Baptizing Babies

Sherrie,

I have not said what position I took on the issue. It is your requirement that beliefs have to be stated in the Bible, not mine. Hold yourself to the standard that you have. I continuously am asked "where is that in the Bible". Even when I explain it in implicit terms it is never good enough. You have no explicit verse that says all babies are innocent go to heaven.

I do agree with you that circumcision is not required of Christians and can actually be a detriment if it is done for such reasons. This is clear from Acts 15, the council of Jerusalem, and Galations which deals heavily with this issue. However for health reasons I can tell you that it is a good thing to do.


DHK

Your verse is good but it is not explicit as you require of us all the time. It does not say that the baby is in heaven and in fact noone went to heaven before Jesus death opened the gates of heaven so while I will agree with you some implications can be derived from the verse (which I expected someone to bring up) it is not an explicit statement of where babies go. Until you find one, you are not living up to the standards that you ask of us as I explained to Sherrie above.

 

That particular passage of Scripture is very explicit. We know who the exact infant was, under what conditions it was born, exactly what David said concerning it (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit). There is no reading between the lines and inferring that there has to be an infant just because the word family or household is used, as the Catholics do in the New Testament. We have a very specific situation here. Furthermore if you want a specific view of Heaven and Hell in the Old Testament, then turn to Luke 16 and read the story of the rich man and Lazarus.
DHK

 

AngelMum,

Apologies.

Blessings

 

DHK,

"That particular passage of Scripture is very explicit."


Sorry, it is only explicit if you add to it your preconcieved notions about the innocence of babies (recall that I have not stated my view on this issue yet). Further, you are right, it was about a specific baby. So does that mean that the babies of the pagans went to heaven, or just the babies of the Jews. Be explicit please.

 

Hi there, Carson,
the point re households is important. Looking at them, what do we find? Acts 11 re Cornelius, vs 14 "he will tell you the words BY WHICH you and your household will be saved", so they were ALL gathered to hear Peter (vs 33(. Vs 44, The Holy Spirit fell on ALL who HEARD the Word. Vs 47-48, water baptism for all upon whom the Holy Soirit has fallen. See Romans 10:14. Preaching the gospel leds to their salvation.

Acts 16, the jailor, vs 32, and they declared the word of the Lord to him and to ALL who were in his house. After the preaching comes vs 33, the baptism of the household. They were not baptised because the jailor had heard the message, they were baptised after they themselves had heard it.

Acts 18, Crispus. Vs 8, "Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with all his household, and many of the Corinthians, hearing Paul, believed and were baptised. Once again, the account is clear, the word was preached first, all the household believed, and then they were baptised. There is absolutely no indication that any who did not hear or believe were baptised. The opposite is clearly written.

1 Corinthians, Stephanos and his household. 1:16, baptised by Paul. 16:15, "You know the house of Stephanos, that they have devoted themselves to the ministry. Did 2 day old babies devote themselves to ministry? Or did household only refer to those old enough to be accountable?

The final example given is that of Lydia, where the account is not as clear about their all hearing and believing as the rest of the accounts, but does mention that Paul exhorted the brethren in her house (Acts 16:40). Again, did he exhort 2 day old babies?

I do not "assume" that babies were excluded. I believe what is written, that all were preached to, all believed and then, all were baptised. Unless you "assume" that babies can hear and understand and openly respond to the preached message, your case is untenable.

Given that the Bible teaches that faith comes through hearing the word, that in these houses, those who believed were baptised, to try and make a case for infant baptism here just shows how desperate is your case. The NT teaches preaching then baptism. It teaches salvation by faith, not ritual.

Take care, Colin

 

Hi Colin,

If baptism was seen as only symbolic and baptism was reserved to adults only in the Church of the New Testament, then, pray tell, where in the history of the Early Church beyond the writings of the New Testament do we see this view that you are advocating?

Where were the Christians advocating that baptism is only a symbolic ordinance? Where was the debate between the baptismal regeneration proponents and the symbolists?

