Infant Baptism Is Just As Valid As Adult Baptism

[Drew]

And when she was baptized, and her household Acts 16:15

And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed [their] stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. Acts 16:33

And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 1 Cor 16

As per a post of FDS, these texts are exceedingly compelling evidence that children were baptized - children were present in the majority of households in that culture - they did not know the "no children family" as is now relatively common in the 21st century west (unless, of course, there was a fertility issue).

Are you really suggesting that none of these households contained children? That's possible, but really quite improbable.

 

[francisdesales]

If, as I have been arguing, the linguistic convention is such that references to children are implied, then we have every reason to believe that infants were baptized.

From Matthew:

21The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children.

Although children are indeed mentioned here, we see the different way a Hebrew writer refers to people - children and women are "secondary" and, therefore I suggest their presence and participation is often implied.

And thus we get this from Mark:

The number of the men who had eaten was five thousand.

Were women and children present? Yes - we know this from the Matthew account. And yet they are not "counted" in the Markan version of the story.

This essentially undermines any argument that since there are no explicit references to the baptism of infants, that infants were therefore not baptized.

Thanks for doing the research. I was thinking about this pericope, but only the Matthew version. Good point that Mark does not mention what Matthew says...

Regards
Regards

 

[Cornelius]

It's useless arguing about the children. It cannot be proved either way, so no side can claim their point,........on THIS point :yes

You have to first get the Bible meaning about Baptism. THAT proves that infants cannot be baptized and that is also why God did not even make an effort on clarifying or addressing the "were there children in the households?" point, because it is irrelevant to Biblical baptism. God never explains something that does not need explaining.

C

 

[Drew]

It's useless arguing about the children. It cannot be proved either way, so no side can claim their point,........on THIS point :yes

Not true. Given references to entire households being baptised, and the extreme unlikelihood of a childless household, the weight of evidence strongly suggests that children were, in fact, baptized. This is not a 100 % proof, but it is very suggestive.

It's You have to first get the Bible meaning about Baptism. THAT proves that infants cannot be baptized and that is also why God did not even make an effort on clarifying or addressing the "were there children in the households?" point, because it is irrelevant to Biblical baptism. God never explains something that does not need explaining.

C

This appears to beg the question. You do not give us a reason to believe that the Biblical position on baptism implies that infants should not be baptized.

Have you given you reasons in another post here? If so, please point me to it.

But, obviously, the reasons will need to be very convincing indeed because of multiple strong implications that children were baptized.

 

[Cornelius]

First: You cannot use something as evidence like this. In any court it would be thrown out.


I have posted somewhere in the thread , at various times, the significance of baptism. None of which an infant can participate in. The misunderstanding comes, because some have the idea its a dedication.Which it is not. I do not know where they get that idea from.

In my country it is seen as the naming of the baby. Plus they believe that ALL the children that are baptized are automatically saved. That is ludicrous , nothing can be further from the gospel.

I have further stated that people who do not know the real meaning, should not participate in it anyway. They should stay away from real baptism.

 

[Cornelius]

But, obviously, the reasons will need to be very convincing indeed because of multiple strong implications that children were baptized.

ah, ah, ah LOL not so fast. There are none such "multiple strong implication" . You WANT them to be, but they are not there.They really do not prove the matter either way. They cannot be used as evidence because they are not evidence. :naughty

 

[Drew]

First: You cannot use something as evidence like this. In any court it would be thrown out.

Well, this is not a courtroom. On balance, it is clearly more likely than not that references to households being baptized implies that children were being baptized. The standard here is not "reasonable" doubt - I suggest it it is this: which is more likely:

1. The households were all childless
2. There were some children in the households.

I suggest that (2) is the more likely position. All other considerations aside for the moment, it is more reasonable to assume that children were baptized than not. Now we'll see if you make a case to overturn the implication that children were indeed baptized.

I have posted somewhere in the thread , at various times, the significance of baptism. None of which an infant can participate in.

