Infant Baptism and the Bible: Should Babies Be Baptized?

[Alabaster]

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.

Posts 17, 18, and 81 are not counter-arguments. They are simply denials of the biblical premise that we must believe before we can come to repentance and be baptized.

 

[stovebolts]

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?

We could use the text in Acts 2 to show that those which were baptized were baptized in response to the gospel.

We can also clearly show that Lydia was baptized in response to the gospel.

Can you show me clearly where and infant is baptized? Actually, we can make this easy. Where do we see anyone being baptized into Christ without the gospel first being preached?

 

[Drew]

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

Please stop evading. You made an argument in the OP, I challenged it. Now it is up to you to show that my challenge is without substance.

Obviously you can as you like, but I suggest the path of wisdom is to actually engage the content of challenges to your position.

 

[Drew]

Can you show me clearly where and infant is baptized? Actually, we can make this easy. Where do we see anyone being baptized into Christ without the gospel first being preached?

Not the point. I never said that there was a strong Biblical case for infant baptism.

And I trust you understand that the absence of a direct endorsment of infant baptism does not logically lead to the conclusion that we are not to baptize infants.

 

[Alabaster]

Please stop evading. You made an argument in the OP, I challenged it. Now it is up to you to show that my challenge is without substance.

Obviously you can as you like, but I suggest the path of wisdom is to actually engage the content of challenges to your position.

I don't accept your arguments. They hold no water.

There is no reason to baptize infants. Are they to be considered saved? That is a lie, and a tragic thing to let a child believe he is already saved, so when they hear the Gospel message with power at an age where he can understand---even as an adult---and are convicted of their sin later in life, they could easily turn down the offer of salvation because they were fed the miserable lie that they were already saved, sealed and sanctified by an earlier unconscious baptismal rite perpetrated on them by parents who were misinformed.

Do you want to do that to your children? It is spiritual abuse.

 

[whitney]

Not to reiterate what Alabaster said in his OP. Some posts are simply concluding there is no evidence a baby should not be baptized and that is NOT true!

You have to first hear the gospel



Mark 16 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.
You MUST have faith in Christ:

Then we have to have faith in Christ!

Galations 3: 26 For ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.

You have to repent, which means you need to be aware of your sins, turn away from your sins and walk the new life in Christ Jesus!


Acts 2: 38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

And puhleeze do not tell me a baby can do any of these things. The Bible does NOT support infant baptisms.

 

[A-Christian]

Ok folks; let’s look at this topic using just the facts.


Fact: It is clear that the Bible does not teach the "age of reason" and most of you grudgingly admit it.

Fact: It is also clear that the Bible does not say that anyone not having reached an “age of reason” shouldn't be baptized.

Fact: It is crystal clear that the Bible explicitly declares that WHOLE households were baptized.

Fact: The early Church practiced baptizing infants, not keeping them from Christ.


Now that we have looked at the facts surrounding infant baptism, let’s see if I can get you to consider something. The Church understands the facts about infant baptism, even if you don’t. Some here, and you know who you are, have your minds made up about what the Church is, but, there is a problem with what you believe in that regard: It doesn’t match Christian history, but ignoring history and following the beat of your own drum is more important than facing the truth. The Christian truth is that the Church came before the New Testament. Is there anyone here that doesn’t know that? I know that fact is hard to accept because it does not fit with your personal interpretations. Try to learn your Christian history and try not to worship the book that the Church wrote. Worship God; listen to Christ as he teaches you through the Church that he established explicitly for your benefit. Teaching is an important tool the Church uses to save souls.

There is only one Church, not tens of thousands. All other ecclesiastical groups are splinters of schism, teaching their own brand of Christianity. Let Christ’s Church explain HER book. When Christ’s visible presence was taken from us, Jesus did not leave us orphans. He promised to remain with us until the end of time; he sent us his Spirit. By communicating his Spirit, Christ mystically constitutes as his body those brothers of his who are called TOGETHER from every nation. The Church is gathered around Christ; she is united in him, in his body. Three aspects of the Church as the Body of Christ are the UNITY of all her members with each other as a result of their union with Christ; Christ as head of the Body; and the Church as bride of Christ. The Church is how Christ remains with us until the end of time. Ecclesiastical groups come and go, but the Church remains.

