Infant Baptism and the Bible: Should Babies Be Baptized?

[Drew]

A. Before Baptism One Must Hear and Understand the Gospel.

Acts 2:36,41 - This example shows what it means for people to learn the gospel before they are baptized. The people were given evidence that Jesus is God's Son (v14-36). They were told that, on the basis of this evidence, they must "know assuredly" that Jesus is Lord and Christ (v36). Those who were baptized were those who gladly received this message (v41). Can babies hear and learn in this way?

Here is Acts 2:36-41 in a translation - not a paraphase:

"Therefore let all the (AU)house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both (AV)Lord and Christ--this Jesus (AW)whom you crucified." 37Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, (AX)what shall we do?" 38Peter said to them, "(AY)Repent, and each of you be (AZ)baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39"For (BA)the promise is for you and your children and for all who are (BB)far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." 40And with many other words he solemnly (BC)testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this (BD)perverse generation!" 41So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand [d](BE)souls.

Alabaster's OP makes an error of logic in respect to this passage. And it is this: just because some people "heard, understood, and believed" prior to baptism does not mean that one must "hear, understand, and believe" prior to baptism.

This erroneous line of reasoning is akin to this kind of reasoning: David Letterman got married at age 55, therefore one has to be at least 55 to get married.

This is third example of demonstrably incorrect exegesis in the OP.

 

[stovebolts]

Here is Acts 2:36-41 in a translation - not a paraphase:

"Therefore let all the (AU)house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both (AV)Lord and Christ--this Jesus (AW)whom you crucified." 37Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, (AX)what shall we do?" 38Peter said to them, "(AY)Repent, and each of you be (AZ)baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39"For (BA)the promise is for you and your children and for all who are (BB)far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." 40And with many other words he solemnly (BC)testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this (BD)perverse generation!" 41So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand [d](BE)souls.

Alabaster's OP makes an error of logic in respect to this passage. And it is this: just because some people "heard, understood, and believed" prior to baptism does not mean that one "hear, understand, and believe" prior to baptism.

This erroneous line of reasoning is akin to this kind of reasoning: David Letterman got married at age 55, therefore one has to be at least 55 to get married.

This is third example of demonstrably incorrect exegesis in the OP.

Drew,
I assume by your evaluation of said text, that based on logic, the promise as it pertained to children supports infant baptism?

Do me a favor would ya? Take a look see at this study I did some time ago and give me your thoughts as it pertains.

http://www.christianforums.net/f34/promise-you-your-children-all-who-far-off-31300/

Thanks

 

[Drew]

Drew,
I assume by your evaluation of said text, that based on logic, the promise as it pertained to children supports infant baptism?

Not sure I understand your question. All I was saying in that particular post was that the Acts 2 text does not support the notion that one needs to "hear and understand" prior to baptism.

Just because certain people "heard and believed" prior to baptism does not make "hearing and believing" a necessary pre-condition for baptism. I am quite convinced that the Bible does not teach against infant baptism, and that people who think otherwise have an incorrect assumption that informs their thining.

That assumption is this: The act of baptism is a purely symbolic act, whereby the believer publically declares his membership in the church.

I suggest that baptism is not purely symbollic - God is also at work in baptism, whether the person being baptised realizes it or not.

Do me a favor would ya? Take a look see at this study I did some time ago and give me your thoughts as it pertains.

http://www.christianforums.net/f34/promise-you-your-children-all-who-far-off-31300/

Thanks

I will look at this material....

 

[stovebolts]

I suggest that baptism is not purely symbollic - God is also at work in baptism, whether the person being baptised realizes it or not.

I would affirm that suggestion In the same breath, I do not believe scripture supports the baptism of infants.

Anyway Drew, when we look at the scriptures you've posted of Acts 2, a few things cropped up.

I don't think that the scriptures in Acts 2 supports baptism for those not hearing and understanding the words of Peter per verse 41.

41So then, those who had received his word were baptized;

Who is it that received Peters words and then were baptized? Those who's hearts were pricked and heard them.

Seems pretty clear to me. Am I missing something?

 

[Drew]

I would affirm that suggestion In the same breath, I do not believe scripture supports the baptism of infants.

Anyway Drew, when we look at the scriptures you've posted of Acts 2, a few things cropped up.

