Infant Baptism and the Bible: Should Babies Be Baptized?

[Scotth1960]

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.

Dear hardcastle, I would not appeal to a "Lutheran scholar" as a biblical authority on anything, as Luther was heretical when he added the word "alone" to the text of Romans 3:28 in the German language, and alone which is a word that is in no Greek text of the original NT. Just thought you should know that before "appealing to authority" from "the Lutherans", when the Lutherans follow the traditions of one man, basically, the man Martin Luther. In Erie PA Scott Harrington

 

[Hardcastle]

Dear hardcastle, I would not appeal to a "Lutheran scholar" as a biblical authority on anything...

Well Scott - I am not a Lutheran but I am not as closed-minded as you appear to be. H.A.W. Meyer is recognized as a first-class scholar and his understanding of the history of the church is confirmed by many other scholars of all stripes.

The truth remains true - (1) infant baptism is not found in the N.T; (2) infant baptism is not to be held as an apostolic ordinance; (3) infant baptism encountered early and long resistance in the Lord's church for the obvious reasons; and (4) infant baptism did not become common practice until after the time of Augustine (November 13, 354 – August 28, 430).

If you have evidence to refute this truth then present it. You will not be able to support the non-biblical practice of infant baptism via God's word. It is not authorized and those who practice infant baptism are those who "go beyond what is written".

I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.
(1 Corinthians 4:6 ESV)​

 

[Scotth1960]

Well Scott - I am not a Lutheran but I am not as closed-minded as you appear to be. H.A.W. Meyer is recognized as a first-class scholar and his understanding of the history of the church is confirmed by many other scholars of all stripes.

The truth remains true - (1) infant baptism is not found in the N.T; (2) infant baptism is not to be held as an apostolic ordinance; (3) infant baptism encountered early and long resistance in the Lord's church for the obvious reasons; and (4) infant baptism did not become common practice until after the time of Augustine (November 13, 354 – August 28, 430).

If you have evidence to refute this truth then present it. You will not be able to support the non-biblical practice of infant baptism via God's word. It is not authorized and those who practice infant baptism are those who "go beyond what is written".

I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.
(1 Corinthians 4:6 ESV)​

Dear harcastle, Who is closed-minded? Have you made up your mind against infant baptism? The jury may still be out. Certainly, adults were baptized by Peter and Paul and so on. And maybe some teenagers too, the Bible DOES NOT SPECIFY THE AGE OF BELIEVERS. So, neither should we. Thus, we should NOT RULE OUT INFANTS, BECAUSE THE NT DOES NOT TELL US TO RULE THEM OUT. Instead, Christ does say: "Let the little children come unto Me, and forbid them not (emphasis added), for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven." Sounds like baptism may be permitted by Jesus Christ for "the little children". In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[Hardcastle]

Dear harcastle, Who is closed-minded? Have you made up your mind against infant baptism? The jury may still be out.

The word of God has spoken - let us not go beyond what is written - those who are to be baptized are those who can hear and understand the word of God, repent of past sins and then they are to be baptized calling on the name of the Lord. Infants cannot meet those requirements but let us always...

Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it. (Proverbs 22:6 ESV)​

 

[Tailgunner]

The word of God has spoken - let us not go beyond what is written - those who are to be baptized are those who can hear and understand the word of God, repent of past sins and then they are to be baptized calling on the name of the Lord. Infants cannot meet those requirements but let us always...

Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it. (Proverbs 22:6 ESV)​

This says it best.

TG

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Desperation showing -

"A lot of this assumes that infants (babies) cannot and do not hear the Gospel before they are baptized"

About as SAFE an assumption as can be made.

"even those who have not yet sinned can do the repentance of simply believing in God."

And how is "Believeing in God" (assuming that such a thing were even possible for an infant) in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER a "Repentance"????

"Peter did preach the Gospel before he baptized anyone, and they all heard the good news of Jesus Christ, believed, repented of their sins, and were baptized by Peter,"

As we've already said - case closed.

What is the Biblical EFFECT of Paedobaptism on the infant when the ritual is performed???

 

[Tailgunner]

Re: Desperation showing -

"A lot of this assumes that infants (babies) cannot and do not hear the Gospel before they are baptized"

About as SAFE an assumption as can be made.

"even those who have not yet sinned can do the repentance of simply believing in God."

And how is "Believeing in God" (assuming that such a thing were even possible for an infant) in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER a "Repentance"????

"Peter did preach the Gospel before he baptized anyone, and they all heard the good news of Jesus Christ, believed, repented of their sins, and were baptized by Peter,"

As we've already said - case closed.

What is the Biblical EFFECT of Paedobaptism on the infant when the ritual is performed???