From the evidence at hand, every Christian Church in all places and at all times held to baptismal regeneration and thus infant baptism except for one lone figure, Tertullian (who still held to baptismal regeneration.. just not that of infants):

"His superficial objection was to the unfair responsibility laid on godparents when the children of pagans joined the church. However, his real opposition was more fundamental. It was his view that sinfulness begins at the 'puberty, of the soul,' that is "about the fourteenth year of life' and 'it drives man out of the paradise of innocence' (De Anima 38:2)" (Dennis Kastens, Issues, Etc. Journal - Spring 1997 - Vol. 2 No. 3).

I encourage you to take into account this Lutheran pastor's short article:

http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/journals/kastens.htm

in Christ,

Carson

 

Hi there, Carson.
You seem to have conceeded the argument. Infant baptism is no where practiced or found in the New Testament. Here, salvation is through responding in faith to the preaching of the gospel. It knows of no other way.

So now you turn to the fathers. Firstly, what they wrote, while often good, is neither inspired nor infalable, and therefore cannot be used to establish doctrine. Inability to find your view in the NT remains an insurmountable obstical. The scriptures are to equip the man of God, making him complete, and this is a completness without infant baptism, which is contrary to its every word on salvation.

Re the church fathers, they write much about baptism of converts, believes baptism. Statements of faith to be adhered to, confession of sins etc. So we both agree that believers baptism is found in the fathers.

Ignatius, 117 writes of believers baptism, but makes no mention of baptism of babies. Hermas, 140, writes only of believers baptism, likewise Barnabas. Justin likewise. Some of these authors were slipping into a mythical understanding of baptism, which would open the gate to the baptism of children, but that had not happened yet. Origen notes that "We export little children,... and when those among the exhorted who make progress show they are cleansed through the word, and as far as is possible, lead a better life, then we invite them into our fellowship. (Contra Celsus).He also states that "The benifit of baptism depends upon the free, voluntary decision of the candidate." The quote from Origen supposedly in support of infant baptism comes from a 4th century latin translation by Rufinus, and is (given the above quotes) of doubtful value. As you note, Tertullian opposes infant baptism, which would have been impossible if it had been apostolic custom. The Donatists, who were charged as schismatics, not as heretics, likewise did not practice infant baptism.

So, infant baptism. Not in the Bible, contrary to the NT teaching on salvation, slowly creeps into the church fathers, but not as apostolic custom.

Carson, you are saved by believing in the finished work of Jesus for you. Not by some guy dropping water on your head as a baby.

Take care, Colin

 

Not so.

(John 16) Holy Spirit convicts our hearts.

No one can say Jesus Christ is Lord, but by the Holy Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:3) So it is clear the holy Spirit comes into our hearts and convicts us. We can not say Lord, and repent unless the Holy Spirit is in us to say so.

Not so again. I am refering to the second part of your statement. Refer to above given scripture. Also refer to luke 1:41, and Romans Chapter 8.

You have deliberately twisted my words. I never said some people do not need Jesus Christ. I said nothing that was blasphmy. If you wish to discuss anything with me, please do so in a respective manner. I have done nothing that warrents this behavior from you. I will forgive you for this, this time.

I do not understand?

Yes it is. I have 3 sons and 3 grandsons and 1 son-in-law. It is a very healthy thing.

Immersion means to be submerged in water. To plunge or dip entirely in water.

You continue to attack me rather than dicuss the Bible. I will be happy to give you scripture. One that I would have given is the one DHK uses, Also I will stick by Matt. 18: 3-6, 19:13-15. Also if you read in Luke were Mary goes to visit Elizabeth the baby leaps in her because of the Holy Spirit. Luke 1:39-41 . No baptism ever took place yet. And yet the Holy Spirit dwell in Elizabeth.

Faith is the belief in Gods testimony shown in scripture. Faith is trusting Gods Word to be the truth. Jesus Christ is that truth. Jesus Christ is that Word.


Also I would like to point out, I only gave two small paragraphs of quote by one man. I read everyone elses and some gave very lengthy quote by others works. Why was this alright for them and not for me two little paragraphs?


Sherrie

[ February 02, 2003, 02:25 AM: Message edited by: Sherrie ]

 

Yes you have, you have repeatedly stated that infants are innocent and therefore will go to heaven. That means that you don't believe they need Jesus, nor do they need faith.

