Infant Baptism and the Bible: Should Babies Be Baptized?

[francisdesales]

Do not sidestep the topic with your useless stacks of books written by dead men, the fact remains, the Word is the only book provided to us by our only Father, there is only one of each.

Books written by dead men like Paul and Peter?

Be that as it may, the point is whether the Church, the pillar and foundation of the Truth, practiced and preached something as an Apostolic Tradition. We are told by that very Bible you believe you hold to that we are to hold onto ALL TRADITIONS, both ORALLY and in WRITTEN form. ALL of them, Rockie. Every one of them. Not excluding the ones you don't like or approve of.

Now, truly, the Bible is a wonderful source of those TRADITIONS. However, NOWHERE does the Bible state that it is the ONLY source of those APOSTOLIC TRADITIONS that we are commanded to hold to. Now, Rockie, unless you can find me a verse that states that "oral traditions are abrogated" after some date, say, the third century, then you MIGHT have something worthy of standing upon in a debate.

Unfortunately, the hypocrisy of sola scriptura blinds you to the very fact that you are disobeying the Word of God. That is truly the definition of a "tradition of men", following a man-made teaching that moves someone away from the Word.

And so, to determine whether we have an oral tradition on our hands, infant baptism, it is NECESSARY that we examine the practices of the early Church and determine whether it was indeed a practise of the Church and tied to an apostolic beginning. As my citations prove, we have just that. We have historical evidence of an Apostolic Tradition. As such, you would be wise not to be a hypocrite and tell me about "obeying the Word" when you clearly are not with your rejection of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 or 1 Cor 12:1 or 1 Cor 15:1-2 and so forth...

Where does the Bible disallow the practice of infant baptism? Where does the Bible say that ONLY ADULTS can become baptized? Where does Jesus state "keep those kids away from me"? Does not the Bible provide enough evidence for the possibility of the practice by stating "the entire family was baptized"? Doesn't Scriptures provide plentiful theological evidences of proxy faith statements, intercessionary prayers for others, etc., that does not necessitate that the one receiving the gift MUST initiate the request of healing?

Clearly, you need to read the Bible through the mind of the Church, those who wrote it. There is ample evidence in Scriptures to support God's healing coming upon a person, even if the person didn't necessarily ask for it.

Or do you propose that the dead Lazarus asked Jesus to raise him from the dead?
Or perhaps that infants asked their Jewish parents to circumcise them?
Or perhaps that Jesus Christ died for the sake of ALL men, not a one who asked Him to do so.

Sola Scriptura and reading the Bible with 21st century American individualistic mindset will not get you to understand the truth of the Bible.

Regards

 

[Drew]

In my eyes, this is untrue, because we are dealing with spiritual matters, which are written in the Word, and you are bringing up wordly matters. Baptism is a spiritual matter, vaccines are a wordly matter - which one are we talking about?

This is an entirely false distinction - there simply is no basis whatsoever for splitting activities up into a "spiritual" category, on the one hand, and a "wordly" category on the other.

I am exceedingly confident that you will not be able to produce any workable argument, Biblical or otherwise, for introducing the distinction.

I suggest that the vaccination example proves the point - there are some things we should "force" infants to do, even though adults generally follow a pattern of "believe first and then do".

This is the issue - the pattern of belief in relation to action - that is the issue. You are inventing an entirely irrelevant categorical distinction to evade the force of the vaccination analogy.

 

[Drew]

Drew, I am not sure which questions you are referring to brother. But the reason I do not answer all questions on a thread, is that it will derail the thread .

The questions are in post 346. And I suggest the reason you have not answered them is because, if you did, the unworkability of your position will be exposed.

But, to be fair to you, you are already on record as proposing that it is Biblical to forego medical care. I politely suggest this will greatly damage the credibility of your other positions.

 

[Drew]

Let me make it clearer I will happily engage you in a study about the fact that we must only believe the Bible . Open a thread about it and I will join you. The forum rules are happy when we stick to one subject at a time. This is about baptism. If you can prove from the Bible that we must add to the Bible, then please open a thread and I will join you there

More evasion. I suggest that what is going on here is this:

1. You have grounded (at least partly) your belief against infant baptism in the absence of a Biblical instruction to baptize infants. Fair enough - there is indeed no such direct instruction.

2. I have posed a number of questions about activities that are not mandated by the Bible, but are clearly good and appropriate activities for the Christian to engage in.

3. You cannot afford to address these questions because the unworkability of the basis for your position on baptism - that it is not explictly mandated - will be exposed.

4. You engage in polite avoidance, including the suggestion that we take the debate to another thread. This conveniently gets you off the hook in respect to the implications of these questions in specific relation to the infant baptism question.

 

[Drew]

You were told clearly and correctly that Holy Writ does not instruct infant baptism because infants are not candidates for baptism

.
Begs the question - assumes that which needs to demonstrated. Where is your Biblical argument?

