Infant Baptism and the Bible: Should Babies Be Baptized?

[Bob Carabbio]

Meritless argument.

Whether the arguments presented AGAINST it are significant/accurate or not is totally unimportant.

There's NO BIBLICAL ARGUMENT FOR IT WHATSOEVER. No teaching, No examples - NOTHING!!!!

Case closed.

 

[Drew]

Re: Should Babies Be Baptized?

Since Paedobaptism is never indicated, nor even HINTED at in the Bible, and since ALL the baptisms presented in the Bible are of ADULTS who consciously BELIEVE either at the level of salvation after the crucifixion, or at John's level of repentance before only - then there is NO BASIS for paedobaptism - period. It's nothing but a "religious superstition" based on nothing.

You are making a fundamental error of logic - that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

It is simply not logically correct to conclude that infant baptism is "inappropriate" simply because the Bible never affirms it.

There are plenty of things that are never affirmed in the Bible that are nevertheless true and / or appropriate.

The OP asserted that infant baptism is not Biblical. One can show that position to be false without having to make a positive case for infant baptism.

 

[Drew]

Re: Meritless argument.

Whether the arguments presented AGAINST it are significant/accurate or not is totally unimportant.

There's NO BIBLICAL ARGUMENT FOR IT WHATSOEVER. No teaching, No examples - NOTHING!!!!

Case closed.

No. As should be clear - the absence of postive statements for infant baptism is simply not a logical basis for rejecting infant baptism.

The Bible never teaches that it is wise to eat a low fat, low sugar diet. Does that mean that we should not follow such a diet? Of course not.

Even if we agree that the Bible does not make a specific case in favour of infant baptism, this does not mean that it is inappropriate to baptise infants.

 

[Scotth1960]

Re: Meritless argument.

No. As should be clear - the absence of postive statements for infant baptism is simply not a logical basis for rejecting infant baptism.

The Bible never teaches that it is wise to eat a low fat, low sugar diet. Does that mean that we should not follow such a diet? Of course not.

Even if we agree that the Bible does not make a specific case in favour of infant baptism, this does not mean that it is inappropriate to baptise infants.

Dear Drew, Your logic is quite sound. The problem is with the Protestant "sola scriptura" mindset. Where in the Bible does the Bible teach we are to go "by the Bible alone". What about 2 Thess. 2:15, which speaks of spoken words of the Apostles? In Erie PA Scott Harrington

 

[francisdesales]

Re: Should Babies Be Baptized?

Are you able to make relevant Biblical case against infant baptism?

Of course -

Since Paedobaptism is never indicated, nor even HINTED at in the Bible, and since ALL the baptisms presented in the Bible are of ADULTS who consciously BELIEVE either at the level of salvation after the crucifixion, or at John's level of repentance before only - then there is NO BASIS for paedobaptism - period. It's nothing but a "religious superstition" based on nothing.

And since there's no reason whatsoever to believe in it to begin with based on the Word of God, then the Biblical refutation is complete.

Simple as that.

Simple as finding that citation that gives us any HINT of sola scriptura...

 

[whitney]

Following is an argument that is directly relevant to the matter at issue. I suggest this argument demonstrates that it is simply unBiblical to see baptism as an event which "symbolizes" or "signifies" our past repentance. To the extent that this argument succeeds, it overturns one of the primary objections to infant baptism, namely the notion that one needs to understand and repent prior to baptism. Here is the argument:

The "repent and only then be baptized" position cannot be squared with the teaching of Paul in Romans. In Romans 6, he asserts that baptism enacts a death - the death of the old nature, a nature that needs to be put to death so that the new life can take its place:

We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We 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

For Jesus, the sequence was death on the cross and then resurrection to new life. Paul clearly has us dying in the act of baptism. Now to the extent that we understand repentence to be constitutive of the new life, it makes absolutely no sense to promote a model whereby we undertake the restorative journey of repentance and then enact our own death through baptism. That would have us putting our repentant "new nature" to death!

If we are following Paul's line of thinking, we understand the act of baptism as our sharing in Jesus' death (as we go down into the water) and emerging, like Christ, out the other side (as we are raised up out of the water). It is only after we have put the old self to death can we begin the process of repentance:

The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so.

Now to drive the point home yet again. We know Paul likens baptism to our death. Who is dying? The old Adamic nature, of course! What does Paul say about the old Adamic nature? That is cannot submit to God. That is, it cannot repent.

Unless and until you have put the Adamic identity to death in baptism, you simply do not have capability to repent.

