Infant Baptism Is Just As Valid As Adult Baptism

[Drew]

But I have studied MUCH and offered MUCH prayer as concerns the matter in which we debate. And the answer that has been GIVEN is that there is NO evidence nor PURPOSE so far as GOD is concerned when it comes to 'infant Baptism'.

Well why are you even involved in a public discussion? - if your position is that you know what you believe and nothing will change your mind, what are you doing here. Surely you realize that people here will not simply accept the truth of your position simply because you tell us that you hve "studied much and offered much prayer".

You have given us no evidence at all - none - against the baptism of infants.

For there is NO evidence that it has EVER offered ANYTHING to anyone other than those to which payment is made, (and perhaps some 'peace of mind' for those that have been TAUGHT to believe in it).

This is deeply cynical claim that is pure speculation on your part.

 

[Drew]

Greeting Imagican:

We have discussed the "household" texts. Fran and I have argued that while these texts do not explicitly say children were baptised, there is a strong implication to that effect since, in that culture, most households would have contained children.

At times you seem to be arguing that since children are not mentioned, then we can conclude children were not baptised. Well, as we have seen, some accounts of the mass feedings (the 4000 and the 5000) contain no explicit references to the presence of women and children. Surely you would not argue that women and children were not present, would you?

What the reader needs to understand is that something does not need to be explicitly stated for it to be implied.

Please respond to this, which I posted earlier:

This is like saying that a report that 5 houses in the US burned to cinders does not strongly imply that at least one television set was burned to cinders.

Is it possible that one could find a set of 5 adjacent houses with zero TVs in them? Of course its possible.

Is it likely? No it is not. In the 21st century US, it would be very unlikely that 5 houses would have zero TVs between them.

And the same is true in respect to the baptism of households - while we are not explicitly told that there were children in some of these "Baptized households", surely you must realize that it is far more likely than not that there were. Theirs was a culture where the only reason not to have children is if you could not.

 

[Solo]

Please give Scriptural references for infant baptism.

All who hold to the teaching that the Magisterium is equal in authority as the Scriptures please refrain from posting anything other than Scriptural reference.

Thanks.

 

[Alabaster]

Infant Baptism is just as valid as Adult Baptism because it is also administered in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit(Which is the formula that Jesus prescribed for administering Baptism). Baptism of infants and adults is just a dedication of infants and adults to Jesus and thus is totally superfluous to salvation. So what difference does it make if infants are Baptized?
:shades

If God hasn't commanded infant baptism, who has the right to say it is valid? It is for believers only. This OP view is unbiblical.

If God never says to do it, why do it?

It's a religious ritual based on fear.

 

[francisdesales]

Please give Scriptural references for infant baptism.

All who hold to the teaching that the Magisterium is equal in authority as the Scriptures please refrain from posting anything other than Scriptural reference.

Thanks.

I think this thread has clearly been based upon the reading of Scriptures, don't you? The "Magesterial" view is based upon the reading of Scriptures and the actions of the first Christians.

Regards

 

[Solo]

Please give Scriptural references for infant baptism.

All who hold to the teaching that the Magisterium is equal in authority as the Scriptures please refrain from posting anything other than Scriptural reference.

Thanks.

I think this thread has clearly been based upon the reading of Scriptures, don't you? The "Magesterial" view is based upon the reading of Scriptures and the actions of the first Christians.

Regards

No Scripture, No Truth.

Hint: There is not one single Scripture pertaining to infant baptism. Absolutely none. Only a perverted antichristian attempt to lead the masses into hell through deception and lies. If it is not in Scripture, the Magisterium is lying.

 

[Drew]

Please give Scriptural references for infant baptism.

There are no scriptural texts that explicitly mandate infant baptism.

...just like there are none that declare that God is a triune being.

I trust the point is made.

All who hold to the teaching that the Magisterium is equal in authority as the Scriptures please refrain from posting anything other than Scriptural reference.

What is a Majesterium? Never heard of it.

 

[Drew]

Infant Baptism is just as valid as Adult Baptism because it is also administered in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit(Which is the formula that Jesus prescribed for administering Baptism). Baptism of infants and adults is just a dedication of infants and adults to Jesus and thus is totally superfluous to salvation. So what difference does it make if infants are Baptized?
:shades

If God hasn't commanded infant baptism, who has the right to say it is valid? It is for believers only. This OP view is unbiblical.

If God never says to do it, why do it?

It's a religious ritual based on fear.

This argument clearly does not work. There are many behaviours that the Scriptures do not explicitly mandate, yet which are clearly consistent with gospel principles. Just to name two:

1. There is no prescription to ban insider trading in stocks. Using your reasoning, we should not make laws against it.

2. There is no prescription to restrict speed of travel on highways. Using your reasoning, we should not make laws against it.