The one who is scripturally baptized is the one who is mature enough to hear God's word proclaimed and responds to that word via obedience from the heart to the doctrine once delivered.

Begs the question - assumes that which needs to demonstrated. Where is your Biblical argument?

Infants are not mentally mature enough to hear the gospel message - accept that message as true and submit to baptism calling on the name of the Lord.

Begs the question - assumes that which needs to demonstrated. Where is your Biblical argument?

You cannot present one example of an apostle baptizing an infant because such baptisms never occurred in the NT.

You assume that if baptism of infants actually occurred, that fact would necessarily get recorded in the Scriptures. This is not correct logic.

Baptism is believer baptism - open only to those who freely choose to obey their Lord in baptism.

Begs the question - assumes that which needs to demonstrated. Where is your Biblical argument?

 

[Drew]

deleted own post.

 

[Scotth1960]

You are, of course, correct in this reasoning.

This thread has been a veritable festival of errors of logic (e.g. begging the question) and improper debate practices (e.g. evading difficult questions).

I probably do not entirely share your view on the authority of the church. But thats not the point - the text in question only asserts the authority of the Bible itself, it is entirely silent on the matter of the authority of the church.

Dear Drew, The Bible itself is NOT silent on the authority of the Church. The Church is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (I Timothy 3:15 KJV). Haven't you read I Timothy 3:15, and also Matthew 16:18? In Erie Scott

 

[Drew]

Dear Drew, The Bible itself is NOT silent on the authority of the Church. The Church is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (I Timothy 3:15 KJV). Haven't you read I Timothy 3:15, and also Matthew 16:18? In Erie Scott

That was not the point - I was referring to a specific text. And that text is entirely silent on the matter of the authority of the church.

I place more value on church authority than most protestants, but less that most catholics (I suspect).

 

[Cornelius]

Unfortunately for you, the Apostles didn't teach anyone to eat bricks, so the example is just silly and pointless.

Amen . And they also did not teach us to baptize infants.

 

[Cornelius]

But trying to get you to actually consider another point of view has always been a problem...

Regards

That is true. I have always been a "Word only" person

 

[francisdesales]

Amen . And they also did not teach us to baptize infants.

We have historical evidence that they did.

 

[Jake]

That is true. I have always been a "Word only" person

And that is all we need in order to know His Truth!

 

[whitney]

This is an entirely false distinction - there simply is no basis whatsoever for splitting activities up into a "spiritual" category, on the one hand, and a "wordly" category on the other.

I am exceedingly confident that you will not be able to produce any workable argument, Biblical or otherwise, for introducing the distinction.

I suggest that the vaccination example proves the point - there are some things we should "force" infants to do, even though adults generally follow a pattern of "believe first and then do".

This is the issue - the pattern of belief in relation to action - that is the issue. You are inventing an entirely irrelevant categorical distinction to evade the force of the vaccination analogy.

Hi Drew,

I want to make myself clear and after reading what I wrote, I don't believe I was. The Bible is complete and gives us answers to all of life's questions, period. When you speak of vaccines, I will have to go with what C said on this, I believe as he does. The world would say to get the vaccine, so that is why I said you would have to look to the world to see what they are doing if you want a worldly answer, however we are not looking to the world, we are looking in the Bible to see what God has to say about everything.

It is the same with baptism, we have to see what God says and only God and what He says is written in a procession; for instance, we could say to a child, you need to hang up your coat, wash your hands and eat your dinner, it is a progression, they would not eat their dinner before washing their hands.
In the same manner, God has give us a procession of instructions; hear the Word, believe, repent and be baptized.

I hope this makes it more clearer for you in how I process things according to His Word.
God bless, Drew!

 

[Hardcastle]

Where is that verse in the Bible again?

Sola scriptura...

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
(2 Timothy 3:16-17 NKJV)

​

 

[Free]

There will be no more name calling or calling people ignorant, etc.

I'm assuming that most everyone in here is an adult and Christian, so please debate as such. I don't want to lock this thread as there are some good points that have been made that need to be adequately addressed.

Thanks.

 

[Jake]

No, listening to you will bore me to death.

The complete Word of God is not the Bible. The Word of God is Jesus Christ.

Yes it is. The OT and the NT IS the Word of God.

Please tell me WHY people pray for other people, if no one can stand in proxy?

Did any of those who Jesus rise from the dead personally ask to be raised?
Did the centurion's servant ask Jesus to heal him?
Did the Gentile woman's daughter (the one who Jesus tested her faith and spoke about the crumbs and dogs?) ask to be healed?

I could go on and on. It seems that God is willing to heal people, often at the behest and request of another lover of God.