Bob, I'm still waiting for Scott to answer any questions on his own, without spouting Greek Orthodox doctrine. The wait seems to be getting longer...

Scott, not trying to belittle you, but please just THINK for a minute, will you?

TG

 

[Cornelius]

No. You, like many others, are making hidden assumptions that are questionable. Here you simply presume that "coming to God" must precede baptism.

Where is the actual evidence for such a position?

Here it is :

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 God forbid. We who died to sin, how shall we any longer live therein?
Rom 6:3 Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 We were buried therefore with him through baptism unto death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection;
Rom 6:6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage to sin;


Now if you can show through the Scriptures that a baby have the knowledge of Christ and knows how to walk in newness of life , then you are correct. You have to show how a baby can make the decision to enter through faith into the death and resurrection of Christ.

By "baptizing" babies, we claim that we somehow have discovered another way of salvation. We claim to be able to take the decision to follow Jesus for another human. If that was indeed possible , the preaching of the gospel would not be necessary, because we would only need to baptize babies all the time as fast as we can to "save" them. But we know that is not possible.

We are told toe 1) repent and then 2) be baptized.

 

[Cornelius]

Originally Posted by Drew
No. You, like many others, are making hidden assumptions that are questionable. Here you simply presume that "coming to God" must precede baptism.

Where is the actual evidence for such a position?

Another one :

Act 2:38 And Peter said unto them, 1) Repent ye, and 2) be baptized .....

 

[Cornelius]

Originally Posted by Drew
No. You, like many others, are making hidden assumptions that are questionable. Here you simply presume that "coming to God" must precede baptism.

Where is the actual evidence for such a position?

Another one :

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:

Question : What did they have to make ? Answer : Disciples.
Question : Who were to be baptized ? Answer : Disciples.


What is a disciple ? G3101
μαθητής
mathētēs
math-ay-tes'
From G3129; a learner, that is, pupil: - disciple.

Only learners and followers who are called by the Father, must be baptized.

 

[Cornelius]

I am sure that most people do not know which baptism they are speaking about. Is this thread about the Baptism of John, or the baptism into the nature, character and authority of the Lord Jesus ?

Act 19:3 And he said, Into what then were ye baptized? And they said, Into John's baptism.
Act 19:4 And Paul said, John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus.
Act 19:5 And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.

 

[Tailgunner]

Now if you can show through the Scriptures that a baby have the knowledge of Christ and knows how to walk in newness of life , then you are correct. You have to show how a baby can make the decision to enter through faith into the death and resurrection of Christ.

Exactly, Cornelius. This is what this thread is all about.

By "baptizing" babies, we claim that we somehow have discovered another way of salvation. We claim to be able to take the decision to follow Jesus for another human. If that was indeed possible , the preaching of the gospel would not be necessary, because we would only need to baptize babies all the time as fast as we can to "save" them. But we know that is not possible.

BINGO! Folks, please reread carefully what's written above.

We are told toe 1) repent and then 2) be baptized.

Sounds to me like you understand the Bible. Good for you, Cornelius!

TG

 

[Drew]

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

Well not quite. In English, the instruction "do A and B" does not imply temporal sequence. You appear to be arguing that the original Greek that has been translated at "repent and be baptized" really does convey a temporal sequence: repent and then be baptized.

Which raises this question: Why, if you are right, do the translators not choose to represent that temporal sequencing in the English translations?

At least for the moment, I will assume that you are correct in your "grammatical" analysis of the original Greek. But to be fair to me - I suggest that I am indeed correct in asserting that the instruction "do A and B" as rendered in English, does not imply temporal sequence.

 

[Drew]

This says it best.

No. What the following does do is to fundamentally beg the question - there is nothing in the following post that makes any kind of case against infant baptism:

The word of God has spoken - let us not go beyond what is written - those who are to be baptized are those who can hear and understand the word of God, repent of past sins and then they are to be baptized calling on the name of the Lord. Infants cannot meet those requirements but let us always...

Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it. (Proverbs 22:6 ESV)​

​

The error in logic in the above is this: The fact that certain people - presumably adults who can understand the gospel - may have been instructed to repent first and be baptised later does not mean that those who cannot understand, such as infants, should not be baptized.

My vaccine analogy is a propos here. Do adults understand and think about getting a vaccine before they actually get it? Of course they do. What about infants? Do we say to ourselves "Well, since those infants cannot understand what the vaccine is, we will not vaccinate them?". Of course not - the responsible thing is to act on behalf on the child and vaccinate the child.

No case has been made to the effect that baptism requires "understanding" or "repentance" or "belief".

 

[Drew]

Here it is :

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 God forbid. We who died to sin, how shall we any longer live therein?
Rom 6:3 Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 We were buried therefore with him through baptism unto death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection;
Rom 6:6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage to sin;

This is decidedly not evidence that belief must precede baptism - there is simply nothing in this text that forces the reader to such a conclusion.