So perhaps some should quit trying to act like they understand every aspect of the Church’s book. You are too far removed, you can’t fully understand without the explanations from the book’s compiler and caretaker, the Church. It is arrogant to think that without any other sources, a person can understand every aspect of the Bible. Keep in mind 2 John 3:16.

So then, why doesn't it resonate with some of you, that having tens of thousands different "churches", all interpreting the Bible differently, isn't a good thing for obvious reasons? Why do some of you, without knowing the history of the Christian faith, think your personal interpretation is correct when you haven't even read the extra-biblical writings of the Church? You have your own personal version so burned into your mind that when you read in the New Testament that entire households were baptized; it means nothing to you. When you are presented with the writings of the earliest Christians that tell you flat-out, that the Church baptizes babies, it means nothing to you. When you look at the history of your own denomination, and see that it was started by some guy with a difference of opinion than that of his former pastor; it means nothing to you. When you trace the roots of your denomination and find out that the guy who didn’t agree with his pastor started your group a mere two or three hundred years ago, sometimes a mere decade ago, it means nothing?

So I ask, how can the facts concerning baptism be discussed intelligently when some have the book of the Church pulled over their heads like blinders so as to never being able to look to the left or right in order to read what the Church and the earliest Christians wrote concerning what the Church is, and how it interprets her book in regards to infant baptism and a host of other issues.

Now please go back to the top of this post and reread the only real facts we have concerning the baptism of persons younger than the so called “age of reasoning”.

 

[Vince]

Good Heavens, NO! You might drown the little kid.

 

[Alabaster]

Good Heavens, NO! You might drown the little kid.

That's a very good common sensical reason! ;)

 

[westtexas]

Fact: The early Church practiced baptizing infants, not keeping them from Christ.

Hello A-Christian, I agree with Jeff's opinion that I believe that scripture points towards believer's baptism. With that being said, I believe even some of the early Church disagrees with you and supported believers baptism. Justin Martyr, who was from the Church in Rome, in A.D. 155 in his "First Apology", wrote AGAINST infant baptism. Irenaeus, in A.D.185 in his "Against Heresies", was obviously PRO infant baptism. Tertullian, in A.D. 210 in his "On Baptism, was also AGAINST infant baptism. By the third century infant baptism was as common as it is today. I'd like to see any other 2nd century literature that you can produce which are pro infant baptism. 2 of the 3 earliest pieces that I can find speak against infant baptism, though I am sure there must be others which are for and against. It appears to me that the early Church was divided as we are today. Your statement above should read--
Fact: the early Church also practiced believer's baptism

Westtexas

 

[Alabaster]

Hello A-Christian, I agree with Jeff's opinion that I believe that scripture points towards believer's baptism. With that being said, I believe even some of the early Church disagrees with you and supported believers baptism. Justin Martyr, who was from the Church in Rome, in A.D. 155 in his "First Apology", wrote AGAINST infant baptism. Irenaeus, in A.D.185 in his "Against Heresies", was obviously PRO infant baptism. Tertullian, in A.D. 210 in his "On Baptism, was also AGAINST infant baptism. By the third century infant baptism was as common as it is today. I'd like to see any other 2nd century literature that you can produce which are pro infant baptism. 2 of the 3 earliest pieces that I can find speak against infant baptism, though I am sure there must be others which are for and against. It appears to me that the early Church was divided as we are today. Your statement above should read--
Fact: the early Church also practiced believer's baptism

Westtexas

 

[Drew]

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.

This is simply not an adeqaute response. You made an assertion, I provided a counter-argument. Actually, I provided three counter-arguments, all providing a detailed explanation of why elements of the OP were simply not supported Biblically.

It is all too easy to avoid having to deal with my counter-arguments and dismiss me as "unteachable" and being of feeble mind.

