Infant Baptism.

[Creative]

I just noticed here a long ago thread that quoted Mathew 16:16 as evidence against infant baptism:

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

The post interpreted that the meaning here is that only a believer receives the baptism. Since an infant cannot believe there cannot be a valid baptism.

I do not believe that verse can be clearly interpreted to have that meaning. While the verse has the words believes and baptized in the same sentence it does not seem to exclusively imply that belief is necessary. In fact, the verse goes on to say that belief is necessary for salvation, not necessarily baptism.

In Acts 16 31-33 a jailer and his household is baptized and no mention of an infant is made, but that does not exclude the possibility.

Acts 2 38-41 states repent all of you and be baptized... the promise is for you and your children....

In Mark 1 5 it reads;

The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him, Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

Were infants excluded from the whole countryside or city ? Also you do not baptize yourself, someone does it for you, is belief necessary for baptism ? If not can infant baptism be valid ?

Yet there is more to it. Col. 2 11-12

In whom you are also circumcised with circumcision not made by hand in despoiling of the body of the flesh: but in the circumcision of Christ. Buried with him in baptism: in whom you are risen again by the faith...

A Jewish boy is circumcised as an infant on his 8th day.

I don't see conclusive evidence either way.

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi Creative,
Welcome to the forum.

You'd have to know WHY infants are baptized and then you'd have to agree with the reason.

Your ideas do not really have support. You cannot prove a negative, only a positive. So we know an entire household was baptized, we don't know who was included.

Regarding Mark 15,,,
It says "they confessed their sins" and were baptized.
Infants cannot have sin.

Can they?

 

[Creative]

Those are not my ideas and I am not trying to prove it one or the other. I am just musing that to me the evidence is not black and white.

The issue of sin is relevant in a sense but goes circular. If you have no sin there might be no need to confess it.

 

[GodsGrace]

Those are not my ideas and I am not trying to prove it one or the other. I am just musing that to me the evidence is not black and white.

The issue of sin is relevant in a sense but goes circular. If you have no sin there might be no need to confess it.

Catholics believe in infant baptism.
Because they believe in Original Sin, they felt that infants had to be baptized as soon as possible in case of death. If they were not, they could not enter into heaven.

IF Original sin does not exist, then why baptize a baby?
Although the baby is born with the sin nature, they are not imputed the sin of Adam and Eve, they are not at the age of reason/responsibility, and so even if they died they would go to heaven.
(The CC now teaches that we depend on the mercy of God if they are not baptized -- IOW, they go to heaven.)

Personally, I believe a person should be baptized when they accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

Jesus said he who believes and is baptized shall be saved...
Mark 16:16
So it would seem to me that one has to believe FIRST and then be baptized.

 

[th1b.taylor]

I do not believe that verse can be clearly interpreted to have that meaning. While the verse has the words believes and baptized in the same sentence it does not seem to exclusively imply that belief is necessary. In fact, the verse goes on to say that belief is necessary for salvation, not necessarily baptism.

I'll read the rest of your post after this but I do so disagree with your position. If you are as deeply entrenched in your position as I am, neither of us will be changed and will need to agree to disagree/

in Mark 16:16 God inspired Mark to write:
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever doesn't believe will be condemned.

 

[WIP]

Jesus said he who believes and is baptized shall be saved...
Mark 16:16
So it would seem to me that one has to believe FIRST and then be baptized.

Can you demonstrate how the word "and" used here implies an order of occurrence? Scripture didn't say believe then be baptized. At least not in any version I've read it from.

 

[for_his_glory]

Hi Creative and welcome to CF

It's Mark 16:16 not Matthew 16:16 just thought I would let you know.

Infant baptism is not scriptural. What many do in the Church is a dedication where the family brings the child upfront and the whole congregation dedicates themselves to the Spiritual upbringing of the child teaching them the word of God.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

John 3:3-6 How could a baby understand a Spiritual rebirth or the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Ephesians 2:8 Salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus and not by works, which would make water baptism a work towards repentance.

How could a baby believe or have any faith or even know that Jesus is our faith. There is an order according to scripture beginning with the preaching of the gospel then faith as faith comes by hearing, Romans 10:17 and then baptism Acts 2:41. Baptism never precedes faith.

Being immersed in water is an outward appearance to others that after hearing the gospel which leads you to faith that you have repented of your sin and have received Jesus as your Lord and Savior. A baby can not do any of this.

 

[Hermit]

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (NIV)

The verse does NOT say Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned.
In other words, to be condemned only requires one to not believe.

