Infant Baptism and the Bible: Should Babies Be Baptized?

[Scotth1960]

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.

Dear Hardcastle, Do you go where the Scriptures lead when it comes to what the Scriptures say about the Scriptures? Which Scripture teaches Christians are to go by the Scripture "alone". Did the Apostles go by Scripture alone? No. They preached the Gospel, from the Scriptures, but not from the Scriptures only. Every time an Apostle spoke, He was speaking oral tradition. It was not something confined to the Scriptures. Have you not read 2 Thessalonians 2:15? There is spoken, apostolic tradition, not recorded in the Bible. What do you do with this verse? Did Andrew, John, James, Barnabas, Bartholomew, Thomas, Peter, Jude, do nothing, preach nothing, say nothing, teach nothing? How are we to know what they said? Only through Church tradition. How are we to know whether or not they baptized infants? Only through Church tradition. The Baptist sect did not come about till some 1600 years after Christ. 2000 years of Church history did not once forbid baptizing of infants. In Erie PA Scott Harrington

 

[whitney]

Hey Scott..... you continue pushing your church's doctrines of men and you have consistently ignored this verse I keep giving you, could it be this scripture is directly warning us of the same human traditions you yourself push onto everyone else?

Mark 7: 6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’[a]
8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.†9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[b] your own traditions!

 

[whitney]

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

We were discussing Acts, I was talking about the people Peter was talking to.

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.

Many people in this thread have given you examples and none has convinced you that God wrote what He meant. If some of these great debators in this thread have not convinced you, and above all else, God has not convinced you, then I highly doubt I will. I already stated my case, but you continue arguing the same point and I can not make you see what the rest of us do.
God bless -

 

[Scotth1960]

Hey Scott..... you continue pushing your church's doctrines of men and you have consistently ignored this verse I keep giving you, could it be this scripture is directly warning us of the same human traditions you yourself push onto everyone else?

Mark 7: 6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’[a]
8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.†9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[b] your own traditions!

Dear Whitney, It is precisely PROTESTANT DOCTRINE that is "doctrines of men".
They depart from the historic Church in several ways; namely, they say, with Augustine of Hippo, with Thomas Aquinas, with Anselm of Canterbury, and with Alcuin of York and King CHARLEMAGNE of the FRANKS, "FILIOQUE" "AND THE SON".
If you think the Orthodox Church teaches the "traditions of men" (sic), then read John 15:26? What do you teach? Do you teach the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son? That IS A TRADITION OF MEN. If you teach that the Spirit proceeds FROM THE FATHER ALONE, you teach the same thing JESUS CHRIST TEACHES in John 15:26! And the same Church of Jesus also baptizes infants. That is a tradition OF GOD, not of men. To deny infant baptism is a RECENT TRADITION, starting with John Smith in 1610 in ENGLAND, WHO BAPTIZED HIMSELF. Where is SELF-BAPTISM PREACHED BY THE NT AND CHRIST?
We must understand CHURCH HISTORY to know WHY PEOPLE DENY INFANT BAPTISM. They are following the example of these men who baptize themselves, like John Smith (or Smythe) in PROTESTANT ENGLAND. In Erie PA Scott Harrington
PS The traditions of men

John Wycliffe
Jan Hus
Martin Luther
Menno Simmons
Hulreich Zwingli
John Calvin
John Knox
Thomas Cranmer
Philip Melanchthon
Martin Bucer
Theodore Beza
James Arminius
John Wesley
Protestant man made traditions and most or many of these men say "FILIOQUE". Following THE POPES OF ROME, and not SCRIPTURE (JOHN 15:26).

 

[Drew]

Many people in this thread have given you examples and none has convinced you that God wrote what He meant. If some of these great debators in this thread have not convinced you, and above all else, God has not convinced you, then I highly doubt I will. I already stated my case, but you continue arguing the same point and I can not make you see what the rest of us do.
God bless -

The facts are these:

1. No one has made a specifically Biblical argument that baptism must always follows belief / repentance.

2. People repeatedly add to the word of God - inserting a sequence qualifier to statements like "repent and be baptised". In so doing, they decide that they know better than the author of the texts. This is not an opinion, it is a fact. When some takes "repent and be baptized" and change it into "repent and then be baptized", they are changing what has actually been written. I do not know why people do not realize this.

3. The fact that there are some examples of people "believing" first and then being baptized is simply not a "proof" that this must always be the proper sequence.

 

[Tailgunner]

Dear Drew, A lot of this assumes that infants (babies) cannot and do not hear the Gospel before they are baptized. This is an unsolved mystery known only to God.

And you're saying they can hear and understand the gospel, Scott?