I read back a little bit and saw nothing in any of your posts that supports the position that infants should not be baptized. Please restate your argument or point me to a particular post.

In my country it is seen as the naming of the baby. Plus they believe that ALL the children that are baptized are automatically saved. That is ludicrous , nothing can be further from the gospel.

This is not relevant. The fact that some people have a certain misunderstanding about what infant baptism is all about does not mean that there does not exist a biblical defence for infant baptism.

I have further stated that people who do not know the real meaning, should not participate in it anyway. They should stay away from real baptism.

This begs the question by simply assumng that the person who is being baptized needs to understand what is going on. If God is at work in the act of baptism, the person need know nothing.

 

[Drew]

But, obviously, the reasons will need to be very convincing indeed because of multiple strong implications that children were baptized.

ah, ah, ah LOL not so fast. There are none such "multiple strong implication" . You WANT them to be, but they are not there.They really do not prove the matter either way. They cannot be used as evidence because they are not evidence. :naughty

They are not evidence to a courtroom standard. But this is not a courtroom. I could turn the courtroom argument around on you and confer the "beyond a reasonable" doubt standard on you. So where is the evidence - beyond a reasonable doubt - that children either were not baptized or should not have been baptized?

The statements about entire households being baptized strongly suggest that children were baptized, since childless households would be rare. Granted, if you can bring additional arguments to bear, fine. But in the absence of some other reason to think children were not being baptized, the texts that DFS and I have quoted do indeed suggest that children were baptized.

 

[francisdesales]

But, obviously, the reasons will need to be very convincing indeed because of multiple strong implications that children were baptized.

ah, ah, ah LOL not so fast. There are none such "multiple strong implication" . You WANT them to be, but they are not there.They really do not prove the matter either way. They cannot be used as evidence because they are not evidence. :naughty

First of all, there are at least THREE separate occasions where entire households were baptized. Nothing about children tossed outside while this was happening. Drew has raised a good point about the Scriptures not always relating the entire story in each pericope. We all know that families of the ancient times had numerous children.

There is really no reason for PRESUMING baptism was NOT done to infants - unless one thinks that baptism is only performed on adults for some reason, which is begging the question, since the Scripture NEVER say a person must be an adult to be baptized...

In other words, the evidence is FOR infant baptism, not AGAINST it.

Second of all, it appears that you do not understand Who is at work during the Baptism. This is not the water baptism of repentance of John. One who is baptized is born FROM ABOVE, not below.

We have already discussed this, Cornelius, and we don't need to do this again for Drew's sake, unless you have something new to add. To say that Baptism REQUIRES a faith proclamation is to limit the power of God. It becomes a human activity, when Jesus says clearly that one is born from above and the Spirit blows where He wills - the analogy is that we don't know where He is coming from or where He goes.

The ritual of baptism merely marks the event for the rest of the community, since the Baptized is brought into the Kingdom of God, a community of People that God has established.

All the stuff about walking in the Spirit after baptism, etc., is inconsequential to the total and freely given gift by God that frees man from sin.

We don't ask to be children of our parents, and we don't ask to be children of God.

Regards

 

[MarkT]

It all presupposes that the child will grow up and make his confession and repent at a later date. Infant baptism isn't wrong. But it's the believing parent who makes it right. Believing parents, especially believing mothers, contribute greatly to the church. This is why Paul says women are saved by having children.

But do you believe John's baptism saved anyone? Or was he sent to prepare the 'way' of the LORD. I think it is the later.

Confession and repentance that go with the ceremony prepare the 'way'. But even adult baptism presupposes that the man will read the Bible at a later date and that he will understand and so be baptized with fire.

 

[MarkT]

By the way, being born of water and the Spirit doesn't have anything to do with water or water baptism. Water represents the water from above. The ones who thirst for the word of God know what I mean.

 

[francisdesales]

It all presupposes that the child will grow up and make his confession and repent at a later date.

You don't understand what baptism is, do you...

