Infant Baptism and the Bible: Should Babies Be Baptized?

[Cornelius]

Thanks Drew, I am going to withdraw and stand with the posts I have already made. You might just answer my question about which baptism you are talking about here. Johns's baptism, or the baptism into the name (nature, character and authority ) of Jesus.

C

 

[Drew]

You might just answer my question about which baptism you are talking about here. Johns's baptism, or the baptism into the name (nature, character and authority ) of Jesus.

C

I am not sure there really is a distinction. I am talking about the act of physical baptism, although I think God is at work in that physical act.

 

[Cornelius]

I am not sure there really is a distinction. I am talking about the act of physical baptism, although I think God is at work in that physical act.

Drew, both the baptism of John and the baptism into the name of Jesus are physical baptisms.
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.

So I was asking which baptism you are referring to, when speaking about the infant baptism.

They are however two different baptisms.

 

[Drew]

Drew, both the baptism of John and the baptism into the name of Jesus are physical baptisms.
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.

So I was asking which baptism you are referring to, when speaking about the infant baptism.

They are however two different baptisms.

Interesting point, but it does not bear on the question of infant baptism - there is nothing here that suggests that infants should not be baptised. More to the point, there is nothing here that requires "belief" in advance of "either baptism".

The fundamental, and as yet unanswered challenge to those who reject infant baptism is this: where, specifically, does the Scripture require belief in advance of baptism?

 

[Cornelius]

Interesting point, but it does not bear on the question of infant baptism - there is nothing here that suggests that infants should not be baptised. More to the point, there is nothing here that requires "belief" in advance of "either baptism".

The fundamental, and as yet unanswered challenge to those who reject infant baptism is this: where, specifically, does the Scripture require belief in advance of baptism?

I think it is extremely important to know which baptism we are discussing here. Which baptism are you discussing here ?

The Baptism of John- Repentance

The Baptism of Fire- Purifying or judgment

The Baptism of Moses- Deliverance of the nation Israel (Pointing in type to the believers baptism)

The Baptism of the Cross (or Cup)- The suffering of death for our sins

The Baptism of the Holy Spirit- Receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit with the gifts .

The Believers Baptism- Mk.16:16 "He that believeth, and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall not be saved." Being baptized into the nature, character and authority of Jesus, pointing to Gal 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me: and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me

 

[Drew]

I think it is extremely important to know which baptism we are discussing here.

I am talking about the act of physical baptism. I suggest you stand alone if you believe that we are called to multiple physical baptisms - are there actually people who think that one should be physically baptized twice (or more) for different reasons?

And, of course, the relevant point is this: no Biblical case, in this thread anyway, has been made to reject infant baptism.

 

[Cornelius]

I am talking about the act of physical baptism. I suggest you stand alone if you believe that we are called to multiple physical baptisms - are there actually people who think that one should be physically baptized twice (or more) for different reasons?

And, of course, the relevant point is this: no Biblical case, in this thread anyway, has been made to reject infant baptism.

But John's baptism was physical and also this baptism is physical : Act 8:38 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.
Act 8:39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, for he went on his way rejoicing.

So there are two physical baptisms. Jesus was baptized physically by John. The eunuch was physically baptized by Philip, not with John's baptism, but with the believers baptism, into the nature, character and authority of Jesus.

I wanted to know which of these two physical baptisms you are referring to when you say "infant baptism" ?

 

[Cornelius]

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.

From your quote here brother , you seem to be saying that we can baptize unbelievers. Am I understanding you correctly ? If so, then please show me from Scripture how you came to this understanding ?

 

[Drew]

But John's baptism was physical and also this baptism is physical : Act 8:38 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.
Act 8:39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, for he went on his way rejoicing.

So there are two physical baptisms. Jesus was baptized physically by John. The eunuch was physically baptized by Philip, not with John's baptism, but with the believers baptism, into the nature, character and authority of Jesus.

I wanted to know which of these two physical baptisms you are referring to when you say "infant baptism" ?