I don't think that the scriptures in Acts 2 supports baptism for those not hearing and understanding the words of Peter per verse 41.

41So then, those who had received his word were baptized;

Who is it that received Peters words and then were baptized? Those who's hearts were pricked and heard them.

Seems pretty clear to me. Am I missing something?

Again, the fact that one set of people heard and understood prior to baptism does not establish a general principle.

Imagine someone watches their weight and avoids getting diabetes. Does this establish a general principle? No it does not - people can get diabetes even though they do all they can to prevent it.

 

[stovebolts]

Again, the fact that one set of people heard and understood prior to baptism does not establish a general principle.

Imagine someone watches their weight and avoids getting diabetes. Does this establish a general principle? No it does not - people can get diabetes even though they do all they can to prevent it.

So you agree that the passages in Acts 2 does not support your assertion that infants need not hear, nor their hearts pricked, nor the need for repentance in relationship to being baptized?

What scripture would you submit that supports your assertion?

Thanks! :waving

 

[Drew]

So you agree that the passages in Acts 2 does not support your assertion that infants need not hear, nor their hearts pricked, nor the need for repentance in relationship to being baptized?

I agree. But let's remember what we are talking about. It was Alabaster who made the initial assertion that this text teaches against infant baptism. It clearly does not teach against infant baptism - one account of adults being baptized is not a teaching against infant baptism.

On the other hand, I agree that this specific text does not support infant baptism. But that's not the point - no one ever said that it did.

What scripture would you submit that supports your assertion?

Thanks! :waving

Here is a text from Acts:

A woman named Lydia, from the city of (A)Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, (B)a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord (C)opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. 15And when she and (D)her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us. 16It happened that as we were going to (E)the place of prayer, a slave-girl having (F)a spirit of divination met us, who was bringing her masters much profit by fortune-telling.

I would appeal to the likelihood that Lydia's household, like most, would have contained children.

Now this is not a particularly strong argument - it is possible that there were no children. Or that the writer implicitly expects the reader to understand that only adults can be baptized.

But again, let's remember who is saying what - this thread started with assertions that infant baptism was not Biblical. It is entirely possible to show that there are errors in arguments against infant baptism without providing any positive evidence at all in favour of it. I think there is little explicit evidence in favour of infant baptism. But that does not really tell us all that much - there are no texts that explicitly assert the Trinity, yet many of us believe in the concept.

Let's remember some basic logic - the absence of evidence in favour of infant baptism does not constitute grounds for rejecting infant baptism.

 

[Scotth1960]

Great. Ok, let's explore just the first question that Alabaster and Whitney answered "nowhere" to.
The question was:
Where is scripture is "age of reason" taught concerning baptism?

I ask now, if the scriptures don't clearing say, as you rightly agreed with, that baptism is only for persons old enough to reason that Christ is Lord, why do some Protestants adhere so tightly to the belief that "age of reason" is the only correct circumstance for baptism?

