Infant Baptism

Ok, here we go. Peter explained, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38 ). Baptism is a gift of the Holy Spirit, it is not a "public confession of faith."

Furthermore, he didn't restrict this to adults. "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. We must be baptized, we must believe, we must repent. There is no rule on the order.

No one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). Aren't we all (infant, child, adult, and imbecile) capable of having a right to his kingdom? Jesus asserted such a right even for children: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14).

Most of you, of course, will not admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults. You have just concluded that's what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text doesn't explicitly support such a view. Of course, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture (and there aren't many who are individually identified) are adults because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just starting out and there were no "cradle Christians," no people brought up from childhood in Christian homes.

Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when there were beginning to be children raised in Christian homes, there never--not even once--is an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ." Children of Christian homes are already Christians; they have already been "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule among early Christians, then surely there should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.

Just as you attempt to point to the lack of a specific reference to an infant baptism in the Scriptures, I too can point to a lack of an example of this Baptist practice.
Lydia was converted by Paul's preaching. "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).
In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailor and his wife, then it would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but it doesn't. His children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture. Nowhere does the Scripture say "everyone in the family of the age of reason."

It's true that Christ prescribed instruction and actual faith for adult converts (Matt. 28:19-20), but baptism (John 3:5) puts no restriction on the subjects of baptism. The same was true of circumcision; faith in the Lord was necessary for an adult convert to receive it, but it was not necessary for the children of believers.

Although the Bible does not explicitly state that infants are to be baptized (unless Acts 2:38 says so), it certainly implies it, which was the position of the earliest Christian practice and writings we have and there is no good reason to abandon it.

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sir Ed:
Although the Bible does not explicitly state that infants are to be baptized (unless Acts 2:38 says so), it certainly implies it...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really... please see my post on page 3 of this thread.

 

Your post on page three mainly deals with the baptism/circumcision argument.

Baptizing infants is not a NEW practice. The sole justification for baptism is not in an Old Testament theological inference to circumcision. Please see my post above.

Baptism is so much more than a sign of the New Covenant.

Despite the belief, ironically, of Baptists, Baptism IS primarily inward, spiritual, universal and real. Baptism is a means for God's spirtual, inward, universal and real work in us.


[ June 22, 2001: Message edited by: Sir Ed ]

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]

 

First London confession: Article 39
Second London confession: Chapter 29
Philidelphia confession: Chapter 30

 

Ed, "households" was addressed and answered.

You are aware, of course, that "household" included servants and/or slaves?

In which case, who's to say that the jailer's "household" didn't include just he, his wife, and their servant? Or both their servants? And their servants' wives?

See, the "argument from silence" here is that we're just not sure who was in the household.

Lydia? How old was she? Was she 20, with a bouncing baby boy? Or was she 30, with a 10 year old girl and a pair of infant boy twins? Or perhaps she was fourty or fifty, and her "household" consisted only of her five male boy-toy servants?

So I could just as easily argue that "whole household" meant that even the slaves were baptized--except that I don't know if the jailer had any slaves. I could just as easily argue that "whole household" meant even the servants were baptized--except that I don't know if Lydia had any servants.

The "argument of silence" used by the RCC and the Lutherans requires an assumption, and bases a statement of fact on that assumption. Which, even to my puny, uneducated, illogical mind, is an erroneous beginning.

If you really want definitive answers, you have to turn to additional writings, such as Tertullian--which I mentioned before--or this one: About the year 68: "It is stated that in the time of Nero, two daughters of Valentinian, a Christian at Aquileia, who had been brought up by their father in the Christian faith and the fear of God, were instructed by the priest or teacher Hermagoras, and baptized at a running water." See De gantsch klare en grondige bewijsinge van den Doop, printed A.D.[15]81. (Courtesy of Martyr's Mirror, Thieleman J. van Braght)

So there's a story about children raised in a Christian home, who were later instructed and then baptized.

