Infant Baptism and the Bible: Should Babies Be Baptized?

[Drew]

Baptism requires a decision on the part of the one to be baptized as he/she chooses to obey his Lord.

Where is the Biblical evidence to back up this assertion? Answer: There is none.

There is simply no Biblical text that asserts, directly or indirectly that a "decision on the part of the one to be baptized" is necessary prior to baptism. And I trust we all understand that "examples" of people deciding first, and then being baptized is clearly not the appropriate evidence. Do I really need to explain why?

Well I will (yet again). When a flu vaccine is offered, the overwhelming majority of mentally competent adults will "think about it" first and then get vaccinated. Does this "prove" that one cannot be vaccinated without thinking about it first? Of course not - children are "forced" to be vaccinated. So the provision of "examples" of people being instructed to believe and then baptize is clearly not grounds to reject infant baptism.

Don't think the vaccine analogy is appropriate? Well, by all means please make the case - explain to us, in a manner that does not flagrantly beg the question - why baptism requires prior understanding.

 

[Drew]

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?

You flagrantly beg the question, whether you realize it or not. You simply have no Biblical texts on which to base the above assertion.

But prove me wrong - tell us what Biblical texts support these 4 criteria you have provided.

 

[Hardcastle]

Where is the Biblical evidence to back up this assertion? Answer: There is none.

You argue from ignorance - those 3000 believers on the day of Pentecost who obeyed the gospel of Christ - (1) heard the gospel peached by Peter (2) they were "were cut to the heart" (3) they asked, what shall we do to be saved (4) upon being told what they must do to be saved they chose via their free-will decision to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.

They clearly made the decision to obey the words of the Apostle as they obeyed the gospel message. What part of free-will decision do you not comprehend?

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" 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 2:37-38 ESV)​

 

[whitney]

Hi Drew,

No one is arguing the fact we do things that are not found in the NT, but those are "wordly" acts, for instance a parent may vaccinate their child (as you mentioned a few pages back), they may choose to give their child piano and dance lessons and those are obviously not in the Bible. Yet, what does it matter except to make that child well-rounded in the world.

However, we are not speaking of a "worldly" concern, we are speaking of a person's salvation and what we need to do as believer's in order to be obedient to Him. These things are laid out for us in the Bible and they are sufficient to training up a person in righteous.


2 Timothy3:16-17 Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.

Returning to the OP, in one of my previous post and subsequent posts by different people, again, God does not mix up His words, what He has written in His Word is what He meant. If He meant for baptism to be first, then He would have said "Be baptized and repent", but He did not, He was very detailed and specific when giving this instruction and what He said was for repent to come prior to baptism. I don't know how any more clear anyone of us could be. God says what He means.

Another point you and also Francis brought up was the point of community, no one is arguing this point either. We know fellowship is important and being involved with a Christian Community is something God taught us. He also taught us believing, repenting and baptism is an individual decision (not discussing predestination, etc), however it is a personal decision and no one else can make that decision for us. So yes, community is important, but individual decisions are a deciding factor in our obedience to Him.

God bless -

 

[Hardcastle]

You flagrantly beg the question, whether you realize it or not. You simply have no Biblical texts on which to base the above assertion.

But prove me wrong - tell us what Biblical texts support these 4 criteria you have provided.

Again you argue from your own self-induced error. You prove yourself wrong - repeatedly. Scriptural support has been given - repeatedly. What do you continue to misunderstand?

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

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)

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

 

[Drew]

You argue from ignorance - those 3000 believers on the day of Pentecost who obeyed the gospel of Christ - (1) heard the gospel peached by Peter (2) they were "were cut to the heart" (3) they asked, what shall we do to be saved (4) upon being told what they must do to be saved they chose via their free-will decision to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.

This is only an example, HardCastle, an example. I have already fully explained why provision of examples are not sufficient to establish a general principle.

You remain mysterioulsy silent on the matter of explaining to us why a specific example suddenly morphs into a generalization.

So where is the text, HC, where is the Biblical texts that makes the general case that baptism must always follow belief. If I used your line of reasoning, I could make this argument;

1. All presidents have been men;
2. Therefore, you need to be a man in order to be a president.

Clearly, incorrect. Examples do not make the general case.

 

[Hardcastle]

Don't think the vaccine analogy is appropriate? Well, by all means please make the case - explain to us, in a manner that does not flagrantly beg the question - why baptism requires prior understanding.

Your "vaccine analogy" is a weak and moot point. The truth remains - Jesus clearly states the one who is to be baptized must believe (Mark 16:16). Belief requires "understanding" - understanding that Jesus is the Christ. Infants do not have the capacity to hear, believe, repent and confess Christ. You remain in error. Why?