It is a completely free gift that is not dependent upon anything the recipient does or does not do. We are talking about freedom from sin, something that man cannot do alone. We are talking about being born, something that we partake in, we don't enact it or hurry it along.

Note that not ONE PERSON baptizes themselves...

Infant baptism is the ultimate sign of God's gracious gift. Furthermore, it replaces circumcision, the ritual by which someone became a child of God. Infants were readily allowed into the People of God before Christ became incarnate, and certainly, afterwards, as well.

Baptism is effective, whether the person makes a confession of faith or not, since the person is born from above, not from his own statements. Baptism is made visible by the water, signifying what happens invisibly AND brings one, child or adult, into the Kingdom of God.

Infant baptism isn't wrong. But it's the believing parent who makes it right. Believing parents, especially believing mothers, contribute greatly to the church. This is why Paul says women are saved by having children.

Believing parents do not bring "birth from above". God does and that's that. The parents promised to raise the children in the faith for the purpose of "making their election certain". However, they are elected visibly at the Baptismal rite and made part of the community without the child asking for it, just as the Jewish children did not ask to be circumcised.

But do you believe John's baptism saved anyone? Or was he sent to prepare the 'way' of the LORD. I think it is the later.

John himself said the baptism that he conducted was different and inferior.

Confession and repentance that go with the ceremony prepare the 'way'. But even adult baptism presupposes that the man will read the Bible at a later date and that he will understand and so be baptized with fire.

Reading the Bible??? One doesn't need to be literate to enter the Kingdom or remain there. Can you point me to a verse that states one must read the Bible to enter the Kingdom?

Confession and repentance is part of the work that comes once the walk begins. Often, they all come together, simultaneously. But it is not necessary. One doesn't have to confess their sins to THEN receive the Spirit of God. That would mean that you are born from below, rather than from above.

Regards

 

[Cornelius]

They are not evidence to a courtroom standard. But this is not a courtroom. I could turn the courtroom argument around on you and confer the "beyond a reasonable" doubt standard on you. So where is the evidence - beyond a reasonable doubt - that children either were not baptized or should not have been baptized?

.

Exactly, that is why I am not going to use this as an argument. We have to get our understanding from the Bible itself and not (as you want to do) from reading things into the Word.

We have to see "Why Baptism" first, before we can decide who it is that must be baptized..

From what I have read, many think it is either some kind of dedication, and others think it is a ritual that takes a person into the Kingdom. It is not a dedication, and a ritual cannot take anybody into the Kingdom of Heaven. So it must be something else. That I have discussed at length in previous posts. But those post do not really get read (I know, I have been on forums long enough to know people are not interested in what others have to say, if it goes against what they belief)

So, those who believe in infant baptism, PLEASE do not get baptized as an adult, it is NOT meant for you. Stay out of the water !

 

[Cornelius]

By the way, being born of water and the Spirit doesn't have anything to do with water or water baptism. Water represents the water from above. The ones who thirst for the word of God know what I mean.

You are right

 

[RobertMazar]

Where did you get the idea that I believe that the Bible is illogical? I do not and have never believed that the Bible is illogical.

I never said its illogical, but the Bible certainly is not based on human logic.


[quote:2g5vsmmo] I believe that the Bible is totally logical. And you never answered the question "What is the matter with believing that Baptism and Dedication is the same thing?", considering that Baptism is just a dedication of infants and adults to Jesus.
:shades

Its not dedication. That is why I do not really want to answer. But that is why I also say, that it does not really matter if you get baptized, because for you it IS a dedication. So you have been dedicated.
That is great. But its not the baptism that the Bible speaks of.

I cannot really help you, because everything has been written already and if you still do not understand it, then I guess that is it.[/quote:2g5vsmmo]
Are you incapable of logical and analytical thinking? It sure appears so since you state that water Baptism is not Dedication. If water Baptism does not impart salvation then the only logical way to look at water Baptism is that it is a Dedication of individuals to Jesus.
:shades

 

[Cornelius]

Where did you get the idea that I believe that the Bible is illogical? I do not and have never believed that the Bible is illogical.