Just something for you to chew on, Ed.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sir Ed:
Baptizing infants is not a NEW practice.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not a new practice TODAY, no. But baptism, in general, is a new practice in the New Testament,(Old Testament ceremonial washings notwithstanding) because circumcision was the covenantal sign in the old. Jesus instituted the rite that we Christians call baptism. The question is how can someone build a credible hermeneutical case for a UNIQUELY New Testament practice, based primarily on an Old Testament theological extrapolation.

cordially,

CNM

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]

 

An interesting historical sidenote -- John Smyth in 1609-11 argued against the paedobaptism of the separatist churches of England by arguing that believer's baptism was different than OT circumcision. This predates the formalized confessions mentioned above. Smyth founded the general baptists prior to his conversion to the Mennonites. However, when he argued for infant baptism, he was most likely still a calvinist in his doctrine.

These quotes are from Whitley's two volume compilation of the writings of John Smyth. The Scripture that he argues from is not included in these quotes.

The true constitution of the Chu. is of a new creature baptized into the Father, the Sonne, & the holy Ghost: The false constitution is of infants baptized: we professe therfor that al those Churches that baptize infants are of the same false constitution: & al those Chu. that baptize the new creature, those that are made Disciples by teaching, men confessing their faith & their sinnes, are of one true constitution. (2:165)

circumcision was a seale of the promises of the old Testament to the carnal seed, & that the Spirit is the seale of the promises of the new Testament to the faithful seed of Abraha[m], therfor neither doth baptisme of water succeed circumcision, neither doth baptisme with water seale vp any promises to the Faithfull, but onely doth visibly declare what promises they already are partakers of, viz: of the Spirit of promise (2:586-87).

Christ commaundeth to baptise only those that are by teaching made Disciples … therefore infants are by expresse prohibition excluded … so Christ expressly excludeth infants. … I deny that infants are capable of baptisme, for they cannot confesse their faith & their sinnes, neither declare that they are baptized inwardly with the Spirit, & so cannot outwardly by the baptisme with water declare the same, but are in every respect vnable therto, & vncapable thereof. (2:586-87).

Historian Winthrop Hudson says that the real issue is why Protestantism as a whole rejected believers baptism (The Chronicle, Oct 1953, 174).

The early John Smyth (who most consider the founder of the English General Baptists) was a calvinist. His split from the separatist churches in 1609-10 was over infant baptism after a lengthy exchange with a man named Chilton. He later gave up his calvinism when he became a Mennonite after being disciplined from the Baptist church he had started for departing from his own earlier beliefs. Thomas Helwys, his follower, led the move to discipline him for his doctrine and lead the church back to England.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sir Ed:
Ok, here we go. Peter explained, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38 ). Baptism is a gift of the Holy Spirit, it is not a "public confession of faith." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sir Ed... you have a few things jumbled around here. First off, the "gift" being talked about in this passage is the Holy Spirit Himself. Second, repentance is the activating principle by which everything takes place. Baptism is in the picture as two things, a public testimony to the genuineness of the repentance, and an act of personal obedience (or worship)to God, in other words a fruit of repentance.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sir Ed:
Furthermore, he didn't restrict this to adults. "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes... he is telling us that the Holy Spirit is coming in MORE than a one-time visitation as He had done intermittently in the Old Testament. The point is the promised New Covenant(Jer. 31:31-34), and spiritual kingdom which John the Baptist & Jesus proclaimed is unfolding(Matt. 3:2, Mark 1:14-15, Luke 1:33, etc.) and that kingdom is without end.

The qualifying phrase here is "as many
as the LORD our God shall call." That is HOW one enters the covenant, by the CALL of the Lord and the proper response of repentance.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sir Ed:
We must be baptized, we must believe, we must repent. There is no rule on the order. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is a logical(theological) order in that one does not enter the NEW Covenant, until the spiritual quickening(Eph. 2:1). The Old Covenant was entered through the birth-canal as a symbol of it's racial/ethnic locus in the nation of Israel. The NEW Covenant, however, has a spiritual gate. Without the sovereign quickening of the Holy Spirit(2 Cor. 5:17) all of these activities: baptism, belief, repentance are simply... wholly human works and are of no avail(John 6:44, Hebrews 12:16-17.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sir Ed:
No one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). Aren't we all (infant, child, adult, and imbecile) capable of having a right to his kingdom?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No... only, "as many as the LORD our God shall call."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sir Ed:
Jesus asserted such a right even for children: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, no... that's not what is being taught here. It is an illustration of what our posture and relationship is toward God as our Father, and consequently our proper response to Him. As was previously illustrated in Matthew...