 

[Hardcastle]

This is only an example, HardCastle, an example.

How many examples do you require? You continue to argue from ignorance - yes?

I have already fully explained why provision of examples are not sufficient to establish a general principle.

You have explained nothing my friend. The facts remain true - one must believe, repent and be baptized in water to have his sins remitted. Infants do not have the mental capacity to do any of the above. This is a truth that you cannot overcome.

Clearly, incorrect. Examples do not make the general case.

You appear confused, your statement makes no sense and your argument remains moot.

 

[Drew]

Again you argue from your own self-induced error. You prove yourself wrong - repeatedly. Scriptural support has been given - repeatedly. What do you continue to misunderstand?

The error is not mine. You have simply repeated a number of errors in logic. I will assume that you are not intentionally making these mistakes

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

This text does not establish a necessary temporal sequence. You are, unconsciously perhaps, adding in such a dependence. It says what it says!!! - if you believe and you are baptized, you will be saved. Did I ever deny this? Of course not. But I am not the one adding qualifiers to the text, you are. You are effectively adding the word "then", transforming the text into this:

Whoever believes and is then baptized will be saved...

I am not sure how more clearly this error can be explained - you are changing the meaning of the text by adding unstated qualifiers.

Same with the other texts - you add sequence qualifiers that are simply not there.

The Acts text does not say "repent and then be baptized", it says "respent and be baptized". But, in this particular case, even if the text did say "then", your case would not be made. Why? Because we would simply have an example of an instruction made to a set of adults. The simple truth is this: an instruction to believe first and then be baptized can indeed be made to adults - who are at least capable of doing things in this order - without teaching against infant baptism.

My vaccination analogy shows this - an analogy you simply cannot afford to engage, since to engage it would force you to admit that you have no Biblical basis to rule out the possiblity that baptism is "like" vaccination - something that usually, but not always, proceeds in a "believe first and then do the action" kind of sequence.

 

[Drew]

How many examples do you require? You continue to argue from ignorance - yes?

An example (or even a set of examples) does not establish the general case. We can go no further on this until you learn this.

You have explained nothing my friend. The facts remain true - one must believe, repent and be baptized in water to have his sins remitted. Infants do not have the mental capacity to do any of the above. This is a truth that you cannot overcome.

No. You beg the question - you assume the very thing you should be making a case for. Is there any Biblical text that establishes your view generally? No - all there are is a number of examples. And then we run into your mistaken belief that a set of examples establishes the general case. This is clearly incorrect, as the "presidents" illustration shows. Again, you cannot afford to deal with that illustration since to engage would force you to admit that even though there are lots of example of male presidents and zero examples of female presidents, this does not establish a general principle that a female cannot be president. If you were to admit this obvious truth, your entire argument would collapse.

You appear confused, your statement makes no sense and your argument remains moot.

No doubt this is how things may seem to you. But there is really no doubt: examples do not suffice to establish a generality. You appear to think otherwise, so naturally anyone who disagrees with you will seem "confused".

 

[Hardcastle]

The error is not mine. You have simply repeated a number of errors in logic. I will assume that you are not intentionally making these mistakes

I quote God's word and His word is logical. Jesus states the one who believes and is baptized is the one who will be saved. Your denial of this truth leaves you in your error.

But I am not the one adding qualifiers to the text, you are.

There are no 'qualifiers' added. The text says exactly what the Spirit wanted it to say - the one who believes and is then baptized in water is the one who will be saved. Your confusion continues.

The Acts text does not say "repent and then be baptized", it says "respent and be baptized".

The text is quite clear - the one who believes must also repent and be baptized in water. It cannot be any clearer and yet you misunderstand. Why?

My vaccination analogy shows this - an analogy you simply cannot afford to engage, s

You vaccine analogy is silly and remains a moot point. Baptism remains what it has always been - the ordnance that places the believer "in Christ" (Romans 6:3-5). Baptism is only for those with the mental maturity to believe, repent and confess Christ as Lord. Infants do not have this capacity.

 

[Hardcastle]

An example (or even a set of examples) does not establish the general case. We can go no further on this until you learn this.

What you fail to understand is the example given us in the NT is the rule - Peter was clear - those who are to be Christ's disciples are those who will hear the gospel preached - they will believe that Jesus is the Christ - they will repent of their past sins - and they will be immersed in water "for the remission of sins". To fail to understand this basic truth as you continue to do leaves you in a state of confusion and error. Open your eyes - it is what it is.