I am sure that people can think of many others. So absence of a specific scriptural mandate is hardly a good reason to not baptize infants.

At least two exceedingly compelling arguments have been made for infant baptism in this thread:

1. The precedent of entire households being baptized - it is quite unlikely that none of these households would be entirely devoid of infants, especially in that culture.

2. An argument based on the sequence of Romans 5 to 8 has shown that Paul sees baptism as preceding life-changing repentence. This undermines the idea that it is only sensible to baptize those who understand and have undertaken repentence.

 

[Drew]

Only a perverted antichristian attempt to lead the masses into hell through deception and lies. If it is not in Scripture, the Magisterium is lying.

Please do not revert to your old ways of demonizing and over the top rhetoric. You have no grounds to accuse those who support infant baptism as "lying agents of hell".

 

[dadof10]

No Scripture, No Truth.

Hint: There is not one single Scripture pertaining to infant baptism. Absolutely none. Only a perverted antichristian attempt to lead the masses into hell through deception and lies. If it is not in Scripture, the Magisterium is lying.

Wow...How do you REALLY feel?

As has been pointed out, the doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly stated in Scripture, neither is the doctrine of Sola-Scriptura, which you are invoking above. Kinda ironic, huh?

 

[francisdesales]

Hint: There is not one single Scripture pertaining to infant baptism. Absolutely none. Only a perverted antichristian attempt to lead the masses into hell through deception and lies. If it is not in Scripture, the Magisterium is lying.

If you would care to read this thread's earlier posts, you would see that infant baptism is indeed dependent upon Scriptural verses that imply that it was practiced in the first century. There is no biblical baptismal paradigm that discounts infant baptism. Thus, as Paul says, we are free to practice IF it is not against the Will of God. Anything done in love for the sake of God is OK for us Christians.

And of course, I do not subscribe to your non-biblical notion that "everything must be explicitly spelled out in the Bible" belief, since there is no such notion found in Scriptures. Clearly, Paul says otherwise, for example, mentioning TWICE in to the Corinthians that he taught what was HANDED DOWN, not what he read in the Bible (OT...).

I have said enough about this subject, I do not want to highjack this thread further. If you disagree with infant baptism, please provide the Scriptural warrant that EXCLUDES the POSSIBILITY (in other words, a verse that says that man must do something before being "born from above").

Regards

 

[Solo]

Please give Scriptural references for infant baptism.

There are no scriptural texts that explicitly mandate infant baptism.

...just like there are none that declare that God is a triune being.

I trust the point is made.

Apples and Oranges. Baptism is commanded by the Lord Jesus Christ, and He is our example as to how and when Baptism is to take place. The Scriptures are clear about who is to be baptized and when. Only the unbelieving pervert the truth.

All who hold to the teaching that the Magisterium is equal in authority as the Scriptures please refrain from posting anything other than Scriptural reference.

What is a Majesterium? Never heard of it.

Look it up. You will learn something new.

 

[shad]

[quote:1rll6qox]
What is a Majesterium? Never heard of it.

Look it up. You will learn something new.[/quote:1rll6qox]

I'm sorry, I can't find that word in my dictionary. Could you spell it out for me?

.

 

[Alabaster]

If God hasn't commanded infant baptism, who has the right to say it is valid? It is for believers only. This OP view is unbiblical.

If God never says to do it, why do it?

It's a religious ritual based on fear.

This argument clearly does not work. There are many behaviours that the Scriptures do not explicitly mandate, yet which are clearly consistent with gospel principles. Just to name two:

1. There is no prescription to ban insider trading in stocks. Using your reasoning, we should not make laws against it.

Morality is a mandate in Scripture.

2. There is no prescription to restrict speed of travel on highways. Using your reasoning, we should not make laws against it.

Basic right and wrong based on possible danger to life and limb is innate. That is Scriptural also.

I am sure that people can think of many others. So absence of a specific scriptural mandate is hardly a good reason to not baptize infants.

We don't create religious rituals to appease our fleshly fears and the desire for religion, period. If God hasn't told us distinctly to baptize our babies, then we mustn't do it. In fact, those who do it are maniofesting a lack of faith and a lack of understanding about what salvation is. They appear to me to be merely seeking a religious fix.

At least two exceedingly compelling arguments have been made for infant baptism in this thread:

1. The precedent of entire households being baptized - it is quite unlikely that none of these households would be entirely devoid of infants, especially in that culture.

That isn't compelling. Households included servants--all adults were considered a household. It included those who MADE A PROFESSION OF FAITH ---which a baby can never do.

2. An argument based on the sequence of Romans 5 to 8 has shown that Paul sees baptism as preceding life-changing repentence. This undermines the idea that it is only sensible to baptize those who understand and have undertaken repentence.