Now if you can show through the Scriptures that a baby have the knowledge of Christ and knows how to walk in newness of life , then you are correct.

Your challenge here is based on an erroneous premise - there is absolutely nothing in the above text that forces the reader to conclude that belief, or anything like it must actually precede baptism. Why have you underlined verse 4 - do you think it supports your case? Verse 4 says nothing about the relation of baptism to belief.

Tell us please: exactly what part of the above text teaches that baptism must follow belief? The answer is: there is no such part.

Now, to be fair, it is reasonable to assume that, for a competent adult, some form of belief will indeed precede baptism. But, as my "vaccination" analogy (see earlier post), there is simply no grounds to assume that those who cannot "understand" or "believe" should not be baptized.

I suggest you, like the others, are importing an assumption here - that baptism cannot be "efficacious" unless belief precedes it. If you can prove this Biblically - I mean with actual Bible texts - then please do.

 

[Drew]

Another one :

Act 2:38 And Peter said unto them, 1) Repent ye, and 2) be baptized .....

This text, as rendered in English simply does not say what you appear to think it does. I really do not know why people cannot understand this: the statement "do A and B" does not repeat not, imply temporal sequence. If my wife says "take out the garbage and wash the car", will she think I am disobeying her if I wash the car first? No! - there is no implied temporal sequence in the English rendering of this instruction.

Some of you appear to be so attached to your position that you seem incapable of seeing what would be easily seen by any student of the enlish language - the instruction "repent and be baptized" does not require a specific temporal ordering.

Now I must give credit to westtexas - he (or she) has argued that the phrase, as per the original Greek, does indeed suggest "repent first and be baptized".

So, if anything, you should be making that argument - not making the patently incorrect assertion that "repent and be baptized" implies a temporal sequencing (as rendered in English).

But, even if westtexas is right - and I suspect he or she is - this still does not make the case for infant baptism for reasons I have explained in detail in a number of recent posts.

 

[Drew]

Another one :

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:

Question : What did they have to make ? Answer : Disciples.
Question : Who were to be baptized ? Answer : Disciples.


What is a disciple ? G3101
μαθητής
mathētēs
math-ay-tes'
From G3129; a learner, that is, pupil: - disciple.

Only learners and followers who are called by the Father, must be baptized.

So what? As has already been made clear, the fact that intellectually competent adults will obviously have some form of belief prior to baptism does not logically necessitate that those who cannot have such a belief - infants and mentally incompetent adults - should not be baptized.

You, and others, appears to be importing an assumption you have not defended - that baptism cannot be efficacious unless it is grounded on prior belief. Where is the actual Biblical evidence for this?

 

[Drew]

By "baptizing" babies, we claim that we somehow have discovered another way of salvation. We claim to be able to take the decision to follow Jesus for another human.

Like so many others posts in this thread, this begs the very question at issue, although in a somewhat indirect way. I suspect that the following reasoning undergirds your statement: "baptism is a symbol that refers to, or points to, a past "faith step" that is fully salvific - baptism itself is in no sense salvific."

If this were indeed true, then you would have a point. But I suggest there is every reason to question this position (that is, the material rendered in bold and italics).

 

[Cornelius]

Well Drew, I am not going to argue with you I have given a very Scripturally sound explanation. People are free to read it and make up their own minds.

For those who believe in baptizing infants, or unbelievers (as they indeed are at birth) ask yourselves if sprinkling water on your unsaved and unsuspecting neighbor will save him ? If the answer is "Yes !" then you have just discovered a new form of evangelism ! He does not even have to know, you can sprinkle him from behind as he walks by you. Why would it not work ?

 

[Drew]

Well Drew, I am not going to argue with you I have given a very Scripturally sound explanation. People are free to read it and make up their own minds.

You are, of course, free to discontinue the discussion - no hard feelings. However, I suggest you have not actually made your case - a number of clear challenges are on the table and remain unaddressed. In particular, neither you, nor anyone else, has made a Biblical case for the necessity of baptism following "belief".

For those who believe in baptizing infants, or unbelievers (as they indeed are at birth) ask yourselves if sprinkling water on your unsaved and unsuspecting neighbor will save him ? If the answer is "Yes !" then you have just discovered a new form of evangelism ! He does not even have to know, you can sprinkle him from behind as he walks by you. Why would it not work ?

Once again, you basically beg the question - you presume that those of us who believe in infant baptism are setting up a "baptize saves you, belief (or faith) does not" dichotomy. I for one, do not ascribe to such a model - you are essentially providing a strawman argument, at least in respect to me (I cannot speak for other proponents of infant baptism).