I never said its illogical, but the Bible certainly is not based on human logic.


[quote:9sujvuek] I believe that the Bible is totally logical. And you never answered the question "What is the matter with believing that Baptism and Dedication is the same thing?", considering that Baptism is just a dedication of infants and adults to Jesus.
:shades

Its not dedication. That is why I do not really want to answer. But that is why I also say, that it does not really matter if you get baptized, because for you it IS a dedication. So you have been dedicated.
That is great. But its not the baptism that the Bible speaks of.

I cannot really help you, because everything has been written already and if you still do not understand it, then I guess that is it.

Are you incapable of logical and analytical thinking? It sure appears so since you state that water Baptism is not Dedication. If water Baptism does not impart salvation then the only logical way to look at water Baptism is that it is a Dedication of individuals to Jesus.
:shades[/quote:9sujvuek]

As I said, you should just stick with the dedication thing for the moment brother. Please do not consider adult baptism, its not for you.

C

 

[francisdesales]

By the way, being born of water and the Spirit doesn't have anything to do with water or water baptism. Water represents the water from above. The ones who thirst for the word of God know what I mean.

Water is the sign the signifies a person entering the Kingdom. Baptism is nowhere associated with rain. In every case, the believing community uses water as the sign of what God is doing invisibly.

Applying "thirst for the Word" has nothing to do with being buried with Christ in water.

Regards

 

[Cornelius]

By the way, being born of water and the Spirit doesn't have anything to do with water or water baptism. Water represents the water from above. The ones who thirst for the word of God know what I mean.

Water is the sign the signifies a person entering the Kingdom. Baptism is nowhere associated with rain. In every case, the believing community uses water as the sign of what God is doing invisibly.

Applying "thirst for the Word" has nothing to do with being buried with Christ in water.

Regards

That is why Mark says, that scripture is not speaking directly about baptism.(Although for those who understand baptism, the scripture will link ) The Word is likened unto water in the Bible. It washes the soul Eph 5:26 .........having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word, (be ye changed by the renewing of your mind)

Its the Word of God that is His seed. We are being born from above as we receive this Word into our spirits. The more the Word washes your soul ( emotions, thought and will ) the more you are born from above.

Its journey. And the Spirit of the Lord is the one who helps us during the birthing process. So it is the Water and the Spirit.

 

[Cornelius]

Water is the sign the signifies a person entering the Kingdom.

The reality is that after baptism we do not enter the Kingdom, now do we. No, we first enter the wilderness to be tested.

Israel went through the Red Sea (baptism) into the wilderness (40 years) to be tested.
Jesus went through baptism and directly into the wilderness (40 days ) to be tested.

Exo 16:35 And the children of Israel did eat the manna forty years, until they came to a land inhabited; they did eat the manna, until they came unto the borders of the land of Canaan.

Forty years before they came to the land of Canaan (Kingdom of God)

Mat 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he afterward hungered.

Most did not enter the Promised Land , they did not enter the Kingdom. Even thought they were baptized in water and in the Spirit of God.

 

[francisdesales]

That is why Mark says, that scripture is not speaking directly about baptism.(Although for those who understand baptism, the scripture will link ) The Word is likened unto water in the Bible. It washes the soul Eph 5:26 .........having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word, (be ye changed by the renewing of your mind)

John speaking about Baptism in the Nicodemus/Jesus discussion has nothing to do with the "Word". Jesus is not speaking about the "Word" when He speaks about "water and the Spirit" and being born from above...

Its the Word of God that is His seed. We are being born from above as we receive this Word into our spirits. The more the Word washes your soul ( emotions, thought and will ) the more you are born from above.

When you say "Word", what are you refering to? The WORD Who was with God from the beginning, or the Scriptures?

Its journey. And the Spirit of the Lord is the one who helps us during the birthing process. So it is the Water and the Spirit.

Being born is not "journey". It marks the BEGINNING.

Regards