Dear A Christian,
Father James Early writes: "The Age of Accountability "A final barrier to my accepting the practice of infant baptism was my long-time adherence to the Baptist doctrine of the "age of accountability", the age at which a child supposedly becomes conscious of his sinfulness and the consequences of that sin. Historically, the Anabaptists and their later English followers (known simply as "Baptists") had set different minimum ages for baptism, including twenty, fifteen, and twelve. More recently, Baptists and other evangelicals have decided that rather than setting a uniform age below which no one can be baptized, each child should be interviewed individually to see if he or she is ready. This practice had always seemed completely proper to me. But ... I realized that the age of accountability doctrine was untenable for three reasons.
"First, the age of accountability doctrine is unscriptural. Deep down, I had always known this, but I had been afraid to admit it, either to myself or to others. Nowhere in the Bible do we read that a person of any age is too young to be a true believer in Christ, or to be baptized, or to receive Communion. In fact, Jesus seems to have taught just the opposite. Once when some children tried to come to Him, His disciples tried to stop them. As St. Mark tells us, however, "... when Jesus saw it, He was greatly displeased and said to then, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:14), Granted, Jesus is not speaking of baptism here, but the principle taught here was understood to apply the baptism, Church membership, and receiving Communion.
"Rather than being based on specific biblical teaching, the age of accountability concept is grounded in reason and logic. Surprisingly enough, the source of this doctrine lies not in the Reformation, but within medieval Roman Catholicism. Around the turn of the first millennium, theologians began to prohibit small children from receiving the Eucharist because they were too young to understand what they were doing. Because of this, a child was in serious danger of "eat[ing] and drink[ing] in an unworthy manner" and "eat[ing] and drink[ing[ judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body" (1 Cor. 11:29). So, while the Eastern Church continued to both baptize and to give Communion to people of all ages, the Church in the Wet began to give Communion only to older children and adults. Denying Holy Communion to small children provided a logical antecedent to denying them as well. As Fr. Jordan observes, "If the Roman Church were justified in limiting reception of the Lord's Supper until one could understand what he was receiving, how could the Anabaptists be criticized for using the same logic as a rationale for excluding children from baptism?"
"A second flaw in the age of accountability doctrine is that it wrongly ties faith to an age limit. As we have seen earlier, the biblical concept of faith is more akin to childlike trust (cf. Matt. 18:3) than it is to mature, rational thought. And the ability and willingness to trust God is not necessarily greater in adults than in children. ..." [pages 86-88: From Baptist to Byzantium: How a Baptist Missionary Traveled Halfway Around the World To Find the Ancient Orthodox Faith. Fr. James Early. Salisbury, MA: Regina Orthodox Press, 2009. ].

God bless all who trust in Him, He Who from age to age remains the same. "From everlasting to everlasting, "Thou [Jesus Christ] art God" (Psalm of Moses, KJV, 90). In Erie PA Scott Harrington

 

[Alabaster]

I politely suggest that Alabaster has not made a strong case. Several of his scriptural arguments have been shown to be incorrect (by me, if not by others).

There is no Biblical basis to not baptize infants.

False. All of my scriptural arguments are correct.

there is no Biblical basis to baptize infants.

 

[Alabaster]

There is no such teaching.

Ahh that is where you are wrong. The teaching is there, inherent in the entire teaching of baptism.

 

[Alabaster]

Here is Acts 2:36-41 in a translation - not a paraphase:

"Therefore let all the (AU)house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both (AV)Lord and Christ--this Jesus (AW)whom you crucified." 37Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, (AX)what shall we do?" 38Peter said to them, "(AY)Repent, and each of you be (AZ)baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39"For (BA)the promise is for you and your children and for all who are (BB)far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." 40And with many other words he solemnly (BC)testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this (BD)perverse generation!" 41So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand [d](BE)souls.

Alabaster's OP makes an error of logic in respect to this passage. And it is this: just because some people "heard, understood, and believed" prior to baptism does not mean that one must "hear, understand, and believe" prior to baptism.

This erroneous line of reasoning is akin to this kind of reasoning: David Letterman got married at age 55, therefore one has to be at least 55 to get married.

This is third example of demonstrably incorrect exegesis in the OP.

It absolutely means one must hear and understand the call to repentance.

By your feeble logic, we can baptize sinners, people who by their lives hate God, and maybe even household pets. Meet Fluffy...

 

[stovebolts]

Let's remember some basic logic - the absence of evidence in favour of infant baptism does not constitute grounds for rejecting infant baptism.

Just so you know where I stand, it's not that I personally reject infant baptism, but rather, I see more evidence pointing toward baptism being for those who are able to make the decision to be baptized.

[QUOTE="Drew"]I would appeal to the likelihood that Lydia's household, like most, would have contained children.

Now this is not a particularly strong argument - it is possible that there were no children. Or that the writer implicitly expects the reader to understand that only adults can be baptized.[/QUOTE]

You are correct, it is a very weak argument for infant baptism. We know by the text that Lydia heard Pauls message and in response, was baptized, as well as her household. The million dollar question has always been, "Who is her household"? I would summarize those being baptized also heard Paul's message. I would also assert that baptism is directly linked as a response to the gospel as noted by the response of Lydia and those in Acts 2.

Romans 6 gives us a beautiful picture of baptism, and a question I've always had is this. How does an infant experience this?

 

[stovebolts]

It absolutely means one must hear and understand the call to repentance.

By your feeble logic, we can baptize sinners, people who by their lives hate God, and maybe even household pets.

