Infant Baptism and the Bible: Should Babies Be Baptized?

[Drew]

Drew,
I can not believe you are saying this, and I mean no disrespect at all, I believe you are honestly trying to see the other side, however, Jesus told us to put away the ways of the world.

There is still a misunderstanding between us. When you, or others, say that vaccinating people against illness, or curing cancer, are "wordly" concerns, you demonstrate, I politely suggest, a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of the Kingdom of God. There is simply no "sacred" - "wordly" distinction in God's Kingdom (which is already here, by the way). No - its all sacred.

There is simply no Biblical basis to suggest that acts of healing - such as vaccination and curing cancer - are no less "spiritual" acts than other more overtly religious observances. Jesus is lord over it all, and He claims it all.

No one, least of all me, is denying what Jesus says about putting away "wordly" things. But please - let's be reasonable - He is clearly not saying "let's put away vaccination and medical therapies". Cornelius believes this, and I do not feel any regret saying that this makes him an exceedingly dangerous, irresponsible, and deeply reckless voice in this respect. Such people - those who would suggest that we are to reject what they mistakenly think of as "wordly" undertakings need to be named and shamed. It is highly irresponsible and dangerous to suggest to people that they need to seek healing "by faith" as if God is clearly not working through the medical technologies that are part of His kingdom as well.

Jesus is, of course, not telling us to not try to cure cancer, vaccinate children, etc. When He teaches us to reject "worldly" things, he is referring to the perversion of these otherwise good "things of the world".

One of the most persavive and dangerous misconceptions in the church is this notion that the world is split up into "religious" or "spiritual" stuff on the one hand, and "secular" stuff, on the other.

No - God claims it all.

 

[whitney]

deleted.

 

[Drew]

deleted own post.

 

[whitney]

There is still a misunderstanding between us. When you, or others, say that vaccinating people against illness, or curing cancer, are "wordly" concerns, you demonstrate, I politely suggest, a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of the Kingdom of God. There is simply no "sacred" - "wordly" distinction in God's Kingdom (which is already here, by the way). No - its all sacred.

I did not say they were worldly concerns, what I am saying is, you can look to the world for answers OR you can look into His Word and see what God has to say about it. You can either chose to follow the world OR you can chose to follow God.

I have already given you the scripture in James and you have made no comment. Do we disregard what James said all together? Are the world's "fixes" better than what James proposes?

There is simply no Biblical basis to suggest that acts of healing - such as vaccination and curing cancer - are no less "spiritual" acts than other more overtly religious observances. Jesus is lord over it all, and He claims it all.

No one, least of all me, is denying what Jesus says about putting away "wordly" things. But please - let's be reasonable - He is clearly not saying "let's put away vaccination and medical therapies". Cornelius believes this, and I do not feel any regret saying that this makes him an exceedingly dangerous, irresponsible, and deeply reckless voice in this respect. Such people - those who would suggest that we are to reject what they mistakenly think of as "wordly" undertakings need to be named and shamed. It is highly irresponsible and dangerous to suggest to people that they need to seek healing "by faith" as if God is clearly not working through the medical technologies that are part of His kingdom as well.

Again, I gave you the scripture in James, do not ignore what is in the Word. This conversation is between you and I and you keep bringing up Cornelius, he can speak for himself if he chooses to do so.

One of the most persavive and dangerous misconceptions in the church is this notion that the world is split up into "religious" or "spiritual" stuff on the one hand, and "secular" stuff, on the other.

No - God claims it all.

The world IS split up into two! Good and Evil. There are some people who do not have the Holy Spirit, they go around killing people - that would be evil, that person is NOT sacred! I could go on and on with all the evil in the world. It is very separated.
God will separate us, too, the wheat from the tares. We are separated, righteous and the unrighteous.
Do you believe all will be saved, Drew?

 

[Drew]

I did not say they were worldly concerns, what I am saying is, you can look to the world for answers OR you can look into His Word and see what God has to say about it. You can either chose to follow the world OR you can chose to follow God.