I am not ready to make the case right now, but I think that it is quite clear Biblically that we are instructed to undergo one physical baptism. For starters, we have all sorts of instructions to "get baptized" with no further elaboration that we are to be baptized twice or more.

It appears to me that you are effectively attempting to make the case that we should not baptize infants in a specifically "believer's baptism" modes of baptism since, presumably, infants cannot believe. I still think, although I will need to think about this - that human beings are being asked to undergo one and only one physical baptism. I suspect, but only suspect mind you, that you see "multiple" physical baptisms where there is really only one physica; baptism which is being described from multiple viewpoints.

 

[Drew]

From your quote here brother , you seem to be saying that we can baptize unbelievers.

Yes I am saying this - at least in respect to infants. I do believe that we should baptize infants. I do not believe that we should baptize adults who clearly deny the lordship of Jesus Christ.

Am I understanding you correctly ? If so, then please show me from Scripture how you came to this understanding ?

I will need to think about this because, as I have already said many times in this thread, there is no clear "positive" case to baptize infants. But, and has been pointed out many times as well, that is not really the point. The OP was a series of unsupported assertions against infant baptism. I, and others, have shown the OP to full of errors of logic.

Let's remember, one can indeed successfully undermine arguments against infant baptism without needing to make a "positive" case for infant baptism.

Very briefly to start : I believe we should baptize infants because there is every reason to believe, from texts like Romans 6, that baptism is not purely symbolic - something fundamental changes when a person is baptized - Romans 6 tells us that a real "death" takes place on baptism. Now many in our post-reformation world can make no sense of how we (the adult Christian community) can "act on behalf" of someone else - such as infant - so as to baptize them and bring about that real change for them.

But that is not the Biblical model - we in the 21st century west have greatly "over-individualized" things to the point where some cannot imagine how the actions of one person - such as an adult who chooses to baptize an infant - can have real "spiritual" consequences for that other person (the infant). But I believe that the Bible teaches that we can indeed act effectually in such a "communal" manner - isn't there not some teaching about how children are "sanctified" through the adult, in some contexts at least?

 

[francisdesales]

Yes I am saying this - at least in respect to infants. I do believe that we should baptize infants. I do not believe that we should baptize adults who clearly deny the lordship of Jesus Christ.


I will need to think about this because, as I have already said many times in this thread, there is clear "positive" case to baptize infants. But, and has been pointed out many times as well, that is not really the point. The OP was a series of unsupported assertions against infant baptism. I, and others, have shown the OP to full of errors of logic.

Let's remember, one can indeed successfully undermine arguments against infant baptism without needing to make a "positive" case for infant baptism.

Very briefly to start : I believe we should baptize infants because there is every reason to believe, from texts like Romans 6, that baptism is not purely symbolic - something fundamental changes when a person is baptized - Romans 6 tells us that a real "death" takes place on baptism. Now many in our post-reformation world can make no sense of how we (the adult Christian community) can "act on behalf" of someone else - such as infant - so as to baptize them and bring about that real change for them.

But that is not the Biblical model - we in the 21st century west have greatly "over-individualized" things to the point where some cannot imagine how the actions of one person - such as an adult who chooses to baptize an infant - can have real "spiritual" consequences for that other person (the infant). But I believe that the Bible teaches that we can indeed act effectually in such a "communal" manner - isn't there not some teaching about how children are "sanctified" through the adult, in some contexts at least?

Well said. Most Christians have lost the sense of community in the lives of the faithful, as most have taken a relationship to God to mean "me and Jesus through my bible". There was a time when community meant something and people looked out for each other...

Regards

 

[Drew]

Well said. Most Christians have lost the sense of community in the lives of the faithful, as most have taken a relationship to God to mean "me and Jesus through my bible". There was a time when community meant something and people looked out for each other...