 

[Jim Parker]

I just noticed here a long ago thread that quoted Mathew 16:16 as evidence against infant baptism:

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

The post interpreted that the meaning here is that only a believer receives the baptism. Since an infant cannot believe there cannot be a valid baptism.

I do not believe that verse can be clearly interpreted to have that meaning. While the verse has the words believes and baptized in the same sentence it does not seem to exclusively imply that belief is necessary. In fact, the verse goes on to say that belief is necessary for salvation, not necessarily baptism.

In Acts 16 31-33 a jailer and his household is baptized and no mention of an infant is made, but that does not exclude the possibility.

Acts 2 38-41 states repent all of you and be baptized... the promise is for you and your children....

In Mark 1 5 it reads;

The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him, Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

Were infants excluded from the whole countryside or city ? Also you do not baptize yourself, someone does it for you, is belief necessary for baptism ? If not can infant baptism be valid ?

Yet there is more to it. Col. 2 11-12

In whom you are also circumcised with circumcision not made by hand in despoiling of the body of the flesh: but in the circumcision of Christ. Buried with him in baptism: in whom you are risen again by the faith...

A Jewish boy is circumcised as an infant on his 8th day.

I don't see conclusive evidence either way.

Also consider:
Mat 19:14
but Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."
Mar 10:14
But when Jesus saw it he was indignant, and said to them, "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God.
Luk 18:16
But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God.

 

[for_his_glory]

Also consider:
Mat 19:14
but Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."
Mar 10:14
But when Jesus saw it he was indignant, and said to them, "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God.
Luk 18:16
But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God.

This only says the children and says nothing of an infant or infant baptism. I would consider a child to be one who has some understanding as an infant would have none.

 

[Mike S]

Since we have, once again, taken up this topic I'll post the position of my church, the United Methodist Church. Baptism, including infant baptism, is one of our sacraments but is not the instrument of salvation. It is a covenant initiation.


Q: What is the difference between infant baptism and believer's baptism?

A: In all forms of Christian baptism, God claims those being baptized, whatever their age or ability to profess their faith, with divine grace. Clearly an infant can do nothing to save himself or herself, but is totally dependent on God's grace, as we all are -- whatever our age.

Most traditions that practice or recognize as valid the baptism only of believers -- those who have professed faith in Jesus Christ for themselves in some public way -- practice baptism not as a means of grace by which God saves and claims us, but rather as a further act of public profession and/or an act of obedience to the command of Christ that his followers be baptized. That is why these "believer's baptism only" traditions generally refer to baptism as an ordinance -- an act ordained or commanded by Christ -- rather than a sacrament. The term sacrament means "an oath" and refers to God's covenant with us (first of all) and ours in response to God's gracious provision of salvation in Jesus Christ.

United Methodists recognize the baptism of "believers only" traditions, provided those traditions baptize people in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as generally understood in historic Christianity. We offer baptism to people of all ages who have not previously received Christian baptism in any form. We do not rebaptize those who have already received Christian baptism in any form. Even when the people being baptized are believing adults and are ready to profess their faith, our first emphasis is upon the gracious action of God who establishes the covenant of baptism with us rather than upon the individual's decision.

At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole family. (Acts 16:33-34; NIV)​

 

[Creative]

I am not taking a position other than the one I first stated, and that is I am not certain the verse someone else posted a few years ago is conclusive.

This is more a sincere seeking then attempting to start debates or hold a position. I appreciate all the viewpoints expressed and scripture provided.

I wonder what Martin Luther's view was on the issue ?

 

[Creative]

It's Mark 16:16 not Matthew 16:16 just thought I would let you know.

Thank you for the correction. I was very tired when I posted this mess.:blush

 

[Douglas Summers]

Regarding Mark 15,,,
It says "they confessed their sins" and were baptized.
Infants cannot have sin.

Can they?

Infants can not differentiate sin. They act without the conscience of not knowing they are sinning. Condemnation comes of knowing you are sinning and that sin (by the law or moral conscience) convicts you. Now you are responsible. (Rom. 7:7)

 

[Mike]

This is more a sincere seeking then attempting to start debates or hold a position. I appreciate all the viewpoints expressed and scripture provided.

This is fine, but lately baptism discussions have gotten fairly heated. FYI, in the future, a good place to have a discussion rather than a debate is the Christian Talk & Advice Forum. If you read the sticky at the top of the Theology Forum with the rules, you'll see this is set up particularly for debate.

All good. Welcome to CFnet!

 

[WIP]

This only says the children and says nothing of an infant or infant baptism. I would consider a child to be one who has some understanding as an infant would have none.

Is it possible you are reading more into this than what is intended? By your own admission, you are making an assumption.

 

[WIP]

I wonder what Martin Luther's view was on the issue ?