That is wrong. Baptism is only for believers who have repentance. Romans is written to believers! Methinks you are undermining, no one else.

 

[Solo]

[quote:17fh5t5v]
What is a Majesterium? Never heard of it.

Look it up. You will learn something new.

I'm sorry, I can't find that word in my dictionary. Could you spell it out for me?

.[/quote:17fh5t5v]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium

 

[Solo]

Hint: There is not one single Scripture pertaining to infant baptism. Absolutely none. Only a perverted antichristian attempt to lead the masses into hell through deception and lies. If it is not in Scripture, the Magisterium is lying.

If you would care to read this thread's earlier posts, you would see that infant baptism is indeed dependent upon Scriptural verses that imply that it was practiced in the first century. There is no biblical baptismal paradigm that discounts infant baptism. Thus, as Paul says, we are free to practice IF it is not against the Will of God. Anything done in love for the sake of God is OK for us Christians.

And of course, I do not subscribe to your non-biblical notion that "everything must be explicitly spelled out in the Bible" belief, since there is no such notion found in Scriptures. Clearly, Paul says otherwise, for example, mentioning TWICE in to the Corinthians that he taught what was HANDED DOWN, not what he read in the Bible (OT...).

I have said enough about this subject, I do not want to highjack this thread further. If you disagree with infant baptism, please provide the Scriptural warrant that EXCLUDES the POSSIBILITY (in other words, a verse that says that man must do something before being "born from above").

Regards

I wouldn't expect a Roman Catholic to post anything else. No Scripture was expected and confirmation of same made.

 

[francisdesales]

Baptism is only for believers who have repentance. Romans is written to believers! Methinks you are undermining, no one else.

Could you provide a verse that says "Baptism is only for believers who have repentance"? Or something like that? Baptism is BEING BORN FROM ABOVE and is not ABSOLUTELY dependent upon ANYTHING we can do, including a one-time faith proclamation (which a parent can certainly do in the name of the child).

Unless you think you are saved by your own works...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I wouldn't expect a Roman Catholic to post anything else. No Scripture was expected and confirmation of same made.

That is unfair, since I have posted about a dozen verses on this topic:

Verses that show entire households were baptized.
Verses that show that God deigns to save people on the intercessions of others.
Verses that show that baptism replaces circumcision as the means of entering the People of God.

Please do not allow your distaste for Roman Catholicism get in the way of a constructive discussion. I believe the argument presented is worthy of merit based upon several Scriptural notions. Merely denying that because it comes from a "Roman Catholic" is quite un-Christian. Furthermore, Drew, a non-Catholic, has also presented an interesting argument that has not been addressed yet (besides simple denial).

Regards

 

[Drew]

Please give Scriptural references for infant baptism.

There are no scriptural texts that explicitly mandate infant baptism.

...just like there are none that declare that God is a triune being.

I trust the point is made.

Apples and Oranges. Baptism is commanded by the Lord Jesus Christ, and He is our example as to how and when Baptism is to take place. The Scriptures are clear about who is to be baptized and when. Only the unbelieving pervert the truth.

If what you say is really true - that Jesus has told us who is to be baptized and under what conditions, then please point those teachings out to us and show us how this effectively speaks against the baptism of infants.

When you make statements like "only the unbelieving pervert the truth", you are bending the discussion away from the issue itself and bringing it down to the level of mud-slinging rhetoric. Please do not do this - we can do better as a community.

 

[Drew]

This argument clearly does not work. There are many behaviours that the Scriptures do not explicitly mandate, yet which are clearly consistent with gospel principles. Just to name two:

1. There is no prescription to ban insider trading in stocks. Using your reasoning, we should not make laws against it.

Morality is a mandate in Scripture.

You do realize, don't you, that I could make a similar general statement as this to support the notion of infant baptism. I could say "Allowing God to work in the life of human beings" is a mandate in the Scripture. This would support infant baptism since, if you take the Scriptures seriously, God is at work in the act of baptism.

We don't create religious rituals to appease our fleshly fears and the desire for religion, period. If God hasn't told us distinctly to baptize our babies, then we mustn't do it.

Again, this statement is subject to the same counter-argument that I have made above. It is you who are arguing that since "morality" is legislated in the Scritures, we should make laws against insider trading. Well, the Scriptures clearly also teach that God is the primary agent of regeneration in the world. And since baptism is clearly part of the process of renewal, it only makes sense to baptise infants.

And, of course, you are merely begging the very question at issue when you assert that baptism is a fleshly ritual. Paul, for one, certainly did not see it as a ritual:

Or 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

The text says what it says - baptism is causally connected to enabling one to live a new life - hardly a "fleshly ritual".