Matt. 18:1-4
1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sir Ed:
Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when there were beginning to be children raised in Christian homes, there never--not even once--is an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ." Children of Christian homes are already Christians; they have already been "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule among early Christians, then surely there should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your own example condemns you because there is also "not once" an incident of infant baptism cited. The fact is that all of the New Testament books were written after the mid 40s A.D., at least. Which is ample time for incidents of infant baptisms to occur, and make it into the text, if the practice were that common, but either way that is not of primary importance because of the theological flaw of the practice.

Moreover, if infant baptisms "were the rule," as you say, then the most illustrative opportune time to demonstrate it's importance would be in the very encounters(that we've both cited) with: Jesus, the Disciples, and "the children," especially given the fact that Jesus and the Disciples were routinely baptizing, (John 4:1-2.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sir Ed:
Just as you attempt to point to the lack of a specific reference to an infant baptism in the Scriptures, I too can point to a lack of an example of this Baptist practice.
Lydia was converted by Paul's preaching. "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A quote by the late professor Jewett is instructive in the case of Lydia...

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>"Nothing in the passage implies that Lydia was a married woman with nursing children, for she traveled some 300 miles from her native city and felt the liberty, as head of the house, to invite men into her home. Since Luke speaks of her household being baptized, and of the importunity with which she constrained the apostles to abide in her house, no mention being made of her husband, the most likely hypothesis is that she had no husband. In any event, there must have been other adults in her household - domestics, friends, business associates - who were led by her example to confess their faith with her in baptism."
[/list]


cordially,

CNM

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]

 

Basically, infant baptism is dedication of the child to Jesus. We believe that baptism is a sign of a believer as commanded in scripture, but what we did with our son is had my grandad who is a retired nazzarine minister dedicate him to Jesus in front of friends and family, didn't baptise him though especially since the dedication was held in Hoss's restaurant LOL

Dar

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MagicDar:
Basically, infant baptism is dedication of the child to Jesus. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Infant baptism is a way for a parent and family to get a warm fuzzy feeling. Other than that, it does or shows nothing. Most Baptist churches that I am aware of do have a dedication ceremony, but it is simply the parents bringing the child up in front of the church and making a public statement.

 

I've talked to a lot of people that had been baptized as a baby. They all seem to have a false assurance of salvation saying, "I've been baptized so I'm on my way to Heaven." About the only thing "good" about infant baptism (and this is temporary only) is that it seems to ease the parent's conscience, which is a big deception. Parents of some churches are compelled to have their babies baptized or the baby won't have a name in Heaven. My oldest daughter was baptized as a baby in the Catholic Church, then when she got saved as a young person, she was baptized in a Baptist Church. So I say "Keep 'em high and dry 'til they get saved and then immerse 'em!"

 

Don: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It is stated that in the time of Nero, two daughters of Valentinian, a Christian at Aquileia, who had been brought up by their father in the Christian faith and the fear of God, were instructed by the priest or teacher Hermagoras, and baptized at a running water." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You assume a lot here. How do we know the daughters weren't adults? Perhaps the mother or the father's family was not Christian and refused to allow the child to be Baptized. Again, there never--not even once--is an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ." Children of Christian homes are already Christians; they have already been "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule among early Christians, then surely there should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.