Regards

Of course, I agree. Leaving the particular matter of baptism aside, we in the 2st century west find it very difficult to unplug ourselves from the cultural matrix in which we live. And, in our case, anyway, we are living out the enlightenment's emphasis on the individual. We should step back from our worldview and inquire as to the world-view of Paul, Jesus, and company.

I suggest the objective inquirer will find, much to their shock perhaps, that the Biblical model is decidedly about community - finding God in community, living in community, growing in community, and so on.

This is why we misunderstand so much - we are trapped in our own time and context and it takes great effort to "unplug" and try to understand the Bible in its proper context and cultural setting. The book of Romans was not written to 21st century westerners, it was written to first century "europeans / Palestinians".

And, for them, "community" was everything. Failure to understand this, as I am sure you will agree, has caused many, if not most, Christians to miss the mark on many topics (not least justification where people erroneously think Paul was denying justification by good works when, in fact, he was denying justification by, yes, ethnic privelege - but that's another debate.

 

[Cornelius]

Yes I am saying this - at least in respect to infants. I do believe that we should baptize infants. I do not believe that we should baptize adults who clearly deny the lordship of Jesus Christ.


I will need to think about this because, as I have already said many times in this thread, there is no clear "positive" case to baptize infants. But, and has been pointed out many times as well, that is not really the point. The OP was a series of unsupported assertions against infant baptism. I, and others, have shown the OP to full of errors of logic.

Let's remember, one can indeed successfully undermine arguments against infant baptism without needing to make a "positive" case for infant baptism.

Very briefly to start : I believe we should baptize infants because there is every reason to believe, from texts like Romans 6, that baptism is not purely symbolic - something fundamental changes when a person is baptized - Romans 6 tells us that a real "death" takes place on baptism. Now many in our post-reformation world can make no sense of how we (the adult Christian community) can "act on behalf" of someone else - such as infant - so as to baptize them and bring about that real change for them.

But that is not the Biblical model - we in the 21st century west have greatly "over-individualized" things to the point where some cannot imagine how the actions of one person - such as an adult who chooses to baptize an infant - can have real "spiritual" consequences for that other person (the infant). But I believe that the Bible teaches that we can indeed act effectually in such a "communal" manner - isn't there not some teaching about how children are "sanctified" through the adult, in some contexts at least?

Yes there is such a verse :1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. but this is not to be confused with baptism. This is merely to say that the children and in fact the unbelieving partner is sanctified in the believer and so are the children. Not through baptism, but through the believer being sanctified and because there is a unity that forms in marriage.

I believe that your point is valid regarding the faith of one person towards the salvation of another. But the Bible does not teach us to use the vehicle of baptism to achieve this, it teaches us to use the vehicle of faith.

We may believe for the salvation of our children because we have the right to do so. We may ask, so that we may receive. In fact we must do that. Our families are important to us, and even though I see some of my siblings not walking with the Lord, I am standing in faith for their salvation. Everybody in my family including me was baptized as infants, but it has achieved nothing in some of us. No salvation came forth and some have died in their sins too.

Today, baptism means something to me. Its the act, which I did, to show what I believe. I acted out my faith regarding the passage in Romans 6 that you refer to. I can truly say that I am dead and no longer live. I remember entering into the water with this knowledge. I remember saying to myself : "This is it.I am laying down my life today by faith. I have witnesses in heaven and on earth."

I stepped in and left my old self in the water when I came out. I came out believing the work of the cross has been done in me. Jesus substituted me....He took away my old self and replaced it with Himself.

blessings, I am off to bed now. Thanks for your discussion brother Drew.

 

[reba]

This dicsussion goes on all over the net. At risk of being stoned :scared What does it matter? Say my parents baptised me RCC so what, I am now grown and could just go get baptised some where else. A child is in His hands.

 

[Hardcastle]

...
there is nothing here that suggests that infants should not be baptised. More to the point, there is nothing here that requires "belief" in advance of "either baptism".

The fundamental, and as yet unanswered challenge to those who reject infant baptism is this: where, specifically, does the Scripture require belief in advance of baptism?