Another way to understand the incoherence of the “repent and only then be baptised†position is to think of the “new creation†model that Paul gives us – if any man is “in Christâ€, he is a new creation. So assuming that we all agree that repentance is part of the expression of that new creation, it hardly makes sense to undertake repentance and then have that new creation be put to death - Paul is quite clear that baptism enacts our death.

Now, of course, this is not a positive argument for infant baptism - it merely shows that one need not, in fact one cannot, be baptized in order to symbolize a past act of repentance. And this belief that baptism symbolizes a "change of life" is one of the primary pillars on which rests the belief that infant baptism is not scriptural.

I see your point, Drew, but I still disagree. Without even discussing the fact, that baptism is an entire submersion into water and as an infant, it is sprinkling with water, deters the fact that it's not a cleansing, it's a sprinkling. The spiritual meaning of baptism is lost in a simple sprinkling.

The other point is baptism is in obedience to the faith. You point out there is no other way to repent UNTIL we are baptized and made new again, yet the moment we accept Christ, we are indwelled by the Holy Spirit, realize our need for a Savior, He convicts us of our sins and the need for obedience to Him; and this all happens before baptism in our acceptance of Jesus Christ as our Savior. So we have accepted Christ BEFORE baptism, in making our act of baptism an obedience to Him.

 

[Alabaster]

Re: Should Babies Be Baptized?

Are you able to make relevant Biblical case against infant baptism?

Of course -

Since Paedobaptism is never indicated, nor even HINTED at in the Bible, and since ALL the baptisms presented in the Bible are of ADULTS who consciously BELIEVE either at the level of salvation after the crucifixion, or at John's level of repentance before only - then there is NO BASIS for paedobaptism - period. It's nothing but a "religious superstition" based on nothing.

And since there's no reason whatsoever to believe in it to begin with based on the Word of God, then the Biblical refutation is complete.

Simple as that.

Right!

 

[Alabaster]

Re: Arguments from silence.

Nice try. You need to remember how this thread started. Alabaster - who does not believe in infant baptism - made a number of arguments. Many of them have been shown to be incorrect.

Where? List them all.

I trust you understand that the burden of proof is on Alabaster here - he claims that infant baptism is non-Biblical. One can show that he is mistaken without being required to make a positive case in favour of infant baptism.

All points have scriptural backing. It was a great OP.

 

[Scotth1960]

Re: Arguments from silence.

Where? List them all.



All points have scriptural backing. It was a great OP.

Dear Alabaster, Without traditions of men, Christ simply said, "Let the little children come unto Me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." That would allow infant baptism. No interpretation. Simply trusting Christ for the salvation of all, from infants to adults. Would that we had not so many disputes among ourselves. All claim the same inspiration of God the Holy Spirit. And then they teach contrary, opposing, contradictory things. One, such as you, teach you get all your teachings "directly from God" in the Holy Scriptures, without, supposedly, any denomination teaching or tradition of men, but just from you yourself alone with the Bible. But then you yourself say the mistake, Christ has 2 natures, one created, one eternal. Where does Scripture say anything in Christ is "created". Christ is not a thing or a creature. He is eternal and uncreated. He is begotten of God (John 3:16). Begotten does not mean created. Just caused eternally by God the Father. In a way we can not hope to have any understanding of, ever. God in His nature is a a Mystery incomprehensible to us. In Erie PA Scott Harrington

 

[Drew]

I see your point, Drew, but I still disagree.

I trust we agree that "we" do not get to decide whether Paul is "correct" or not. This is about taking Paul at his word, and not setting our traditions above him. Now I am not saying that my argument is beyond challenge. But if there is an error in either the logic or the Biblical texts, then I politely suggest you either need to find the error, or accept that, indeed, Paul believes that baptism must precede repentance, not follow it.

Without even discussing the fact, that baptism is an entire submersion into water and as an infant, it is sprinkling with water, deters the fact that it's not a cleansing, it's a sprinkling. The spiritual meaning of baptism is lost in a simple sprinkling.

I do not see the relevance of this line of thinking. The argument I have put forward has to do with the "relationship" between baptism and repentence - not the specific details of how baptism is actually carried out.

The other point is baptism is in obedience to the faith. You point out there is no other way to repent UNTIL we are baptized and made new again, yet the moment we accept Christ, we are indwelled by the Holy Spirit, realize our need for a Savior, He convicts us of our sins and the need for obedience to Him; and this all happens before baptism in our acceptance of Jesus Christ as our Savior. So we have accepted Christ BEFORE baptism, in making our act of baptism an obedience to Him.

Again, I am open to counter-arguments in respect to the argument I have put forward. But here, you appear to simply re-state your belief that a person needs to have some conscious, reasoned, understanding of the gospel before baptism. Can you actually defend that position Biblically? And can you find the error in my argument which purports to make the case that baptism cannot follow repentance, it must precede it.