There is a long sad tradition on this site and it runs something like this:

1. Person A makes an assertion;

2. Person B provides clear, Biblical arguments to challenge this assertion;

3. Person A, seemingly at a loss to respond, engages in character assassination and / or dismissal of the value of "human reasoning". Well, in respect to the latter, I am not sure how person A deems himself above the foibles of human reasoning. Person A, after all, is a human.

 

[Drew]

Posts 17, 18, and 81 are not counter-arguments. They are simply denials of the biblical premise that we must believe before we can come to repentance and be baptized.

\
Simply untrue. These posts provide clear, easily understood explanations as to why the texts you have provided in the OP simply do not support your assertion.

Why are you not choosing to actually respond to those posts?

What conclusion do you think an objective reader will draw from your refusal to engage counter-arguments to your position?

 

[Drew]

There is no reason to baptize infants. Are they to be considered saved? That is a lie,...

Again, not the point. While I am inclined to believe that an "infant" will be probably be "saved", we are not really talking about that. I have challenged your assertion that one needs to "hear and understand" before being baptised. That is all you and I are talking about for the moment.

Now, the role baptism plays in "salvation" is an interesting question and perhaps I will give my thoughts on this. However, we all need to remember that we need to support our positions Biblically, not merely "declare" them.

 

[Drew]

Not to reiterate what Alabaster said in his OP. Some posts are simply concluding there is no evidence a baby should not be baptized and that is NOT true!

You have made no actual case for this position.

You have to first hear the gospel

Mark 16 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.

Again, this text simply does not support your position. What does Jesus actually say here? Does he say "He that believeth and is subsequently baptised shall be saved?" No He does not say this. He simply provides two things that collectively suffice for salvation. You are "reading in" a temporal sequence.

 

[Drew]

You MUST have faith in Christ:

Then we have to have faith in Christ!

Galations 3: 26 For ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.

Again, there is no direct statement, or even an implication, that "faith" precedes baptism. You are, once more, reading that in.

You have to repent, which means you need to be aware of your sins, turn away from your sins and walk the new life in Christ Jesus!

Acts 2: 38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Once again, there is no actual case here. No one is denying that we need to repent. But, yet again, there is no actual necessity to read this statement as requiring that baptism can only happen after a person has repented. You are "reading in" a temporal sequence that is not there. Yes, the text is "open" to such a reading, but it is also open to reading with no temporal ordering. If my wife instructs me "wash the car and take out the trash", is she instructing me to do these two things in a particular order.

No she is not - one has to read that in.

The Bible does NOT support infant baptisms.

You have not made the case yet.

 

[Drew]

Hello StoveBolts:

I still intend to read that material you referred me to.....

 

[stovebolts]

Not the point. I never said that there was a strong Biblical case for infant baptism.

And I trust you understand that the absence of a direct endorsment of infant baptism does not logically lead to the conclusion that we are not to baptize infants.

You said earlier Drew, that baptism took on more than just a symbolic act. To that, I agreed. But I also see you taking a logical approach to a spiritual matter and so, I will try to do the best I can to speak your language.

What do we know about baptism through the scriptures? Let's take a look.

Romans 6: 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.


I know you enjoy the book of Romans, so I think this is a pretty good start. The question needs to be asked though, can an infant participate in this? Better yet, is an infant a slave to sin and if so, can an infant die as to be set free from sin? Just how does this happen anyway? Does one just take an infant and "Baptize" him/her in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit and they are instantly set free from sin? Is it the "holy" water that saves them?



I think the Apostle Peter can answer this for us.


1 Peter 3 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ


So we see that Peter agrees that baptism saves us by the resurrection of Jesus via the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.


Can an infant participate in this baptism?

 

[stovebolts]

Hello StoveBolts:

I still intend to read that material you referred me to.....

No need Drew. It was directed towards Acts 2 in regard to "Children".

 

[Drew]

Can an infant participate in this baptism?

I believe the answer is yes, and I need to tighten some arguments I have developed in the past about this. I have thought about the Romans 6 text in the past and have some material on this - I need some time to re-examine and tweak it.