I suggest that this is not a proper way to frame the issue.

Does God "want" mankind to research cancer treatments and produce those which help people? Obviously, He does.

Does God tell us anything in the Bible about how to cure cancer? No he does not. So it is simply incorrect to frame the question the way you have. We need to follow "the world's science" to find therapies.

I hope you are not stuck in the deep error that Cornelius is in - of seeing a split between "miraculous" healings and "wordly" ones. That is a category error with grievous consequences, and I really do mean grievous. If I were in charge of this board, I would simply not allow anyone to post the things that Cornelius does, lest some poor soul be convinced to not seek medical therapy and die as a result. This is not to say I think the board is poorly run, just that I would choose to restrict such speech.

Here is the key point - God does not always work "outside the world" (i.e. through what we think of as "miracles") - He also works through the world. Whether they realize it or not, doctors are instruments of God, effecting the healing that is part of God's grand plan to reclaim and restore the world.

To see doctors (and medical technology) as wordly is to stumble over one of the most foundational of truths - God is in charge now. Of everything.

I will get back to you on the James stuff.

 

[Drew]

The world IS split up into two! Good and Evil.

Not the point. I am not talking about a "good - evil" distinction, I am talking about a "sacred" - "secular" distinction.

No one is denying the reality of evil. But it is a huge error to see everything that is not dressed up in specifically "spiritual" language as evil.

Vaccines save lives and reduce suffering - they are sacred.

Cancer therapies save lives and reduce suffering - they, too, are sacred.

These things are no less "sacred" because they are not written about in the Bible or are otherwise not dressed up in "religious" clothing.

This is a bit of a tangent, but I am happy to pursue it.

 

[whitney]

Not the point. I am not talking about a "good - evil" distinction, I am talking about a "sacred" - "secular" distinction.

No one is denying the reality of evil. But it is a huge error to see everything that is not dressed up in specifically "spiritual" language as evil.

Vaccines save lives and reduce suffering - they are sacred.

Cancer therapies save lives and reduce suffering - they, too, are sacred.

These things are no less "sacred" because they are not written about in the Bible or are otherwise not dressed up in "religious" clothing.

This is a bit of a tangent, but I am happy to pursue it.

This is your opinion Drew. We can not turn this into a healing thread. I answered the questions you wanted answered, I gave you scripture for every single one of your questions.

The world DOES give answers, the Bible ALSO gives us answers - which one should we follow? You can not serve 2 masters, Drew.

 

[Scotth1960]

Questions posed by Drew:
1. Do you believe that we should treat cancer patients with chemotherapy?
2. Is there any Biblical statement advocating treating cancer with chemotherapy?
3. Do you believe that women should be given equal pay to men for equal work?
4. Is there any Biblical statement that women should be paid the same as men?
5. Do you believe that an airline pilot who is legally drunk should be allowed to pilot a commercial airplane?
6. Is there any Biblical statement that would prohibit a drunk pilot from flying a commercial airplane?
7. If it is discovered that many valuable mineral resource exist on the moon, and if technology exists to bring them to earth cheaply and with no risk, and many lives would be improved if we did this, should we do it?
8. Is there any Biblical text authorizing mining from the moon?
************************************************
I will answer these Drew, but I still think you should start a new thread.
1). I have already answered this question.
2). I have already answered this question.
3). Proverbs 31
4). Proverbs 31
5). Proverbs 20:1 Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler; And whosoever erreth thereby is not wise.

Proverbs 20:30They that tarry long at the wine; They that go to seek out mixed wine. Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, When it sparkleth in the cup, When it goeth down smoothly: At the last it biteth like a serpent, And stingeth like an adder. Thine eyes shall behold strange things, And thy heart shall utter perverse things.

6). You are asking me what the world would do, I just told you what God said about it.

7 & 8). Phillipians 4:19-20 And my God shall supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus. Now unto our God and Father be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.


