Infant Baptism and the Bible: Should Babies Be Baptized?

[Cornelius]

Witnesses in the apostolic era carries no weight against the Scripture. Many people during the apostles time had already drifted into error as proven by the Bible.

Tit 1:10 For there are many unruly men, vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision,
Tit 1:11 whose mouths must be stopped; men who overthrow whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
Tit 1:12 One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, idle gluttons.

2Jn 1:7 For many deceivers are gone forth into the world, even they that confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.
2Jn 1:8 Look to yourselves, that ye lose not the things which we have wrought, but that ye receive a full reward.

 

[Cornelius]

Just because the writings found in the Bible HAPPEN to make no mention specifically of them?

That is true .

We should look no further than the Bible :1Co 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other.

 

[Cornelius]

We must understand that nothing in the Bible "just HAPPENED" . It is the Word of God and it is complete in its revelation and teaching. No accidents, no coincidences.

 

[Drew]

Hi Drew,

No one is arguing the fact we do things that are not found in the NT,...

At least two posters have made precisely such an argument - that the reason (or one of the reasons anyway) not to baptize infants is that we are not explicitly instructed to do so. Here is one such assertion from the OP, no less:

If a practice is not authorized in the New Testament, then it must be human in origin and therefore not pleasing to God (2 John 9; Gal. 1:6-9; Matt. 15:9; Prov. 14:12; etc.)

Hardcastle has also made a similar claim.

This is simply incorrect reasoning - the absence of explicit instructions to do "X" in the New Testament is clearly not an argument against doing "X". There are plenty of things, which we know to be "good Christian behaviour" that are not explicitly prescribed in the New Testament (or the Old Testament).

So, yes, people are indeed making this fallacious argument. This thread has been a veritable clinic in errors of logic.

 

[whitney]

At least two posters have made precisely such an argument - that the reason (or one of the reasons anyway) not to baptize infants is that we are not explicitly instructed to do so. Here is one such assertion from the OP, no less:


Hardcastle has also made a similar claim.

This is simply incorrect reasoning - the absence of explicit instructions to do "X" in the New Testament is clearly not an argument against doing "X". There are plenty of things, which we know to be "good Christian behaviour" that are not explicitly prescribed in the New Testament (or the Old Testament).

Like what, what is "good Christian behavior" we do, that is not written in one form or another in the NT?

 

[Drew]

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.

With all due respect this is an incorrect line of reasoning, and although I am sure you are not doing this intentionally, you introduce a distinction that is entirely irrelevant to avoid the compelling force of my argument.

First of all, this "wordly-sacred" distinction is entirely non-Bibilical in the first place. But in any event, the vaccination example proves that there are indeed practices where it makes sense for the mentally capable to follow a "believe and then do" template, whereas the mentally incapable, such as infants, are not to be excluded from having the action done to them, even though they have no idea what is going on.

Now, of course, this poses a serious challenge to those of you who assert that the Bible teaches against infant baptism - I have provided an example of an activity where it makes sense to "force" the infant to undergo and action that is beneficial to them. Now you need to explain to us why baptism is any different, without begging the question - without illicitly assuming that baptism is different, without explaining why.

Now lets remember what we are talking about here. The OP has the burden of proof here - it is the OP who is claiming that infant baptism is unBiblical. So it is the responsibilitly of the OP, or of people like you who agree with the OP, to actually make a Biblical, non question-begging, case that baptism is not like vaccination in the specific sense described.

What matters is the "believe and then act" template, or pattern. In vaccination, it is sensible to act on behalf of an infant without "getting the infant to believe first". Now it is up to you, and those who agree with you, to explain why baptism is any different.

And please, please do not commit the error of begging the question - of responding to this challenge with the unsupported claim that "baptism is different because you have to understand what is going on, whereas this is not the case for a 'wordly' activity like vaccination."

That would be to beg the question - to assume the very thing you need to actually make a case for.

 

[Drew]

Like what, what is "good Christian behavior" we do, that is not written in one form or another in the NT?

Well, do you believe in sola scriptura - that the Bible is the only authoritative source for belief? If so, where is that in the Bible? Assuming you are a typical protestant, you believe that the Bible, and only the Bible, is the authoritative source for "religious" (I don't like this word, but there we are) instruction.

Where does the Bible tells us to use only the Bible as an authoritative source?

 

[Cornelius]

Well, do you believe in sola scriptura - that the Bible is the only authoritative source for belief? If so, where is that in the Bible? Assuming you are a typical protestant, you believe that the Bible, and only the Bible, is the authoritative source for "religious" (I don't like this word, but there we are) instruction.

Where does the Bible tells us to use only the Bible as an authoritative source?

I will jump in here

1Co 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other.

 

[Cornelius]

There are plenty of things, which we know to be "good Christian behaviour" that are not explicitly prescribed in the New Testament (or the Old Testament).

Hi Drew. please give some examples of these things you are referring to brother.

 

[whitney]

With all due respect this is an incorrect line of reasoning, and although I am sure you are not doing this intentionally, you introduce a distinction that is entirely irrelevant to avoid the compelling force of my argument.