I have a lot of sympathy with your position - it makes sense to we 21st century westerners that baptism should follow a declaration of faith in Christ.

The problem is that you and I do not get to make those decisions. I suggest that my argument shows that Paul believes that baptism effectively precedes what you and I would call repentance. Therefore, the fact that a child might not "understand" what it means to "repent" is not grounds for opposing infant baptism.

 

[Drew]

Re: Arguments from silence.

Where? List them all.

The posts that you have not dealt with have already been pointed out to you. They are posts 17, 18, and 81.

All points have scriptural backing. It was a great OP.

Other posters who have been following this thread will know that you have simply not dealt with clear counter-arguments to elements of the OP. Again, no one gets to "declare" a position and not deal with challenges.

 

[Drew]

We begin with an important basic principle: In order to participate in a religious practice with God's approval, we must find New Testament teaching authorizing that practice.

This is manifestly false. You are making the common error of logic whereby you conclude that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence".

Suppose there is no evidence at all that "Fred" has committed a certain crime. Does that legitimize a definitive conclusion that Fred is, in fact, innocent? No it does not - the absence of evidence is entirely consistent with the possibility that Fred is indeed factually guilty - it is possible that Fred covered his tracks.

This may not be the best analogy, but consider "sola scripture" - I agree with fds that there is no clear assertion for this doctrine in the Bible, yet many protestant Christians will accept this doctrine. If we applied your line of thinking - that in order to accept a doctrine we have to find clear supporting statements in the Bible - we would need to reject sola scriptura.

Alabaster, there are now four counter-arguments from me alone on the table in respect to the OP. Please address them.

 

[Drew]

B. Before Baptism One Must Believe the Gospel.

Galatians 3:26,27 - However many people are baptized, all of them must do so by faith. Everyone who is baptized must first understand the gospel well enough to believe it.

I do not know what version you are using, but I strongly suspect it is a paraphrase, not a proper translation.

Here is this text from the highly respected NASB (respected in the sense that it honours the original greek):

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

Unlike your version, the logic of the NASB rendering simply does not require that baptism must follow hearing the gospel, or any other event, for that matter.

 

[Scotth1960]

I do not know what version you are using, but I strongly suspect it is a paraphrase, not a proper translation.

Here is this text from the highly respected NASB (respected in the sense that it honours the original greek):

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

Unlike your version, the logic of the NASB rendering simply does not require that baptism must follow hearing the gospel, or any other event, for that matter.

Dear Drew, A lot of this assumes that infants (babies) cannot and do not hear the Gospel before they are baptized. This is an unsolved mystery known only to God. Infants all have guardian angels, because according to Scripture there are angels, and it is from the Bible we learn there are guardian angels for every Christian. Perhaps we have something going on here in the supernatural realm of which we are not yet fully and consciously aware. Babies can repent and believe too. Although they are innocent and committed no actual sins, even those who have not yet sinned can do the repentance of simply believing in God.

All people are mortal, so surely babies need to receive salvation just like anyone else. It seems clear, however, in keeping with what Alabaster and Whitney said, that St. Peter did preach the Gospel before he baptized anyone, and they all heard the good news of Jesus Christ, believed, repented of their sins, and were baptized by Peter, Andrew and the other Apostles, Paul, John, etc. Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, Thomas, James, Bartholomew, Philip etc.
In Erie PA Scott Harrington

 

[Drew]

Babies can repent and believe too. Although they are innocent and committed no actual sins, even those who have not yet sinned can do the repentance of simply believing in God.

I kind of doubt it. My line of argument has been that Paul says things that make it clear that repentence simply must follow baptism, not precede it. If that argument is correct, we can embrace infant baptism without having to speculate about whether infants can and do repent. I would bet that infants, in fact, cannot repent. But, to be fair to you, I do not think I can actually make a Bibical case for my position.

It seems clear, however, in keeping with what Alabaster and Whitney said, that St. Peter did preach the Gospel before he baptized anyone,....

Really? Has someone actually made a Biblical case that Paul never baptized anyone before "preaching the gospel" to them?

 

[Scotth1960]

I kind of doubt it. My line of argument has been that Paul says things that make it clear that repentence simply must follow baptism, not precede it. If that argument is correct, we can embrace infant baptism without having to speculate about whether infants can and do repent. I would bet that infants, in fact, cannot repent. But, to be fair to you, I do not think I can actually make a Bibical case for my position.


Really? Has someone actually made a Biblical case that Paul never baptized anyone before "preaching the gospel" to them?

