Infant Baptism Is Just As Valid As Adult Baptism

[francisdesales]

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

Romans 6:3-4...

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

Drew,

You have just touched on something very interesting (something I have been deeply studying lately) and quite lacking in "typical Protestant" soteriology:

The last word in your citation... Life. Eternal life = entering into the communion of the Father and the Son.

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. John 17:3

One John is an extensive 'tract' on HOW we "know" God - by obeying His command to love, we are indeed united in Love, we KNOW Love. And God IS love. When people see "salvation" as merely some external imputation of Christ's work to the believer, they totally miss the PRIMARY POINT of baptism, to be enabled to live a life of love, a life of God, eternal life. Only those who love AS GOD knows God...

This is the point of being "born from above". To become a NEW creation. To be immersed in the Divine Life, to participate in the Divine nature. To be immersed in Love, a totally self-giving to the Other.

I think the "typical Protestant soteriology" is too superficial to note this, missing the very point of WHY God works, even in the life of an infant. Salvation is much more than a faith declaration...

Regards

 

[Drew]

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.

This is clearly a circular argument. Obviously, if I believed that a profession of faith is a necessary pre-condition for baptism, I would agree with you. But there is no scriptural case for that. A "household" is nowhere defined to mean "those members of the family who have made a profession of faith". When a statement is made that a household was baptized, the most reasonable conclusion is that all humans living in that family were baptized. And most households in that culture would have minor children and infants. When you argue that only those who profess faith are baptized, you are adding to what is said.

Now if the Scriptures anywhere make the case that only professing believers can be baptized then, please, by all means point out the relevant texts.

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.

No, I am right. It is interesting how these "debates" proceed. In this case, I have made an actual argument (a few pages back) about Romans 6. I did not merely state my position - I argued for it by showing how A leads to B and then to C. And so on.

The funny thing is that other posters seem to think that they are not obliged to engage actual argument and show where I am mistaken. No one in this thread has engaged by "Romans 5 to 8" argument. That argument shows that baptism preceded repentence, it does not follow it. If it did, then, of course, the baptism of infants would seem incorrect.

I made an argument that baptism precedes repentence. You are here making a statement that it is the other way around. Now which is more convincing, an actual detailed argument, or a simple assertion?

I agree that Romans is written to believers. But in Romans 5 to 8, Paul is likening the experience of the Christian to the exodus. Consequently there are parts which describe the experience of the person while still in slavery to sin. In fact, just as the Red Sea crossing preceded the giving of the Torah (at Sinai), so does baptism (Romans 6) precede the giving of the Spirit (Romans 8), the very thing that enables repentence.

It is clear that, in Paul's mind at least, that without the Spirit, the human person is still in slavery. As has been argued in this very thread, Paul clearly maps the "journey" of the Christian onto the exodus story, with baptism obviously mapping to "passing through the waters of Red Sea".

When does the Red Sea crossing occur in the exodus account? Before getting the Torah at Sinai - the Law to lead the people in the right direction.

Where does baptism pop up in the Romans 5 to 8 narrative?" Before getting the Spirit (Romans 8). And what does the Spirit enable us to do? Repent, of course:

The mind of sinful man[e] is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7the sinful mind[f] is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. 9You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you

Paul is no dummy. The parallels between the narratives are too many to be coincidence. And Paul is careful about matters of timing. Since the Red Sea crossing precedes the giving of Torah, we see that Paul sets baptism as preceding the repentance enabled by the Spirit. Romans 5 to 8 is a narrative - the person is moving from slavery to sin to freedom in the Spirit. So the fact that baptism appears in Romans 6, and repentence in Romans 8, tells us how Paul sees the temporal ordering of things: first, baptism, then repentence.

Paul, therefore, does not believe that baptism is something you do after repentence - it is something you do before repentence.

 

[Drew]

This is the point of being "born from above". To become a NEW creation.

I agree. And I agree that many parts of modern Protestantism think that salvation is all about a one-time transaction where Christ's righteousness is imputed to the believer. I think both elements of this are wrong - I see no case for the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer and I see no case for salvation being merely a "profession of faith". In fact, here in Romans 2, we get Paul's understanding that the final "savlation verdict" will be based on the "content of the life lived":

6God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

Clearly, Paul sees that "how we actually live" is relevant to the matter of ultimate salvation. But, as I and others have argued, it is the Spirit, not unaided self-effort, that allows us to live that way. And I see the Spirit as being granted based on one thing alone - faith. But, for reasons I hope you see and which I will therefore not bother to explain, I still see baptism as an essential act. Perhaps in later posts.