The Holy Spirit dwelt in John, and that happens to be one of the verses we use to support Baptism of infants.
And don't try and hide behind the "don't attack me" defense.

Mt 18:3-6, If you want to use Mt 18:3-6 why don't you baptize babies? Why do you forbid them from being baptized into Christ's death and resurrection. Why do you withhold them from recieving the benifits of Baptism?

That doesn't answer the question.

 

AngelMom,

Baptism of babies was started by the Catholic Church in the Dark Ages as a respond to the abandonment of babies going on. Here's what happened:

They didn't have any form of birth control back then, and many were having babies that they were convinced they couldn't raise. There were no abortion clinics, so they did the 'next best thing': they abandoned the new borns in ditches, etc. They rationalized this to themselves by saying that the baby in going to heaven, and we are sparing it an awful life on earth.

Not only was this a horrible thing to do to the children, but the dead babies brought many diseases as they rotted.

The church wanted to change that, and came up with a plan that remembered that these people were caring, but not thoughtful.

So, in a brilliant ploy, the Catholic church pushed a program that played upon the concept of Original Sin (By the way, was Adam's sin any worse than any of mine?). It was a two-part plan:

1. Tell people that babies are condemned to hell, which will make people not want to abandon them, as their rationalization was now challenged.

2. To stop the baby from going to hell, it had to be 'purified' through baptism when a priest came and visited. (Most churches did not have full-time priests, they traveled over a region and were in any one area about once or twice a month.)

Here's why it worked back then:

A child would be born, and they would notify the priest (no email, no reliable mail system, so they found a traveler, or waited for the scheduled visit) so the baptism could happen and then (in secret) they would try to dump the baby.

But, the priest took to long to get there, and by the time he did, they had already bonded with the baby and could no longer bring themselves to dumping him or her.

They kept their babies, and we got out of the dark ages into the middle ages.

The reason my wife and I had a "parent-child" dedication for both our children was to stand before God, in the same way we did when we married each other, and commit to Him, in the presence of fellow believers, that we would raise them to love and glorify Him, and that we needed His help to do so.

 

Chemnitz...you just want to argue. Your questions and statements are a repeat of not only the answers I have already given, but that of others.

I have used scripture and I do hide behind Jesus Christ because he is my Redeemer.

Plain and simple....The Holy Spirit is already with those babies because God watches over and protects them. They are not able to be in control of anything. God knew them when they were in their mothers womb. They cannot be accountable for their ancesters sin....or for any sin as they are not in control. Yes they are born into a sinful nature, in a world that sins, but there is no condition to perform the sin.

Now you say babies have to be baptized. Why? Where do they go if they are not? Why would God, who is in charge of all things, creates all things, is the Ulitmate in all things; create a baby and know it will die and know it will not be able to be baptized, do so?


Chemnitz...Now I have more than given scripture. Besides your run off of big words, tell me the scripture that says babies have to be baptized or they will perish!

Tell me where baptism saves your soul!

In order for you to even go to God you have to have the Holy Spirit lead you to Him. That Holy Spirit is in your heart and convicts you of your sins that you confess.


Baptism is only an outward action that expresses your inward action. You are announcing that you have set everything else aside, You believe in Jesus Christ and you are doing that publicly. You are openly confessing you are a child of God. The old you is no longer. You have plunged that old person away and the new you is alive and walks in Jesus Christ.

The reason it is necessary to do this in the Church, is because in order to belong or be a member, or represent, to a church, they want you to be saved and announce openly that you are not that old person.


Now I see nothing wrong with a dedication service with a baby. A ceremony where the parents openly say to God that they will raise that child up teaching that child in the doctrine of the Lord, loving that child, and teaching that child to give God all the Glory, Honor, and Praise.

Sherrie

 

Where does it ever say that?

And you accuse me of putting words in your mouth. I have never said, have to, I have said why would you deny? And that we should.

Try starting with Rms 6 and 1 Pt 3.

How can be merely an outword action when God promises that we are baptised into His death and resurrection and that it cleanses our soul.


Look at what you are saying, you are making it all about you, you have changed it from Christ cleansing you and making you righteous to you and your decision making you righteous. You are not being internally consistant.