You remain in error my friend - Jesus was clear - belief precedes baptism and both belief and baptism take place before one "shall be saved".

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16 ESV)​

One who does not believe prior to baptism simply gets wet. One who believes, repents and is baptized has his/hers sins remitted by the blood of Christ.

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)​

The biblical and historical truth remains - infants were not baptized in the apostolic church because infants do not have the mental maturity to "obey from the heart the gospel once delivered".

But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, (Romans 6:17 ESV)​

Again these facts remain 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 - much too late for apostolic sanction.

The one who has been baptized/sprinkled as an infant has not been scripturally baptized and needs to submit to God's ordinance. Baptism requires a decision on the part of the one to be baptized as he/she chooses to obey his Lord. Infants who were baptized at the instruction of their parents have not made that decision - they have not willingly obeyed the Lord's command to be baptized in water. The advice today to those who were only baptized as infants is the same advise given to Paul...

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

 

[Hardcastle]

Say my parents baptised me RCC so what, I am now grown and could just go get baptised some where else.

And that is what one who was only baptized as an infant should do - "Arise and get thyself baptized and get thyself washed from thy sins."

 

[francisdesales]

Again these facts remain 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 - much too late for apostolic sanction.

That history has already been shown to be false earlier on this thread.
1. Infant baptism is not denied in the NT.
2. Infant baptism, according to historical accounts, was an apostolic tradition.
3. Where is this "early and long resistance" in writing? Did you just make that up?
4. Already addressed in #2.

The one who has been baptized/sprinkled as an infant has not been scripturally baptized and needs to submit to God's ordinance. Baptism requires a decision on the part of the one to be baptized as he/she chooses to obey his Lord.

Are you saying that the Bible does not provide the situation where someone stands in proxy for another person? Might I suggest considering "circumcision", which Paul makes the obvious comparison to Baptism?

Which infant "chose" to obey the Lord's ordinance to become circumcised? Apparently, this was not a problem for any Jew that the parents stood in proxy for them. And if you want to relegate the concept of proxy to the OT, perhaps you should consider the MANY miracles done at the behest of the Lord based upon the FAITH OF SOMEONE ELSE!

God can and does choose to work through other human beings for the sake of salvation of others. That's the ENTIRE POINT of intercessionary prayer. This overemphasis upon "one's own faith" leads one to an excessively individualistic view of faith and the relationship to God, leading one to forget one of God's other ordinances - prayer for others.

Regards

 

[Hardcastle]

Where is this "early and long resistance" in writing? Did you just make that up?

I don't make things up my friend and I would suggest you actually educate yourself regarding church history and try to lay your sectarian bias aside. 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...”​

Again - infant baptism was never an apostolic ordinance, i.e., it is not from God and it has always encountered bitter resistance from those who understand what is written in Holy Writ because it clearly "goes beyond what is written". Infant baptism is what it has always been - a *doctrine of man* that should be rejected as a non-biblical practice.

 

[Drew]

Again these facts remain true - (1) infant baptism is not found in the N.T;

Not the point. I do not know why I and others need to keep repeating what should be obvious: absence of evidence is simply not evidence of absence.

There are many behaviours that we clearly should engage in that are not explicitly set forth in the New Testament. If they were, the New Testament would be 100,000 pages long.

 

[Hardcastle]

Not the point. I do not know why I and others need to keep repeating what should be obvious: absence of evidence is simply not evidence of absence.

There are many behaviours that we clearly should engage in that are not explicitly set forth in the New Testament. If they were, the New Testament would be 100,000 pages long.

What you continue to stumble over is the fact that infant baptism was never practiced in the NT because the only one who is a candidate for baptism is the one who can (1) hear the word of God (2) comprehend, believe and confess that Jesus is the Christ (3) repent of past sins and (4) freely choose to obey the Lord in baptism. Infants do not have the mental maturity to do any of the above. The NT does not need 100,00 pages to teach this simple truth. You teach error my friend. Why?