 

[Drew]

HC, let me ask you a question: Suppose that Jesus had taught as follows: "People, go forth and see your doctor. If he tells you that you have leprosy, and you understand this, take the medecine the doctor prescribes".

Now here is the question: Is Jesus effectively barring infants from being given leprosy medecine precisely they cannot understand that they have leprosy?

Please directly answer this question.

 

[Hardcastle]

No doubt this is how things may seem to you. But there is really no doubt: examples do not suffice to establish a generality. You appear to think otherwise, so naturally anyone who disagrees with you will seem "confused".

Your statement is illogical and makes no sense. The biblical example is clear - believer baptism is just that - baptism for those who believe and confess that Jesus is the Christ. Infants do not have the ability to do that. You are back to square-one - left in your error.

 

[Drew]

What you fail to understand is the example given us in the NT is the rule - Peter was clear - those who are to be Christ's disciples are those who will hear the gospel preached - they will believe that Jesus is the Christ - they will repent of their past sins - and they will be immersed in water "for the remission of sins". To fail to understand this basic truth as you continue to do leaves you in a state of confusion and error. Open your eyes - it is what it is.

The fact that Jesus instructed adults to believe first and then be baptized does not establish that this pattern universally. More to the point, it does not "prove" that infants should not be baptism. You continue to evade the vaccination analogy. This is perhaps understandable - once you actually engage it, you will be forced to see the error of your reasoning, because it is manifestly clear that while it makes sense for adults to "believe in the vaccination" before being vaccinated, this does not mean that infants -who understand and believe nothing - should not be vaccinated.

You do realize, don't you, that you are ignoring the force of the vaccination analogy? Why is that?

 

[Hardcastle]

HC, let me ask you a question: Suppose that Jesus had taught as follows: "People, go forth and see your doctor. If he tells you that you have leprosy, and you understand this, take the medecine the doctor prescribes".

Jesus didn't teach that - Jesus did teach that the one who believes and is baptized will be saved. Easy concept my friend. Why do you find it so difficult?

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved... Jesus Christ​

 

[Hardcastle]

The fact that Jesus instructed adults to believe first and then be baptized does not establish that this pattern universally.

You're wrong - it does establish the truth that the one who believes and is baptized is the one who will be saved. Peter says the same thing - the one who believes, repents and is baptized is the one who will have his sins forgiven.

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)​

Infants are not able to obey this universal rule - only those who are capable of understanding the gospel message are candidates for baptism.

 

[Cornelius]

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.

I only see one physical baptism for Christians today Drew. The baptism Jesus said comes with repentance and believing.Jesus said :Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned. Believeth + baptized = shall be saved.

Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching good tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Act 8:13 And Simon also himself believed: and being baptized, he continued with Philip; and beholding signs and great miracles wrought, he was amazed.

Act 18:8 And Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.


Believing + baptism = salvation. No where are we told that baptism holds some power by its own. We have the whole Word of God, so that we can have a perfect understanding of baptism.

 

[Cornelius]

Act 18:8 And Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. The argument goes that there might have been children here that were baptized. Sure, there might have been, but all of them believed. He believed in the Lord.......with ......all his house.

 

[francisdesales]

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...â€

​

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".

Have you yourself actually done any historical reading, or do you take this guy's word at face value? Friend, I have done a ton of reading on the Church Fathers, the actual primary sources, and you are being misled by someone who no doubt has a theological bias.

As i said earlier, there is indeed a number of historical witnesses to infant baptism as being done during the apostolic era as an apostolic tradition. HISTORICAL WITNESSES. I have posted some of the pertinent data, that PRECEEDS Tertullian, where supposedly, there is "no evidence of the practice"... You are just parroting incorrect information, believing it because it fits your preconceived notions of "traditions of men".

In addition, your comment about the "infant baptism encountered early and long resistance in the Lord's church for the obvious reasons" is clearly invented by you. Your citation by the "historian" above never mentions such "revolt" against the practice. Nor does he bother to cite them.

Where did you come up with that historical conclusion, if not an invention?

Infant baptism is what it has always been - a *doctrine of man* that should be rejected as a non-biblical practice.

Why should we reject it when it was clearly done during the apostolic era, done by apostles? Just because the writings found in the Bible HAPPEN to make no mention specifically of them? That is poor historical work, my friend. Not a single mention in Scriptures is made about infant baptism being forbidden, so you are merely pushing a "tradition of men" upon ME! When historical evidence tells me that the Apostles practiced infant baptism, it is a valid practice of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Regards