As Christians, why would we be concerned about finding resources on the moon?
Jesus is coming soon and we need to be prepared for what is to come!



Matthew 6:25-34 25 Therefore I say unto you, be not anxious for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than the food, and the body than the raiment?
26 Behold the birds of the heaven, that they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not ye of much more value then they?
27 And which of you by being anxious can add one cubit unto the measure of his life?
28 And why are ye anxious concerning raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
29 yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
30 But if God doth so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
31 Be not therefore anxious, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
32 For after all these things do the Gentiles seek; for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
33 But seek ye first his kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. 34 Be not therefore anxious for the morrow: for the morrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

Dear friends, There are many topics on which the Scripture is silent. That is, it doesn't specifically say it, clearly, regarding every controversy or question of morals or science? Where does Scripture prohibit chemotherapy? Nowhere. Where does Scripture permit chemotherapy? Nowhere. What do we do then, if everything is believed that it must be in Scripture? Historic Christianity follows the words of Augustine of Hippo, "In essentials unity, in uncertainties freedom, in all things, love". There are some uncertainties for Christians in which there can be, there must be, freedom in Christ. Some consider it better not to eat meat; some consider it okay to eat meat and anything that is healthy-promoting. St. Paul counseled to approach the food issue with charity, and consider the weakness of others. Eating should not cause our brothers or sisters to stumble. Each soul has proposed in his/her own heart what is the proper thing to do regarding food. Some Jews, perhaps all Jews, keep kosher. Some Christians think we should still follow the OT dietary laws. Others read the book of Acts, where St. Peter had a vision of alleged unclean foods. The Spirit said, "What God hath cleansed, thou shalt not call common (unclean)". Christ said nothing that goes into a body, a person, defiles a person. It is eliminated from a person's system, and does not defile a person for eating it. What defiles a person is the bad language they may sometime use. What the tongue says is accountable to God.
Christ says He is more concerned with what people say and how they act toward God and each other, than how/what they eat. In Erie PA Scott Harrington

 

[Drew]

This is your opinion Drew. We can not turn this into a healing thread. I answered the questions you wanted answered, I gave you scripture for every single one of your questions.

I have not yet read your answers, but I will.

The world DOES give answers, the Bible ALSO gives us answers - which one should we follow? You can not serve 2 masters, Drew.

Whitney - please. It is difficult for me to believe that you are serious here. In saying this, you are, just as Cornelius does, trying to escape the rather clear force of the fact that there are many, many "Godly" things we are called to do that are simply not set forth in the Bible. I trust that other readers are not for a moment caught up in the false distinction you keep trying to insist on.

You may have answered this before but I want you to go on public record again: Do you, or do you not think that Christians are called to both participate in the medical enterprise (i.e. become doctors and nurse) and / or to seek medical therapies, bearing in mind that the Bible never explicitly advocates either?

As much as you need this to be irrelevant to the baptism issue, it clearly is not. One of the most common lines of argument use in this thread is that "we should not baptize because the NT never tells us to do so".

Well, surely you see why these other issues are relevant - the NT never tells us a lot of things that we are clearly supposed to do.

So the "we should not baptize because the NT never tells us to do so" line of thinking is clearly incorrect.

 

[whitney]

Dear friends, There are many topics on which the Scripture is silent. That is, it doesn't specifically say it, clearly, regarding every controversy or question of morals or science? Where does Scripture prohibit chemotherapy? Nowhere. Where does Scripture permit chemotherapy? Nowhere. What do we do then, if everything is believed that it must be in Scripture? Historic Christianity follows the words of Augustine of Hippo, "In essentials unity, in uncertainties freedom, in all things, love". There are some uncertainties for Christians in which there can be, there must be, freedom in Christ. Some consider it better not to eat meat; some consider it okay to eat meat and anything that is healthy-promoting. St. Paul counseled to approach the food issue with charity, and consider the weakness of others. Eating should not cause our brothers or sisters to stumble. Each soul has proposed in his/her own heart what is the proper thing to do regarding food. Some Jews, perhaps all Jews, keep kosher. Some Christians think we should still follow the OT dietary laws. Others read the book of Acts, where St. Peter had a vision of alleged unclean foods. The Spirit said, "What God hath cleansed, thou shalt not call common (unclean)". Christ said nothing that goes into a body, a person, defiles a person. It is eliminated from a person's system, and does not defile a person for eating it. What defiles a person is the bad language they may sometime use. What the tongue says is accountable to God.
Christ says He is more concerned with what people say and how they act toward God and each other, than how/what they eat. In Erie PA Scott Harrington