But back to the new creation issue. I think we probably agree that the "new creation" aspect of the Christian experience has been marginalized in much Protestant thinking. God is not in the business of simply "waiting for a profession of faith" so He can "tick your name off" in the "saved" list. He is re-making the human race through a fresh act of new creation, echoing the Genesis creation account.

New creation is at the heart of God's redemptive project. And before we can be "re-born" into that new world, we need to share in Christ's death through the act of baptism. It is not merely a symbolic act.

 

[Alabaster]

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

All scriptural references to baptism are to the believer. Unbelievers don't get baptized unless they are raving hypocrites.

Baptism REPRESENTS being born from above, and IT IS the ONE thing we do that God sees is an outward sign of an inward work. NO parent can make a confession of faith for his or her child. Ever person must have the realization that he is a sinner without hope, convicted that Jesus is His only hope, and in repentance, lays his sins at the cross and follows after Jesus.

A baby cannot repent--therefore cannot follow into the waters of baptism. The only thing Godly parents are required to do under God is to train the child up in the things of God and instruct him in righteousness so that when he is old enough to grasp the truth of his sorry state he will not hesitate to take the free gift of salvation! THEN he can be baptized, but baptism doesn't save anyone.

 

[Alabaster]

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.

No, it makes no sense whatsoever. They aren't repentant. They aren't saved.

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:

It isn't fleshly at all. It is a spiritual act done in OBEDIENCE to the Word. Babies cannot obey the Word for they do not know Him.

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".

Your argument makes my point. A baby cannot appreciate baptism's work. We cannot confer salvation upon anyone. It is a ritual of fear in that somehow God cannot be trusted to lead our children to salvation, and fear that if somehow they should die as infants they would go to hell, so baptizing saves them.

Scripture teaches that baptism saves NO ONE! Only faith in Jesus!

 

[Alabaster]

Obviously, if I believed that a profession of faith is a necessary pre-condition for baptism, I would agree with you. But there is no scriptural case for that. A "household" is nowhere defined to mean "those members of the family who have made a profession of faith". When a statement is made that a household was baptized, the most reasonable conclusion is that all humans living in that family were baptized. And most households in that culture would have minor children and infants. When you argue that only those who profess faith are baptized, you are adding to what is said.

Romans 10:9-10
If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved.

 

[Alabaster]

Where does baptism pop up in the Romans 5 to 8 narrative?" Before getting the Spirit (Romans 8). And what does the Spirit enable us to do? Repent, of course:

The mind of sinful man[e] is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7the sinful mind[f] is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. 9You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you

Paul is no dummy. The parallels between the narratives are too many to be coincidence. And Paul is careful about matters of timing. Since the Red Sea crossing precedes the giving of Torah, we see that Paul sets baptism as preceding the repentance enabled by the Spirit. Romans 5 to 8 is a narrative - the person is moving from slavery to sin to freedom in the Spirit. So the fact that baptism appears in Romans 6, and repentence in Romans 8, tells us how Paul sees the temporal ordering of things: first, baptism, then repentence.

Paul, therefore, does not believe that baptism is something you do after repentence - it is something you do before repentence.

We receive salvation upon faith in Jesus Christ, by the prompting of the Holy Spirit.

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.

 

[francisdesales]

All scriptural references to baptism are to the believer. Unbelievers don't get baptized unless they are raving hypocrites.

Not necessarily. We cannot ASSUME that "the entire household" excludes children or infants. To the Jewish mindset used to circumcising infants, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that infants were also baptized, based upon the faith/repentance of the parents (just as they did when the infant was circumcised).

I think to prove your point, you will have to show where baptism ALWAYS is dependent upon repentance/belief of the INDIVIDUAL recipient. I agree it is ORDINARILY, but we know God often works in extraordinary ways... Baptism's efficaciousness depends on God, not the recipient, since one is born FROM ABOVE.

Baptism REPRESENTS being born from above, and IT IS the ONE thing we do that God sees is an outward sign of an inward work. NO parent can make a confession of faith for his or her child. Ever person must have the realization that he is a sinner without hope, convicted that Jesus is His only hope, and in repentance, lays his sins at the cross and follows after Jesus.

I would like you to explain why "no parent can make a confession of faith for his child". Can we presume that parents who are believers will indeed teach the faith and raise them in the ways of Christ? That they will indeed experience Christ through the love they receive and are taught within their "local church", the family?

Furthermore, where does the Bible say that one must "have the realization that he is a sinner without hope" or any such formula, before one is baptized??? And this is what I sensed and mentioned to Drew regarding the "typical Protestant soteriology", which is incomplete. We are BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST. Since the Father and Christ have such an intimate relationship, we are also immersed into communion with the Father and the Spirit. THIS is why we are born from above. We are made new creations so that we may begin to KNOW God NOW. To know LOVE NOW.