It is not irrelevant to your posts, you continue to describe these "acts" we do, as "good Christians", that are not found in the Bible, what are they? I am simply trying to make a dinstinction of what is in the Bible, versus what is not.

First of all, this "wordly-sacred" distinction is entirely non-Bibilical in the first place. But in any event, the vaccination example proves that there are indeed practices where it makes sense for the mentally capable to follow a "believe and then do" template, whereas the mentally incapable, such as infants, are not to be excluded from having the action done to them, even though they have no idea what is going on.

Now, of course, this poses a serious challenge to those of you who assert that the Bible teaches against infant baptism - I have provided an example of an activity where it makes sense to "force" the infant to undergo and action that is beneficial to them. Now you need to explain to us why baptism is any different, without begging the question - without illicitly assuming that baptism is different, without explaining why.

Baptism is different because it is an individual choice. Parents are responsible to take their of their children. It states the obvious already, baptism is in obedience to Him, vaccination is in obedience to the world.

Now lets remember what we are talking about here. The OP has the burden of proof here - it is the OP who is claiming that infant baptism is unBiblical. So it is the responsibilitly of the OP, or of people like you who agree with the OP, to actually make a Biblical, non question-begging, case that baptism is not like vaccination in the specific sense described.

What matters is the "believe and then act" template, or pattern. In vaccination, it is sensible to act on behalf of an infant without "getting the infant to believe first". Now it is up to you, and those who agree with you, to explain why baptism is any different.

And please, please do not commit the error of begging the question - of responding to this challenge with the unsupported claim that "baptism is different because you have to understand what is going on, whereas this is not the case for a 'wordly' activity like vaccination."

That would be to beg the question - to assume the very thing you need to actually make a case for.

Honestly, when an OP is set forth it is up to the contra argument to disprove the OP, which you have failed to do.

Now, how about those "good Christian" acts we do, that are not found in the Bible?

 

[Drew]

I will jump in here

1Co 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other.

Clearly this cannot mean what you think it means.

1. Is it written that we should treat cancer patients with chemotherapy? No. According to your line of reasoning, we should not treat cancer patients with chemotherapy. And please do not invoke the manifestly false "sacred-secular" distinction here - treatment with medecine is as much "healing" as, for example, laying on of hands.

2. Is it written that the Bible is to be considered the only authoritative source for "religious" instruction? No. Should we therefore be open to placing other sources on an equal level of authority of the Bible. According to your reasoning, we should indeed be open to this, since to deny authority to such other sources is to go "beyond the things that are written".

I could go on and on. I am not sure exactly what Paul means in this text - but I do not need to. It is manifestly clear that the Bible is not an "exhaustive" list of prescribed behaviours and practices. We do, and should, "go beyond what is written" many, many times.

I will examine the text in context, but it simply cannot mean what you appear to think it means.

 

[Drew]

It is not irrelevant to your posts, you continue to describe these "acts" we do, as "good Christians", that are not found in the Bible, what are they?

I have covered this in some recent posts.

Honestly, when an OP is set forth it is up to the contra argument to disprove the OP, which you have failed to do.

I and others have produced numerous correct critiques of the OP. You are free to deny this, but the posts speak for themselves.

Now, how about those "good Christian" acts we do, that are not found in the Bible?

Already listed some - embracing sola scriptura (for most protestants anyway), using chemotherapy to treat the sick. And I could list many, many others.

How many more would you like?

 

[whitney]

Clearly this cannot mean what you think it means.

1. Is it written that we should treat cancer patients with chemotherapy? No. According to your line of reasoning, we should not treat cancer patients with chemotherapy. And please do not invoke the manifestly false "sacred-secular" distinction here - treatment with medecine is as much "healing" as, for example, laying on of hands.

2. Is it written that the Bible is to be considered the only authoritative source for "religious" instruction? No. Should we therefore be open to placing other sources on an equal level of authority of the Bible. According to your reasoning, we should indeed be open to this, since to deny authority to such other sources is to go "beyond the things that are written".

I could go on and on. I am not sure exactly what Paul means in this text - but I do not need to. It is manifestly clear that the Bible is not an "exhaustive" list of prescribed behaviours and practices. We do, and should, "go beyond what is written" many, many times.

I will examine the text in context, but it simply cannot mean what you appear to think it means.

Oh boy.....not a good thing to say, Drew. 2

 

[whitney]

How many more would you like?

You have not even produced one.

 

[Cornelius]

Clearly this cannot mean what you think it means.

1. Is it written that we should treat cancer patients with chemotherapy? No. According to your line of reasoning, we should not treat cancer patients with chemotherapy. And please do not invoke the manifestly false "sacred-secular" distinction here - treatment with medecine is as much "healing" as, for example, laying on of hands.

2. Is it written that the Bible is to be considered the only authoritative source for "religious" instruction? No. Should we therefore be open to placing other sources on an equal level of authority of the Bible. According to your reasoning, we should indeed be open to this, since to deny authority to such other sources is to go "beyond the things that are written".