Corpsenomore: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> We believe that "regeneration" occurs by the sovereign visitation of the Holy Spirit.(John 3:8, John 6:63, Acts 10:44, I Thess. 1:5-6, Hebrews 2:4) and not at the dispensation of a priestly class. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Agreed, it is a means of grace, but not to regeneration, only to a sanctifying blessing to the one who is already born-again(as is the Lord's Table.) Water baptism to the non-regenerate person is just an episode of getting wet, and a human work of spiritual delusion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Baptism is never a human work, it is a work of God.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Europe is awash in apostacy, and yet nearly every citizen has been baptized as an infant. If water baptism dispensed the Holy Spirit as Romanists, Lutherans and Anglicans teach it does there certainly should be an awful lot more vital churches there. Yet the entire continent has been all but swallowed up in the wake of the Enlightenment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you can give me some facts to back this up, I'd be more than happy to respond. Again, Baptism doesn't force anyone to be a good Christian (I'm sure many can agree with this, examples abound of the young man who "got saved" in a Baptist Church and by the next week was acting very "European").

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The qualifying phrase here is "as many as the LORD our God shall call." That is HOW one enters the covenant, by the CALL of the Lord and the proper response of repentance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

God doesn't wait until you are 7 years old to call you.

Dajuid: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Infant baptism is a way for a parent and family to get a warm fuzzy feeling. Other than that, it does or shows nothing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That begs the question now doesn't it?

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]

 

Ah, Ed. Your argument lacks merit, and methinks you know it.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You assume a lot here. How do we know the daughters weren't adults? Perhaps the mother or the father's family was not Christian and refused to allow the child to be Baptized. Again, there never--not even once--is an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ." Children of Christian homes are already Christians; they have already been "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule among early Christians, then surely there should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your original premise was exactly what you reiterated here: 'Children of Christian parents joining the church after they had come to the age of reason.' I capitulate that we have no evidence of this in the Bible; just as we have no evidence to the contrary. I provided you a quotation that you could feel free to look up and investigate for yourself.

Instead, you make the same mistake that you make with supporting infant baptism: Assumption. I make no assumptions about the fact that the Bible says "entire household"; instead, I take those words at face value and acknowledge that it's not clearly explained what "entire household" consists of for each of the times it's referenced.

The same goes with the reference I gave you: I make no assumptions. The reference simply says the two girls were raised in a Christian home, so automatically your statement ("there never--not even once--is an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a 'decision for Christ.'") is invalid, and you presume to use circular logic in order to prove your point (i.e., we don't know if "entire household" included infants or not, so you'll use the ambiguity to prove your point; but the passage I provided doesn't mention whether the girls are young or adults, so you'll use the ambiguity to disprove my point. I figure I have just as much right to use ambiguity to prove a point as you do, and I think it intellectually dishonest of you to apply your rules only to yourself).

(Besides which, you have a second erroneous assumption: "Decisions" for Christ. No one can make a decision for Christ; they can only accept the fact that there's absolutely nothing they can do for salvation, including "making a decision")

Now, Ed, think wisely before you respond with "this isn't a biblical reference"; because if you do, I'll just have to throw out that Luther's writings aren't biblical references, either.

[ June 25, 2001: Message edited by: Don ]

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]

 

Don, that is exactly the point I was attempting to make (although obviously not very clearly).

Just as their is no example of infant Baptism in the Bible, there is no example of children who have reached the "age of accountability" being Baptized.

If we are only to look to specific examples of people who were Baptized, we would be left with what appear to be adults; ie: the age of majority.

 

So, Ed, make yourself clear: Are we to assume that we should baptize infants?

Where exactly do you stand on this issue?

 

Like the Good Book says, we are to Baptize all.

 

Sir Ed, we are to baptize all...

ALL of whom? The totality of the human race? All adults? All adults who are born again? All adults and infants identified as Christians? All who want to be baptized?

I asked you this once before but you avoided it, saying only that the obvious answer was in Matthew. That's no answer. Come on and say what you mean.

 

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mark 16:15

Since we are told to preach to every creature, then logically, we must also baptize creatures. So, not only have we erred in not baptizing infants, but we've also erred in not baptizing ALL creatures.


[ June 26, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]