Not for some "realize I am a sinner" thing. THAT is not the heart of the Gospel. It is about being enabled to share in the divine nature, not about getting a "pass" to heaven.

A baby cannot repent--therefore cannot follow into the waters of baptism. The only thing Godly parents are required to do under God is to train the child up in the things of God and instruct him in righteousness so that when he is old enough to grasp the truth of his sorry state he will not hesitate to take the free gift of salvation! THEN he can be baptized, but baptism doesn't save anyone.
[/b]

Again, you will have to show a baptismal paradigm from Scriptures that EXCLUDES one from baptism UNLESS they "repent". I have shown Scriptural verses where God DOES INDEED save men and women through NO COURSE OF THEIR OWN. Through the prayers and intercessions of the people of God (Jews in the OT), God has chosen to heal or save people.

Ever wonder why YOU do not baptize yourself, rather than being baptized by the Church??? If it was all about YOUR repentance, what need is there of the Church? Is anyone in Scripture baptizing themselves upon their own repentance? No. Baptism is a work of God THROUGH His Church, His Body. Since it is a work of God through His Church, there is no reason (as of yet to be revealed by you or anyone else on this thread so far) that anyone should ignore the words of Christ... "do not keep the little ones from Me"...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

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.[/b]

Does this verse say that repenting is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY before one is baptized?

 

[Alabaster]

Jews circumcised baby boys because they were directed to in law. There is no directive to baptize babies. The command is to repent and be baptized.

Babies cannot repent.

It's very simple, but the religious always seek to complicate matters as usual.

 

[Alabaster]

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.[/b]

Does this verse say that repenting is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY before one is baptized?

Yep. Unbelievers aren't required to be baptized.

 

[Drew]

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.

No, it makes no sense whatsoever. They aren't repentant. They aren't saved.

I trust you understand that you are making a circular argument. You assume that baptism follows repentence and then you use that assumption to conclude that infants, since they are not repentent cannot be baptized.

The problem is that you have not, in fact, established that baptism follows repentence. Paul certainly does not see things that way.

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".

Your argument makes my point. A baby cannot appreciate baptism's work. We cannot confer salvation upon anyone. It is a ritual of fear in that somehow God cannot be trusted to lead our children to salvation, and fear that if somehow they should die as infants they would go to hell, so baptizing saves them.

Scripture teaches that baptism saves NO ONE! Only faith in Jesus!

Your argument is circular here too - you seem to have this model in mind that we are "saved" and then we are baptized. You also assume that the person who is being baptized must understand what is going on. You cannot simply assume this - you need to make the actual case from the Scriptures. And you draw a distinction that you should not simply assume between "faith in Jesus" on the one hand and the act of baptism. You need to make an actual case here as well

 

[Drew]

Obviously, if I believed that a profession of faith is a necessary pre-condition for baptism, I would agree with you. But there is no scriptural case for that. A "household" is nowhere defined to mean "those members of the family who have made a profession of faith". When a statement is made that a household was baptized, the most reasonable conclusion is that all humans living in that family were baptized. And most households in that culture would have minor children and infants. When you argue that only those who profess faith are baptized, you are adding to what is said.

Romans 10:9-10
If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved.

This does not address my point. My point, was that there was no scriptural case that a profession of faith is a necessary pre-condition for baptism. The text you post does not speak to the issue of whether its "baptize then repent" or "repent then baptize". The text does not even address baptism. So how is it relevant? Yet it is clear - we are instructed to be baptized.

I entirely accept this teaching from Paul - confess and believe and you will be saved. But let's be careful. If you are going to argue that this takes baptism "out of the picture" in relation to salvation, then I would point out that have probably over-abstracted the notion of "belief" to the point where it becomes a one-time act of intellectual assent entirely divorced from how one lives.

I trust that you understand that a person who proclaims that Jesus is lord and (intellectually) believes that He is risen from the dead and is lord, and yet pursues a life of sinful abandon, will not receive a favourable salvation verdict. Do I really need to make that case?

In any event, what Paul says here clearly does not amount to an instruction to "not get baptized", either for adults or for infants.

 

[Drew]

We receive salvation upon faith in Jesus Christ, by the prompting of the Holy Spirit.

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.

I trust you are not arguing that the phrase "repent and be baptized" means "repent then be baptized". You cannot simply substitute words like that. If I say to my sick friend "Take care of yourself and go see the doctor" am I suggesting that he not go to the doctor until he has finished taking care of himself? Of course not.