With all due respect Alabaster, Acts 2 simply shows that those who heard and understood the gospel, responded in baptism.

As drew has conceded, Acts 2 does not support infant baptism.

As far as you comment in regard to being feeble, lets tone that sort of language down a bit can we?

Thanks.

 

[Alabaster]

With all due respect Alabaster, Acts 2 simply shows that those who heard and understood the gospel, responded in baptism.

No baby can do that.

As drew has conceded, Acts 2 does not support infant baptism.

Good!

As far as you comment in regard to being feeble, lets tone that sort of language down a bit can we?

With all due respect, Stovebolts, I was accused of making an error of logic and following an erroneous line of reasoning. We cannot follow logic. It is feeble. We must follow the word of God and allow Him to teach us and have FAITH in what He says. In other words---BE TEACHABLE.

 

[stovebolts]

No baby can do that.

Good!



With all due respect, Stovebolts, I was accused of making an error of logic and following an erroneous line of reasoning. We cannot follow logic. It is feeble. We must follow the word of God and allow Him to teach us and have FAITH in what He says. In other words---BE TEACHABLE.

I agree. But let's remember what we are talking about. It was Alabaster who made the initial assertion that this text teaches against infant baptism. It clearly does not teach against infant baptism - one account of adults being baptized is not a teaching against infant baptism.

On the other hand, I agree that this specific text does not support infant baptism. But that's not the point - no one ever said that it did.

Drew is correct. The text in Acts 2 does not explicitly teach against infant baptism.

What it does teach, is that those who were baptized were those who's hearts had been pricked and received the gospel through the hearing of the word with repentance.

I believe this pattern to be normative in scripture (Romans 6) and would maintain that baptism is a response to the gospel, and as such would deduce that infants are excluded, but clearly, we could not say that Acts 2 teaches against infant baptism rather, only those who heard Peters words were baptized.

However, to come to this conclusion, one must first understand the function of Baptism and to what end it serves. This, I believe it the crux of the matter.

 

[Alabaster]

Drew is correct. The text in Acts 2 does not explicitly teach against infant baptism.

What it does teach, is that those who were baptized were those who's hearts had been pricked and received the gospel through the hearing of the word with repentance.

I believe this pattern to be normative in scripture (Romans 6) and would maintain that baptism is a response to the gospel, and as such would deduce that infants are excluded, but clearly, we could not say that Acts 2 teaches against infant baptism rather, only those who heard Peters words were baptized.

However, to come to this conclusion, one must first understand the function of Baptism and to what end it serves. This, I believe it the crux of the matter.

That is correct. If one would bother to read the entire although lengthy OP, one would see all the factors, biblically, that go into one's eligibility for water baptism.

 

[Drew]

False. All of my scriptural arguments are correct.

there is no Biblical basis to baptize infants.

I doubt it. Besides, let's keep straight what we are all talking about. Your OP made certain claims - such as the claim that in order to be baptized, one needs to "hear and understand the gospel" first. I never claimed that there was a Biblical basis to baptize infants. What I have done, I believe, is to show that your claims - specifically that one needs to hear and understand the gospel prior to baptism - are not actually supported by the texts you have put forward.

I have provided very specific counter-argument to your post. You clearly need to engage those counter-arguments and not simply "declare" the correctness of your position.

My specific counter-arguments are in posts 17, 18, and 81. Please address those counter-arguments.

 

[Drew]

I believe this pattern to be normative in scripture (Romans 6) and would maintain that baptism is a response to the gospel, and as such would deduce that infants are excluded, but clearly, we could not say that Acts 2 teaches against infant baptism rather, only those who heard Peters words were baptized.

Do you have an actual argument to support this belief in the normative pattern? I have not read the material you referred me to. Would I find such an argument there?

 

[Drew]

It absolutely means one must hear and understand the call to repentance.

By your feeble logic, we can baptize sinners, people who by their lives hate God, and maybe even household pets. Meet Fluffy...

Rude and without substance.

Please actually deal with the content of my argument - you are clearly evading.

 

[Alabaster]

Rude and without substance.

Please actually deal with the content of my argument - you are clearly evading.

LOL! I am not evading. I laid it all out for you in the OP.