Babies can repent and believe too. Although they are innocent and committed no actual sins, even those who have not yet sinned can do the repentance of simply believing in God.

What? Babies can repent and believe? Even if they could, if they are innocent and have committed no actual sins, of what do they need to repent?

All people are mortal, so surely babies need to receive salvation just like anyone else.

By your own statements above, why would they need to receive salvation if they have not sinned?

This is just plain bad theology that's not consistent and makes no sense.

TG

 

[Tailgunner]

Dear Cornelius, That pits the Church against the Bible, and the Bible against the Church. That is impossible. Denominations do not exist. They remain for a time, but they are not the Church of Matthew 16:18. They are traditions of men.
The Church of the living God is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15) which is led by the Holy Spirit into all the truth (John 16:13). You cannot separate the Bible from the Church. If you do, you get false doctrines. The view of "their denomination" may be the traditions of men "which twist the Scriptures to their own destruction". The Bible does not read itself; it must be read according to the tradition and preaching of some Church. The Church cannot contradict the Bible, because it was the Greek-speaking Church that wrote the Bible. This NT Church continues today among the Greek and Russians and other nations within the Orthodox Church (the Orthodox churches abroad and in the diaspora). In Erie Scott Harrington

Naturally, the Greek Orthodox Church taught you this, right? In effect, Scott, you're looking to the word of men over and above the Word of God. True, they may be men in a church you grew up loving and respecting, but they are sinful, fallible men nonetheless. Rely on the Word of God, Scott. It's the standard for our faith and practice.

TG

 

[Hardcastle]

Dear Hardcastle, Do you go where the Scriptures lead when it comes to what the Scriptures say about the Scriptures? Which Scripture teaches Christians are to go by the Scripture "alone". Did the Apostles go by Scripture alone? No. They preached the Gospel, from the Scriptures, but not from the Scriptures only. Every time an Apostle spoke, He was speaking oral tradition. It was not something confined to the Scriptures. Have you not read 2 Thessalonians 2:15?

Hi Scott – you forget that the Apostles did not have the completed canon at the time 2 Thessalonians was written and the “traditions†noted in your passage were inspired oral instructions from God given until the NT was completed in written form. The “oral traditions†found today in the RCC/Greek Orthodox Church are the same corrupted “traditions of men†that Jesus warned against in the gospels -

But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? (Mat 15:3 )​

To answer your question – yes I choose to obey the commandments of God revealed in “sola scriptura†and reject the erroneous “traditions of men†taught by religionists and so should you. Sola scriptura is clear – infants are not candidates for baptism – baptism is reserved for those capable of naming the name of Christ.

The Baptist sect did not come about till some 1600 years after Christ. 2000 years of Church history did not once forbid baptizing of infants.

Well, there may be some Baptists who would disagree with you but the RCC/Greek Orthodox Church was not in existence for the first 300 years of church history – much too late to be considered the Lord’s church today. Infant baptism was not practiced by the apostolic church - period.

 

[Scotth1960]

Naturally, the Greek Orthodox Church taught you this, right? In effect, Scott, you're looking to the word of men over and above the Word of God. True, they may be men in a church you grew up loving and respecting, but they are sinful, fallible men, nonetheless. Rely on the Word of God, Scott. It's the standard for our faith and practice.

TG

Dear Tailgunner, Of course, Rely on the Word of God. But what you are hinting at is that the Greek Orthodox Church does not rely on the Word of God. Not at all! The Greek Orthodox Church wrote the Word of God, the NT. She received her OT from the Greek text made by the Jews, the LXX. What is good for the goose is good for the pudding. There are sinful, fallible men also in Protestantism. We all read Scripture through our respective traditions. We all say that they other guys traditions are "the traditions of men", whereas while our Church's traditions are "the tradition of God." So one reaches, eventually, an impasse, when one appeals to the written Word of God? Which Church rightly understands the Scriptures? Where there is a contradiction amongst teachers, which teaching is right, true, Biblical, and Christian? Who says?
In Erie PA PS Calvinism is a new tradition and not taught by every Christian.
Calvin was fallible, too.
Scott R. Harrington PS I am fallible too.

 

[Hardcastle]

The Greek Orthodox Church wrote the Word of God, the NT.

No - inspired men of God wrote the NT canon. The Greek Orthodox Church is a man-made organization and she is not inspired by God.

 

[Tailgunner]

In Erie PA PS Calvinism is a new tradition and not taught by every Christian.
Calvin was fallible, too.
Scott R. Harrington PS I am fallible too.

Scott, who mentioned anything about Calvinism here?