To repeat: The phrase "Do A and B" is not the phrase "Do A then B".

 

[Drew]

Jews circumcised baby boys because they were directed to in law. There is no directive to baptize babies. The command is to repent and be baptized.

Babies cannot repent.

It's very simple, but the religious always seek to complicate matters as usual.

This argument does not really work. First of all, we have already dealt with the argument that there is no explicit directive to baptize infants. There are many things we are supposed to do, like have laws against speeding and insider strock trading, for which there are no explicit instructions.

Second, as all should know, the phrase "repent and be baptized" is not the phrase "repent then be baptized.

People commonly think the person being baptized has to understand what is going on. Well, this cannot simply be assumed. I have no idea what is going on when a surgeon operates on me. But my ignorance does not change the fact that what is important is what the surgeon knows, not what I know. So where are the scriptures that tell us that one has to understand what is going on at baptism? Is it the connection to repentence? Well, I agree that one needs to understand in order to repent. And babies cannot repent, I agree. But we are not told to repent then be baptized. So what's wrong if we present the infant to God for baptism, let God do His work, and then encourage the child to repent when he can understand that concept?

 

[Alabaster]

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.

No, it makes no sense whatsoever. They aren't repentant. They aren't saved.

I trust you understand that you are making a circular argument. You assume that baptism follows repentence and then you use that assumption to conclude that infants, since they are not repentent cannot be baptized.

The problem is that you have not, in fact, established that baptism follows repentence. Paul certainly does not see things that way.

No, YOU don't see things that way. Paul teaches that baptism is for those who have made a clear call for Christ. The instruction is to the understanding mind--not to babies, who have no understanding.

 

[Drew]

It cannot be undersored strongly enough that the "repent and only then be baptized" position cannot be squared with the teaching of Paul in Romans. We already have seen how the narrative of Romans 5 to 8 exactly parallels the exodus story. In the exodus story, passage through the Red Sea precedes the giving of the Torah, and it is Torah that is intended to guide the people to life. In the Romans version of this story, the act of baptism (Romans 6) comes before the new life described in Romans 8 - the life whose content is the very essence of the concept of "repentence".

Look at it this way. Paul, in Romans 6, makes it clear 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 repentence and then enact our own death through baptism. That would have us putting our repentent "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 repentence:

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.

 

[Alabaster]

So what's wrong if we present the infant to God for baptism, let God do His work, and then encourage the child to repent when he can understand that concept?

Is there an instruction to be baptized as a sinner, then baptized as a believer later? Come on! The instruction is for the INDIVIDUAL to be baptized in OBEDIENCE for himself.

 

[Alabaster]

Obviously, if I believed that a profession of faith is a necessary pre-condition for baptism, I would agree with you. But there is no scriptural case for that. A "household" is nowhere defined to mean "those members of the family who have made a profession of faith". When a statement is made that a household was baptized, the most reasonable conclusion is that all humans living in that family were baptized. And most households in that culture would have minor children and infants. When you argue that only those who profess faith are baptized, you are adding to what is said.

Romans 10:9-10
If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved.

This does not address my point. My point, was that there was no scriptural case that a profession of faith is a necessary pre-condition for baptism. The text you post does not speak to the issue of whether its "baptize then repent" or "repent then baptize". The text does not even address baptism. So how is it relevant? Yet it is clear - we are instructed to be baptized.

I entirely accept this teaching from Paul - confess and believe and you will be saved. But let's be careful. If you are going to argue that this takes baptism "out of the picture" in relation to salvation, then I would point out that have probably over-abstracted the notion of "belief" to the point where it becomes a one-time act of intellectual assent entirely divorced from how one lives.

I trust that you understand that a person who proclaims that Jesus is lord and (intellectually) believes that He is risen from the dead and is lord, and yet pursues a life of sinful abandon, will not receive a favourable salvation verdict. Do I really need to make that case?

In any event, what Paul says here clearly does not amount to an instruction to "not get baptized", either for adults or for infants.

I know MANY unbelievers who have been baptized as babies--they were brought up believing they were therefore saved--if that isn't mental assent with no heart involvement, then what is it? These people are Catholic. It's a false doctrine and it does great harm.

 

[Cornelius]

LOL the people who do not understand baptism, is at the right place. They should not get baptized. They MUST stay out of the water. This is going on forever and it will not convince anybody.

Leave those who believe in infant baptism, because they have not yet come to the correct understanding and do not know what baptism is about, neither do they want to know. They WANT to believe in infant baptism so they will not change even if the Lord Himself explained it (which He does in the Bible)

C