We are not talking about food, Scott.
I gave clear scripture to answer those questions, if you want to comment on my post, than address my post.

 

[whitney]

I have not yet read your answers, but I will.


Whitney - please. It is difficult for me to believe that you are serious here. In saying this, you are, just as Cornelius does, trying to escape the rather clear force of the fact that there are many, many "Godly" things we are called to do that are simply not set forth in the Bible. I trust that other readers are not for a moment caught up in the false distinction you keep trying to insist on.

You may have answered this before but I want you to go on public record again: Do you, or do you not think that Christians are called to both participate in the medical enterprise (i.e. become doctors and nurse) and / or to seek medical therapies, bearing in mind that the Bible never explicitly advocates either?

As much as you need this to be irrelevant to the baptism issue, it clearly is not. One of the most common lines of argument use in this thread is that "we should not baptize because the NT never tells us to do so".

Well, surely you see why these other issues are relevant - the NT never tells us a lot of things that we are clearly supposed to do.

So the "we should not baptize because the NT never tells us to do so" line of thinking is clearly incorrect.

The only point I am making is, there are two ways to do something, one is God's way and the other is the world's way. How can this be argued?

There is no evidence infants were baptized in the Bible. It is an individual decision and we must repent first, we can not be baptized IF we don't understand the concept behind it.

 

[whitney]

Drew,
This is what God says about the wisdom of the world, why don't we want to follow His wisdom? Why follow the world's foolishness?

1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness†;

1 Corinthians 1:20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

1 Corinthians 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

 

[Drew]

The only point I am making is, there are two ways to do something, one is God's way and the other is the world's way. How can this be argued?

It can be argued because the Bible does not draw the distinction that you see. You, apparently, do not see how anything that might not have the "trappings" of religious forms cannot be part of "God's way". Thus, to great surprise to me anyway, you seem to think that all the wonderful medical technologies that have been developed under Jesus' rule over the world are not "of God".

This is deeply puzzling to me.

There is no evidence infants were baptized in the Bible. It is an individual decision and we must repent first, we can not be baptized IF we don't understand the concept behind it.

Not a valid argument which begs the question.

There is no Biblical evidence for treating cancer patients with chemotherapy. Is it not proper to do so? This distinction between "religious" things and "non-religious" things is simply not Biblical.

We are called to heal the sick, yes? Well, that means developing medical technologies. When those technologies are invented, they are no less the work of God because there is no "religious" terminology to slap on them.

I suspect that I will have a lot say about your answers to my questions along this line - I will get to that later.

 

[Drew]

Drew,
This is what God says about the wisdom of the world, why don't we want to follow His wisdom? Why follow the world's foolishness?

1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness†;

1 Corinthians 1:20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

1 Corinthians 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

Whitney, I am not talking about such choices. I am talking about something else. Yes, there is a lot of foolishness out there in the world. But, and I am mystified why there seems to be misunderstanding about this, the fact that such foolishness exists is no argument for saying that God is not overcoming that foolishness in, say, the institutions of medecine.

God forbid that any here listen to manifestly dangerous idea that "medical technologies" are not to embraced because they are not "described in the Bible" or because they do not happen to fall into some person's entirely arbitrary classification of the "wordly" versus the "sacred".