The difference between praying for someone to be healed or even to be saved, in no way can be used to stand in for someone else's faith as in baptism and salvation, if that were the case we'd ALL be saved, now wouldn't we.

Your doctrine makes no sense and is filled with holes big enough the ocean could be devoid of salt by the time it's done sifting it.

Another text twister. John is writing about the "world", come out of the world and follow Christ.

Yes, and your church is right in the middle of it. Take heed before it's too late for you, my friend, ask God what He meant when He wrote that scripture.

 

[francisdesales]

Sola scriptura...

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
(2 Timothy 3:16-17 NKJV)

​

Please. That says nothing about the Bible being the sole source of Christian faith. It speaks about the source of the Scriptures, God's inspiration. it is USEFUL/PROFITABLE for reproof, etc...

And so is Ephesians 4:11-13.

The fact that there are more than one means of offering "reproof, correction, teaching, perfecting the saints, etc."., there cannot be a "sola scriptura". It is denied within the pages of the bible. God left us a number of means, not just the bible.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Yes it is. The OT and the NT IS the Word of God.

Where does the Bible say that the "OT and the NT" is the COMPLETE Word of God? I would prefer some proof, rather than just your proclamation from on high.

The difference between praying for someone to be healed or even to be saved, in no way can be used to stand in for someone else's faith as in baptism and salvation, if that were the case we'd ALL be saved, now wouldn't we.

Why would you think that? Do you think God MUST answer ALL prayers when we ask? So according to you, I should pray to win the lottery, and God MUST provide for that???

In addition, I sense you have a faulty understanding of what baptism does. It does not guarantee eternal life. It redeems us and frees us from our past sins, it begins the life of the Spirit within us, but it doesn't guarantee that we will not later push the Spirit of God out and choose to reject God.

Again, I would suggest you read the Gospels. Start with Mark 2. Consider that Jesus forgives the sins of the paralytic based upon the faith of HIS FRIENDS, not the paralytic.

Your doctrine makes no sense and is filled with holes big enough the ocean could be devoid of salt by the time it's done sifting it.

The Doctrine of God's Church remains.

Yes, and your church is right in the middle of it. Take heed before it's too late for you, my friend, ask God what He meant when He wrote that scripture.

I don't take text twisters serious in their faulty warnings. Clearly, John is a Catholic and is not calling people out of his own Church! Quite the opposite! We are called to take part in the Wedding Feast of the Lamb of God, which we begin to even now at the Table of the Eucharist, which you have excused yourself from. The context is being called out of the world. Rome represented the Empire, the World, not the Roman Catholic Church. This is clear in all the references to merchants and so forth.

Regards

 

[Drew]

Hi Drew,

I want to make myself clear and after reading what I wrote, I don't believe I was. The Bible is complete and gives us answers to all of life's questions, period.

This is clearly not true - the Bible tells us nothing about the appropriate medical treatments for cancer.

And there are millions of other examples. This notion that the Bible tells us everthing we need to know is simply untrue, but that in no way diminishes its force as the living and powerful word of God.

When you speak of vaccines, I will have to go with what C said on this, I believe as he does.

I politely suggest that you, like Cornelius, are being deeply irresponsible and reckless, if you are specifically agreeing with Cornelius' position that people should avoid medical therapy and seek only "miracle cures". Is this what you are agreeing with whitney? If a close relative developed a cancer for which effective medical therapies presently exist, would you advise them to forego such treatments?

Perhaps this is not what you are agreeing with. But I suggest when people adopt ideas like those of Cornelius on this matter, people die.

This is why these discussions are so important - Cornelius (and now you, apparently) embrace an entirely non-existant distinction between the "sacred" and the "secular".

And, of course, you have not supported your position scripturally (at least in this post - I will read any others shortly), as you were challenged to do. And the reason for this is simple - the Bible nowhere divides things into "spiritual" and "worldly".

To think that protecting a human being with a vaccine is somehow "less spiritual" than some other activity that has the trappings of religious observance is to miss one of the most foundational Biblical truths - Jesus is lord of all, not just the realm of "spirituality".

It is the same with baptism, we have to see what God says and only God and what He says is written in a procession; for instance, we could say to a child, you need to hang up your coat, wash your hands and eat your dinner, it is a progression, they would not eat their dinner before washing their hands.

Like many others you beg the question - you simply assume the very thing you should be demonstrating.

 

[Drew]

And the Bibles does not tell us NOT to eat bricks and yet we seem to have the sense not to because we have knowledge. My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I also will forget thy children.
Hos 4:6

I thought you believed that we should not go "beyond that which is written".

Here, you seem to endorse doing just that - suggesting that we us "sense" and "knowledge".

Well, which is it, Cornelius? Do we only do what we are told to do in the Bible? Or do we use our "sense" and "knowledge" to act in areas where we are not given explicit guidance.

I would go for the second option, myself.