TG

 

[Scotth1960]

Hi Scott – you forget that the Apostles did not have the completed canon at the time 2 Thessalonians was written and the “traditions†noted in your passage were inspired oral instructions from God given until the NT was completed in written form. The “oral traditions†found today in the RCC/Greek Orthodox Church are the same corrupted “traditions of men†that Jesus warned against in the gospels -

But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? (Mat 15:3 )​

To answer your question – yes I choose to obey the commandments of God revealed in “sola scriptura†and reject the erroneous “traditions of men†taught by religionists and so should you. Sola scriptura is clear – infants are not candidates for baptism – baptism is reserved for those capable of naming the name of Christ.



Well, there may be some Baptists who would disagree with you but the RCC/Greek Orthodox Church was not in existence for the first 300 years of church history – much too late to be considered the Lord’s church today. Infant baptism was not practiced by the apostolic church - period.

Dear friend, How do you know that infant baptism was not practiced by the apostolic church? How do you prove that - period?

In Erie PA Scott Harrington PS Bishops were present in the early church after the days of the last of the 12 apostles, and these bishops were Orthodox Christians. So yes, there was an Orthodox Church before 300 AD. From day one at Pentecost in summer of 30 AD!

 

[westtexas]

The facts are these:
1. No one has made a specifically Biblical argument that baptism must always follows belief / repentance.

Drew, the Greek in the verse y'all have been discussing gives you the answer you are looking for. Here is a link to a lexicon, or use whatever one you care to use.
Acts 2:38 Bible Lexicon
Acts 2:38 says "Repent and be baptized" or in the Greek "metanoesate ekastos baptistheto"

If you look at the lexicon "metanoesate-repent" is used in the aorist active tense,
"baptizo-be baptized" is used in the aorist passive tense.
The definition of "aorist active" is "a defined action"-repent
The definition of "aorist passive" is "preposition with future implications"-be baptized
Thus, from the Greek in this text, you have 1) Repent and 2)be baptized

Westtexas

 

[Bob Carabbio]

What is the PURPOSE of Paedobaptism.

Biblically, what is the "Spiritual effect" of performing the ritual?????

 

[Scotth1960]

No - inspired men of God wrote the NT canon. The Greek Orthodox Church is a man-made organization and she is not inspired by God.

Dear Hardcastle, The Protestant Reformation is indeed a man-made organization, based upon MARTIN LUTHER, and not inspired by God. Luther wrote "by faith alone" and added WORDS INTO THE MOUTH OF ST. PAUL in Romans 3:28. This made St. Paul contradict ST. JAMES who writes, "not by faith alone" in James 2:24. Martin Luther wrote, James is one right strawy epistle (epistle of straw), and the work of no apostle of Christ. Therefore, from this opinion of LUTHER, Christians should reject James from the Canon of the NT, as it CONTRADICTS LUTHER'S DOCTRINE OF SALVATION "BY FAITH ALONE" (SOLA FIDE). Go figure. Luther thus shows himself a false prophet, and those who follow after Luther, Calvin, and their doctrine of Sola Scriptura as false prophet, while professing by Scripture alone, Luther does not HESITATE to ADD WORDS OF HIS OWN to the text of the NT. The word "alone" in Romans 3:28. The KJV Bible, which so many Protestants profess to love and to believe, does not have the word "alone" in Romans 3:28. Go figure. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington PS The Greek Orthodox Church does not preach this Sola fide error of Luther. Your whole existence comes what what Luther did in the 16th century; your interpretation of the Bible, which may deviate in some ways from Luther's, is only possible because Luther left Rome; and Rome left the True Church in 1054 AD. The Greek-speaking Church of the Orthodox Christians is the first part of the Orthodox Church to have received Christ from St. Paul, St. Peter, St. John, St. Andrew, etc. It continues to this day. Orthodoxy didn't leave us; we left Orthodoxy by saying, He (the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father AND THE SON" (FILIOQUE), whereas JOHN 15:26 does not say FILIOQUE (AND THE SON), but only says, "From the Father". This is Jesus Christ speaking, in John 15:26. The Orthodox Church preaches Christ's words; and so does the Old Catholic Church. Few other Christians preach this: WHY? WHY NOT PREACH JOHN !5:26? THAT IS THE TRADITION OF GOD, AND THE GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH HONORS CHRIST IN HIS HOLY WORDS. AMEN. In Erie PA Scott Harrington

 

[Drew]

Drew, the Greek in the verse y'all have been discussing gives you the answer you are looking for. Here is a link to a lexicon, or use whatever one you care to use.
Acts 2:38 Bible Lexicon
Acts 2:38 says "Repent and be baptized" or in the Greek "metanoesate ekastos baptistheto"

If you look at the lexicon "metanoesate-repent" is used in the aorist active tense,
"baptizo-be baptized" is used in the aorist passive tense.
The definition of "aorist active" is "a defined action"-repent
The definition of "aorist passive" is "preposition with future implications"-be baptized
Thus, from the Greek in this text, you have 1) Repent and 2)be baptized

Westtexas

Even if you are right - and I assuming you are arguing that the text really means "repent and then be baptized - this is still not an argument against infant baptism. All it shows is this: when addressing an adult (which is what the passage is doing), the instruction is to repent and be baptized.