 

[whitney]

Whitney, I am not talking about such choices. I am talking about something else. Yes, there is a lot of foolishness out there in the world. But, and I am mystified why there seems to be misunderstanding about this, the fact that such foolishness exists is no argument for saying that God is not overcoming that foolishness in, say, the institutions of medecine.

God forbid that any here listen to manifestly dangerous idea that "medical technologies" are not to embraced because they are not "described in the Bible" or because they do not happen to fall into some person's entirely arbitrary classification of the "wordly" versus the "sacred".

Can we PLEASE move on, Drew. Can you address my other answers? We have already addressed this!

 

[Scotth1960]

Can we PLEASE move on, Drew. Can you address my other answers? We have already addressed this!

Dear whitney, This section was supposed to be about infant baptism and adult

believer baptism. Then it gets sidetracked into discussions on disease (cancer,

etc.) and its treatment by medical technology. I gather my posts get sidetracked

into discussions regarding Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and opposition

to Calvinism, etc. And the section on End Times is a real mess with some very

strange, heterodox and sometimes false or merely highly opinionated speculations

regarding the end times, an area of theology where Christians should be

specifically cautious and humble and not given to wild speculations. I gather

many of you believe in adult only baptism and a significant portion of you do not

find any refutation of infant baptism anywhere in the whole NT. Take care.

Obviously these discussions none of them have reached a definite conclusion and

universal agreement among all of us on what is true, good, right, biblical and

"merely Christian" (C.S. Lewis). Aren't we all hoping eventually to become "merely

Christian", with no speculations and no misleading, anti-scriptural doctrines? In

Erie Scott

 

[Eventide]

You can baptize infants til the cows come home if it makes ya'll feel better... but please don't try to tell me that this act results in an infant being 'born again' from above by God.

 

[Drew]

You can baptize infants til the cows come home if it makes ya'll feel better... but please don't try to tell me that this act results in an infant being 'born again' from above by God.

Those of us who favour infant baptism are not necessarily saying that it effects a complete "born again" experience. Remember - one can indeed support infant baptism without suggesting that it accomplishes "complete" salvation / renewal / whatever.

 

[Scotth1960]

Those of us who favour infant baptism are not necessarily

saying that it effects a complete "born again" experience. Remember - one can

indeed support infant baptism without suggesting that it accomplishes "complete"

salvation / renewal / whatever.

Dear Drew, Whether one is born again in baptism as an infant, or born again

in baptism as an adult believer, the truth is but the same. Being born again,

being baptized, is just the beginning of Christian life. A Christian believer must

continue in repentance and faith in Christ, and endure unto the end, keeping

the commandments of God, until the end of life, to be saved. Salvation is a

journey, not a one-moment only experience; although there will be peak

experiences, that is, change experiences like baptism, in the Christian life.

Certainly, of course, it is up to God to determine if a Christian can be born

again without baptism; but baptism is the way God has given for ordinarily

a Christian to be born again. We gather the thief on the cross was born

again without having been baptized. He repented and was forgiven by

Christ on the Cross. In Erie PA Scott Harrington

 

[Eventide]

Those of us who favour infant baptism are not necessarily saying that it effects a complete "born again" experience. Remember - one can indeed support infant baptism without suggesting that it accomplishes "complete" salvation / renewal / whatever.

I can respect that, although at the same time I can't understand infant baptism for a couple of simple reasons;

An infant has absolutely no understanding of the gospel or of repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and an infant has no need of repentance, it's not guilty of anything before God.

Every scriptural example provided for us in the word of God involves a concious decision to be baptized and a fundamental understanding of what that means.. to die to sin and to self and to be raised new in Christ Jesus. For many early Jewish Christians it meant forsaking all to follow Christ.. it 'should' mean that much to us as well.

That's how important baptism is with respect to what the bible teaches us.. imo anyway.. and an infant is completely ignorant of everything associated with being baptized into Christ.

The NT teaches that a person is born again by God and that they are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise unto the day of redemption.. after they trust in Christ, after hearing the gospel, and after they believe.

Again, something that an infant has no comprehension of.