Drew, I simply noted we cannot know what babies can or can't do. Can they believe in God? Can a person believe without experiencing conscious thoughts about God? Is it all a matter fo thought? It is an UNSOLVED MYSTERY whether or not infants THINK or have an inner life. We cannot remember, that is clear. I don't remember the first thought I ever had. I don't remember much before I was the age of six. It is all an unsolved mystery to me. In Erie Scott Harrington

 

[Drew]

I don't remember much before I was the age of six. It is all an unsolved mystery to me.

Six? I barely remember anything before sixteen!

If I may ask, were you born in 1960? If so, we are about the same age - I was born in 1958.

 

[Scotth1960]

Six? I barely remember anything before sixteen!

If I may ask, were you born in 1960? If so, we are about the same age - I was born in 1958.

Drew, I was born in 1960. I was a television kid. Most of my free time as a child was watching Star Trek when it originally aired in the late 1960s (am I revealing my age), and also Red Skelton, Laugh In, Ed Sullivan, the Jackie Gleason Show, Dean Martin, Glenn Campbell, Daniel Boone, I Can't remember all the shows, well Hogan's Heroes, I liked that show; unfortuntately, Bob Crane had a tragic life, and I feel sorry for anyone who gets murdered. No matter what they did. May God have mercy on him, and God have mercy on us all. Well, anyway, people in Hollywood often have tragic lives. They are just like any of us. Sometimes people give into temptations. We all need help from On High, that is for sure. In Erie PA
Scott Harrington born in November of 1960, just a day before Kennedy was elected.

 

[whitney]

I trust we agree that "we" do not get to decide whether Paul is "correct" or not. This is about taking Paul at his word, and not setting our traditions above him. Now I am not saying that my argument is beyond challenge. But if there is an error in either the logic or the Biblical texts, then I politely suggest you either need to find the error, or accept that, indeed, Paul believes that baptism must precede repentance, not follow it.


I do not see the relevance of this line of thinking. The argument I have put forward has to do with the "relationship" between baptism and repentence - not the specific details of how baptism is actually carried out.


Again, I am open to counter-arguments in respect to the argument I have put forward. But here, you appear to simply re-state your belief that a person needs to have some conscious, reasoned, understanding of the gospel before baptism. Can you actually defend that position Biblically? And can you find the error in my argument which purports to make the case that baptism cannot follow repentance, it must precede it.

I have a lot of sympathy with your position - it makes sense to we 21st century westerners that baptism should follow a declaration of faith in Christ.

The problem is that you and I do not get to make those decisions. I suggest that my argument shows that Paul believes that baptism effectively precedes what you and I would call repentance. Therefore, the fact that a child might not "understand" what it means to "repent" is not grounds for opposing infant baptism.

Hi Drew,


We can certainly be baptized at any point of our Christian journey, completely submersed, as the scripture intended. However, the way in which Paul spoke as well as other disciples, their instruction was to hear the gospel, repent of sins and THEN be baptized.
Paul tells us to FIRST repent in Acts, and then be baptized.

Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

In Mark, those who believe are told to be baptized.

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

Baptism gives us a clear conscience because we have first heard, we have believed, we have repented and now we have been obedient and were baptized. I would suggest a baby can not have a clear conscience or even know what one is. None the less, we are to hear, believe, repent and be baptized in obedience.
1 Peter 3:21 which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ;

 

[Alabaster]

Dear Drew, A lot of this assumes that infants (babies) cannot and do not hear the Gospel before they are baptized. This is an unsolved mystery known only to God. Infants all have guardian angels, because according to Scripture there are angels, and it is from the Bible we learn there are guardian angels for every Christian. Perhaps we have something going on here in the supernatural realm of which we are not yet fully and consciously aware. Babies can repent and believe too. Although they are innocent and committed no actual sins, even those who have not yet sinned can do the repentance of simply believing in God.

Prove that infants can comprehend their sinful state and their need for a Saviour and act in repentance!

All people are mortal, so surely babies need to receive salvation just like anyone else.

God doesn't teach us anything about that. Certainly He has it all in hand.

Our job as Christian parents is to lead them to Christ, teaching them from birth on until theyuv come to Christ on their own. Biblical advice.

It seems clear, however, in keeping with what Alabaster and Whitney said, that St. Peter did preach the Gospel before he baptized anyone, and they all heard the good news of Jesus Christ, believed, repented of their sins, and were baptized by Peter, Andrew and the other Apostles, Paul, John, etc. Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, Thomas, James, Bartholomew, Philip etc.
In Erie PA Scott Harrington

Babies were not included by virtue of the whole word of God teaching us about baptism.