It's rather lengthy but here's a link to the translated text from Martin's Large Catechism.

https://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/catechism/web/cat-13a.html

 

[Free]

I just noticed here a long ago thread that quoted Mathew 16:16 as evidence against infant baptism:

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

The post interpreted that the meaning here is that only a believer receives the baptism. Since an infant cannot believe there cannot be a valid baptism.

I do not believe that verse can be clearly interpreted to have that meaning. While the verse has the words believes and baptized in the same sentence it does not seem to exclusively imply that belief is necessary. In fact, the verse goes on to say that belief is necessary for salvation, not necessarily baptism.

In Acts 16 31-33 a jailer and his household is baptized and no mention of an infant is made, but that does not exclude the possibility.

Acts 2 38-41 states repent all of you and be baptized... the promise is for you and your children....

In Mark 1 5 it reads;

The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him, Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

Were infants excluded from the whole countryside or city ? Also you do not baptize yourself, someone does it for you, is belief necessary for baptism ? If not can infant baptism be valid ?

Yet there is more to it. Col. 2 11-12

In whom you are also circumcised with circumcision not made by hand in despoiling of the body of the flesh: but in the circumcision of Christ. Buried with him in baptism: in whom you are risen again by the faith...

A Jewish boy is circumcised as an infant on his 8th day.

I don't see conclusive evidence either way.

The strongest argument for infant baptism is that it has replaced circumcision as the sign of the new covenant.

 

[billybalke]

Since we have, once again, taken up this topic I'll post the position of my church, the United Methodist Church. Baptism, including infant baptism, is one of our sacraments but is not the instrument of salvation. It is a covenant initiation.


Q: What is the difference between infant baptism and believer's baptism?

A: In all forms of Christian baptism, God claims those being baptized, whatever their age or ability to profess their faith, with divine grace. Clearly an infant can do nothing to save himself or herself, but is totally dependent on God's grace, as we all are -- whatever our age.

Most traditions that practice or recognize as valid the baptism only of believers -- those who have professed faith in Jesus Christ for themselves in some public way -- practice baptism not as a means of grace by which God saves and claims us, but rather as a further act of public profession and/or an act of obedience to the command of Christ that his followers be baptized. That is why these "believer's baptism only" traditions generally refer to baptism as an ordinance -- an act ordained or commanded by Christ -- rather than a sacrament. The term sacrament means "an oath" and refers to God's covenant with us (first of all) and ours in response to God's gracious provision of salvation in Jesus Christ.

United Methodists recognize the baptism of "believers only" traditions, provided those traditions baptize people in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as generally understood in historic Christianity. We offer baptism to people of all ages who have not previously received Christian baptism in any form. We do not rebaptize those who have already received Christian baptism in any form. Even when the people being baptized are believing adults and are ready to profess their faith, our first emphasis is upon the gracious action of God who establishes the covenant of baptism with us rather than upon the individual's decision.

At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole family. (Acts 16:33-34; NIV)​

Acts 16:31 is the only scripture offered in defense of infant baptism in the above so lets notice a few things in its context.
1. The text DOES NOT say infants were included in the jailer's family.
2. Therefore it must be ASSUMED there were infants. Assumption is a poor method for establishing a cardinal doctrine
of a church.
3. Vs 36 says after the baptism they were brought back INTO his house.
4. If infant baptism is scriptural, WHY go outside for the baptism? Inside the house would be more convenient,but sprinkling
has always been more convenient than immersion. It certainly was in my case and many others. It has always
been the way of man to follow the way of least resistance.
5. Sprinkling and pouring as a substitute for what the Bible teaches requires little water as compared to a burial.
"And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, BECAUSE THERE WAS MUCH WATER THERE (EMP. MINE bb)
and they came and were baptized there", Jn.3:23.
6. Acts 16:13 tells us there was a RIVER there.

When my grandmother died she was the oldest member of the Methodist Church on the island of Galveston, Texas. When she learned I was considering leaving the Methodist church she had me over for a meal
and had the Methodist preacher there for the purpose of persuading me to remain a Methodist. He had NO Bible nor did he ask for my grandmothers. Instead, after dinner he used only the Methodist Discipline book and afterwards gave it to me. I have through the years acquired another one to my library.

TO BE DEEP IN SCRIPTURE IS TO CEASE BEING CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, JEW OR CALVINIST
ROM.16:16
God bless,
Billy

 

[JohnDB]

The strongest argument for infant baptism is that it has replaced circumcision as the sign of the new covenant.

I happen to like infant Baptism...not that it is efficacious but solely for the reason that the baby often outscreams the pastor's preaching at the indignity of the cold water.