But this leaves entirely open the question as to whether an infant cannot be baptized. It simply does not follow that that just because the sequence for an adult (one who can at least understand what it means to repent) is "repent then be baptized" that one should not baptize infants, since they obviously cannot follow this pattern.

I have been holding back on this argument, but I deploy it now. Those who think the Bible teaches against infant baptism have still not made their case. Here's why: I can assert that being baptized could be considered analagous to "getting vaccinated". For an adult, the proper sequence is "understand what the vaccine is about and then receive it". Fine.

But, and I cannot emphasize this enough: it clearly does not follow that one should not vaccinate infants simply because they cannot understand the benefit of the vaccine - you should obviously still vaccinate the infant.

Now, if you can show - Biblically - that being baptized requires undertanding on the part of the one being baptized then, and only then you would probably have a case.

 

[Hardcastle]

Dear friend, How do you know that infant baptism was not practiced by the apostolic church?

As noted - the example in the apostolic church was 'believer baptism' - infants do not have the mental maturity to name the name of Christ and be immersed 'calling on the name of the Lord'. The historical record is clear - it was not practiced by the Lord's church in the apostolic era and it was never sanctioned by the inspired writers of the NT.

The Lutheran scholar, H.A.W. Meyer who taught infant baptism sums it up correctly...

“The baptism of the children of Christians, of which no trace is found in the N.T., is not to be held as an apostolic ordinance, as, indeed, it encountered early and long resistance; but it is an institution of the church, which gradually arose in post-apostolic times in connection with the development of ecclesiastical life and of doctrinal teaching, not certainly attended before Tertullian, and by him still decidedly opposed, and, although defended by Cyprian, only becoming general after the time of Augustine in virtue of that connection...â€​

Again - infant baptism was never as an apostolic ordinance and it encountered much resistance. Why? Because it is a doctrine of man that should be rejected as a non-biblical practice.

 

[Drew]

Drew, the Greek in the verse y'all have been discussing gives you the answer you are looking for. Here is a link to a lexicon, or use whatever one you care to use.
Acts 2:38 Bible Lexicon
Acts 2:38 says "Repent and be baptized" or in the Greek "metanoesate ekastos baptistheto"

If you look at the lexicon "metanoesate-repent" is used in the aorist active tense,
"baptizo-be baptized" is used in the aorist passive tense.
The definition of "aorist active" is "a defined action"-repent
The definition of "aorist passive" is "preposition with future implications"-be baptized
Thus, from the Greek in this text, you have 1) Repent and 2)be baptized

Westtexas

I will provisionally assume you are entirely correct here. But, as per my preceding post, the case against infant baptism is still not made.

But, to be fair to you, you have t least made an actual argument - others simply have decided, for reasons best known to themselves, to rework "repent and be baptized" to "repent and then be baptized".

This is what is so frustrating - simply taking it upon oneself to rework the text. Now, if you are right in your "tense" argument above, so be it. But it is disturbing that you are the only one making an actual argument, and not simply begging the question.

 

[Hardcastle]

Even if you are right - and I assuming you are arguing that the text really means "repent and then be baptized - this is still not an argument against infant baptism.

The text is clear my friend - the one who refuses to repent is not a candidate for baptism. The one to be scripturally baptized must first believe and then repent - then comes baptism in water.

Infants do not have the capacity to name the name of Christ or repent. These facts leave you back at square-one - supporting a non-biblical doctrine from men. Give it up - you are not authorized by God to change what He has revealed.

And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
(Acts 2:38 ESV)
​

 

[westtexas]

Even if you are right - and I assuming you are arguing that the text really means "repent and then be baptized - this is still not an argument against infant baptism. All it shows is this: when addressing an adult (which is what the passage is doing), the instruction is to repent and be baptized.

I'm not arguing for or against infant baptism. I personally believe that scripture points towards believers baptism but I don't believe anyone will show that infant baptism is unbiblical from scripture. My point was that you have been stating to everyone in this thread that since your wife said you could "take out the trash and wash the car" and there was no order to it that this verse could be read the same way. Wrong. This verse in the Greek reads 1)Repent 2) be baptized.

Westtexas