I could go on and on. I am not sure exactly what Paul means in this text - but I do not need to. It is manifestly clear that the Bible is not an "exhaustive" list of prescribed behaviours and practices. We do, and should, "go beyond what is written" many, many times.

I will examine the text in context, but it simply cannot mean what you appear to think it means.

Yes brother, its very simple. Its says : do not go beyond that which is written.
and Yes again, the Bible is the only source of instruction. Our only rock to stand on.Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


The modern church has a problem. They do not know that the Bible is indeed THE Word of God. Perfect in all it says.

 

[Cornelius]

I could go on and on. I am not sure exactly what Paul means in this text - but I do not need to.

I, on the other hand, need to know. Because the Word is what God sows into my heart. I need to know exactly what it means. Therefor I take care when I study. I ask the Lord to teach me, I do not rely on men, nor the "church fathers" except what they wrote in the Bible.
Anything else is prohibited by God. It falls into the category of "religions of men" and want no part of it. There is no way that God expects of us to search through history to find truth. He plainly says : Psa 119:160 The sum of thy word is truth; And every one of thy righteous ordinances endureth for ever.


So why on earth would I want to look elsewhere, when God says the Bible is the truth in its sum.

 

[francisdesales]

Witnesses in the apostolic era carries no weight against the Scripture.

We are talking about whether something was historically done. A historian doesn't weigh whether the source is supposedly "sacred Scriptures" or not, but whether the source is trustworthy. Thus, if we carry your argument to its zany conclusion, we must believe that the Great Wall of China didn't exist in the first century, because it is not mentioned in Scriptures, and descriptions of its existence written by ancient Chinese carry no weight... Or, Hadrian's Wall, for something more Western...

Clearly, the Roman engineers couldn't witness to building this wall, since the bible never mentions it... ;)

Many people during the apostles time had already drifted into error as proven by the Bible.

And some continue to drift even today... But that argument is naturally based upon your preconceived opinions, not upon any historical evidence.

Infant baptism is built upon the apostles introducing the idea. From a historian's point of view, the witnesses are sound and there is no evidence that anyone "revolted" against the idea of baptizing infants. Clearly, THE CHURCH, whatever you want to define that, said nothing againt the practice and took it as a natural extension of circumcision. It is only your preconceived idea of baptism that prevents you from accepting the validity of the practice.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

That is true .

We should look no further than the Bible :1Co 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other.

How many times has that verse been twisted to mean "sola scriptura"! A closer examination of the verse will bring about a different meaning. If we take that literally, Paul contradicts himself by writing 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, Romans, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus!!! No doubt, John didn't get the memo, since he later wrote the Gospel of John and Revelation after Paul wrote to the Corinthians... :biglol

Clearly, Paul is refering to a euphemism of the time, slang used by Corinthians, not a reflection on the content of apostolic teaching. Paul HIMSELF told us to "hold onto the traditions given, both orally and in written form". Where does Paul abrogate that command, Cornelius?

Don't go beyond what is written. Stop eliminating the Traditions of the Church.

Regards

 

[Cornelius]

We are talking about whether something was historically done. A historian doesn't weigh whether the source is supposedly "sacred Scriptures" or not, but whether the source is trustworthy. Thus, if we carry your argument to its zany conclusion, we must believe that the Great Wall of China didn't exist in the first century, because it is not mentioned in Scriptures, and descriptions of its existence written by ancient Chinese carry no weight... Or, Hadrian's Wall, for something more Western...

Clearly, the Roman engineers couldn't witness to building this wall, since the bible never mentions it... ;)

Yes that would be zany indeed if we had to think like that . But luckily we do not, because we all know that we are in fact only speaking here about things Biblical and thus the Bible is the only source as it tell us in 1Co 4:6

And some continue to drift even today... But that argument is naturally based upon your preconceived opinions, not upon any historical evidence.

Yes, I do not rely on historical evidence. As I pointed out I rely on the Bible to form my ideas about God. Rom 12:2 And be not fashioned according to this world: (Here you may add "history" ) but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, and ye may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God. (The will of God = the Word of God)

Infant baptism is built upon the apostles introducing the idea.

No there is not proof of this in the Bible.

From a historian's point of view, the witnesses are sound and there is no evidence that anyone "revolted" against the idea of baptizing infants. Clearly, THE CHURCH, whatever you want to define that, said nothing againt the practice and took it as a natural extension of circumcision. It is only your preconceived idea of baptism that prevents you from accepting the validity of the practice.

Regards

Well the church is silent about many errors.

I grew up in the tradition of infant baptism. I was baptized as an infant. So my "preconceived ideas" were in line with infant baptism. I first had to rid myself of the traditions of men, before I could come into an understanding of the meaning of baptism.

 

[Drew]

Oh boy.....not a good thing to say, Drew. 2

I made a clear argument - what you say above simply does not address what I posted.

Please answer this question: Do you believe that the Bible is authoritative over other sources? If you do, then you believe something that is not asserted in the New Testament, and my point is established.