bible does not say we can go by the Bible "alone". Which Scripture says that? Infant baptism is a tradition of the Church, and the Church is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). Reject the pillar, the Church, and you reject the intended meaning of the Bible, of the NT (together with the OT understood in NT terms). It is because people don't understand ecclesiology (the doctrine of the Church), they don't understand biblical hermeneutics (how to properly read and interpret the whole Bible). In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
:waving (Thumbs up to infant baptism and adult believer baptism too.).

 

[Hardcastle]

Re: Arguments from silence.

With all due respect, you are either intentionally distorting the text or your pre-conceptions prevent you from reading it properly - the text, as actually written - does not mandate that people repent first and then be baptized.

How can I deal with people who do not read the text as actually written?

You are the one who mis-reads the text my friend. It is in black and white - the one who believes is then required to repent and be baptized. What part of the text do you not understand?

 

[Hardcastle]

"Infant baptism is a non-biblical concept that should be rejected on biblical grounds". Friends, "Sola scripture" (by "the Bible alone" is a non-biblical concept that should be rejected on biblical grounds". The Bible does not say we can go by the Bible "alone". Which Scripture says that? Infant baptism is a tradition of the Church, and the Church is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). Reject the pillar, the Church, and you reject the intended meaning of the Bible, of the NT (together with the OT understood in NT terms). It is because people don't understand ecclesiology (the doctrine of the Church), they don't understand biblical hermeneutics (how to properly read and interpret the whole Bible). In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
:waving (Thumbs up to infant baptism and adult believer baptism too.).

We must go where Scriptures lead. We do not need a fallible Magisterium to tell us what we must do. The NT is clear - infants are not candidates for baptism. Only those who are mature enough to hear the gospel and believe that gospel are the ones who are to be immersed in water. There are no examples in the NT where the apostolic church baptized/sprinkled infants. That concept is a man-made concept that should be rejected.

 

[Drew]

Elijah did answer it and so did I, he did a much better job though.

Simply untrue - like many, Elijah imposes ideas on the text that are simply not there.

 

[Hardcastle]

Simply untrue - like many, Elijah imposes ideas on the text that are simply not there.

Again - it is in black and white - the one who believes is then required to repent and be baptized. This is an easy concept yet you continue to misunderstand. Why?

 

[Drew]

Re: Arguments from silence.

You are the one who mis-reads the text my friend. It is in black and white - the one who believes is then required to repent and be baptized. What part of the text do you not understand?

Where, and please be specific, does the author clearly establish that baptism must precede repentance?

The simple facts are these: The statement "do A and B" does not, repeat does not, impose sequence - all such a statement does is to mandate that both A and B be done. The important point is this: there is no necessity for A to precede B.

 

[Hardcastle]

Re: Arguments from silence.

Where, and please be specific, does the author clearly establish that baptism must precede repentance?

Been there - done that -

"Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins..."​

 

[Drew]

Again - it is in black and white - the one who believes is then required to repent and be baptized. This is an easy concept yet you continue to misunderstand. Why?

The misunderstanding is yours. I agree that the text says "repent and be baptized". You are either intentionally, or unconconscioulsy transforming this instruction to "repent and then be baptized".

On what grounds do you justify inserting this "then" into a statement which simply does not contain a "then"?

 

[Drew]

Re: Arguments from silence.

Been there - done that -

"Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins..."
​

We're done - you are changing the text. I cannot deal with a person who re-writes what the text actually says.

For the last time, there is a difference between:

1. Repent and be baptized; and

2. Repent and then be baptized.

I will no longer be responding to your posts.

 

[Hardcastle]

The misunderstanding is yours. I agree that the text says "repent and be baptized". You are either intentionally, or unconconscioulsy transforming this instruction to "repent and then be baptized".

On what grounds do you justify inserting this "then" into a statement which simply does not contain a "then"?

God establishes the grammatical sequence and He is clear - (1) hear the word preached - (2) believe that Jesus is the Christ - (3) repent of past sins (4) be baptized in water (5) receive the forgiveness of sins. Why do you want to change His order?

 

[Hardcastle]

Re: Arguments from silence.

We're done - you are changing the text.

The text has been the same for over 2000 years - the one who believes must then repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. Easy concept.

 

[whitney]

God establishes the grammatical sequence and He is clear - (1) hear the word preached - (2) believe that Jesus is the Christ - (3) repent of past sins (4) be baptized in water (5) receive the forgiveness of sins. Why do you want to change His order?

That is the truth!

 

[Drew]

I thought I was seriously I did.

Obviously, these people were not infants when they were baptized, correct?

I am not sure exactly which people you are referring to.

Why would they be baptized if they did not believe in the first place?

I am not saying that person cannot believe first and then be baptized. Clearly, an adult would not get baptized without, in some sense, having first come to some kind of belief in Jesus.

The fact that some people might "believe first" and then get baptized does not logically preclude the possibility that a person, such as an infant, can be baptized first, and then "believe" later in life.

No one has provided any evidence at all that belief must, much less repentance, precede baptism. In fact, I suggest that post 158 shows that repentance cannot substantially occur before baptism.

We must all, myself included of course, be committed to letting the texts say what they actually say, despite what our tradition tells us.

So I am open-minded about this: What Biblical arguments can you make that baptism must follow belief / repentance? Examples do not make the case, since an example is just that - an example.