Should I use smaller words, so you can understand it?

 

Infant baptism = non-essential.

 

Now you say babies have to be baptized. Why? Where do they go if they are not? Why would God, who is in charge of all things, creates all things, is the Ulitmate in all things; create a baby and know it will die and know it will not be able to be baptized, do so?

Then are you saying babies do not have to be baptized to go be with the Lord in heaven? Then why exactly are you saying they should?

Is this what you are taught? That baptism cleanses your soul?

What was the blood of Jesus for?

John 16) Holy Spirit convicts our hearts.

No one can say Jesus Christ is Lord, but by the Holy Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:3) So it is clear the holy Spirit comes into our hearts and convicts us. We can not say Lord, and repent unless the Holy Spirit is in us to say so.

It was also clear by the scripture the Holy Spirit was in Elizabeth, before any baptism.


Baptism nether saves us from death, nor does it give us the Holy Spirit.


Sherrie

[ February 02, 2003, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Sherrie ]

 

Hi Audrey:

"Baptism of babies was started by the Catholic Church in the Dark Ages as a respond to the abandonment of babies going on. Here's what happened"

Can you tell me what your source is for this information? Interesting stuff

 

The Dark Ages?

"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 21:16, A.D. 215).

 

Well, pretty much leave that one up to God. However, I suspect that the children of unbelieving parents are in Hell, because faith does not come independently of God's revelation. The Children of Believing Parents it could be either or, but I would hope that since they have been exposed to God's Word faith was sparked in the short span of their life. And in the Lutheran, RCC, and E. Orthdox church bodies no child of church members goes unbaptized unless still-born (Catholics may differ on stillborn, I can't remember if they changed that practice).

1) Because when Jesus commanded that we baptize all nations that includes infants.
2) Because God's word can create and sustain faith and Baptism contains God's Word and promise it should not be withheld from anybody no matter their age.
3) Infants can have faith plus see above.

Its in the Bible (see 1 Peter 3). Baptism is one of the promised means that God uses to connect us to the redemption bought for us via Christ's death and resurrection.

 

Hi Carson, nice quote re dark ages, but irrelevant re the topic. Hippolytus was neither inspired nor infalable.
Infant baptism is neither taught nor practiced in the New Testament. Study the Bible, not the traditions of men. "I write you these things about those who would deceive you. As for you, the anointing (Holy Spirit) that you received from him remains in you, so that you do not need anyone to teach you." (1 John 2:27) "We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the things freely given us by God. And we speak them not with words taught by HUMAN wisdom, but with words taught by the Spirit, describing spiritual realities in spiritual terms." (1 Corinthians 2:12) The Holy Spirit wrote the Word, the Holy Spirit indwells us, the Holy Spirit was promised to lead us into all truth. If you want to know what the Bible says, ask the author, God's Holy Spirit.
You are saved by trusting in Jesus, not by being splashed while the correct formula is read over you as an unknowing baby.
Take care, Colin

 

Hi Carson, nice quote re dark ages, but irrelevant re the topic. Hippolytus was neither inspired nor infalable.

So what?

Hippolytus was what we call evidence of a Christian doctrine and practice that you can disagree with, but which was prevalent throughout the Catholic Church then and will continue to be prevalent through the Catholic Church today, which is the Church Jesus Christ founded through the power of his Spirit and whom he is with to this day.

Simply brushing Hippolytus and all the others aside as "fallable" and "non-inspired" does not discount the truth of what he says as evidence. Hippolytus isn't making up doctrine as he goes along. He's witnessing to an Apostolic doctrine.

Why baptize infants? Because God is sacramental. The Incarnation is our paradigm. The messiness of matter and time meet the pristine quality of divinity and eternity in Jesus, and we should expect no less in the instrumentality of our own salvation.

As the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ in his baptism and he was declared God's Son with whom He is well-pleased, so are we.

Chemnitz can recognize this as a Sola Scriptura advocate and Lutheran, and so should you.

"For He came to save all through means of Himself. All, I say, who through Him are born again to God: infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men." (Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, Against Heresies 2,22:4, A.D. 180)

[ February 02, 2003, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]