Apostolic-era infant baptisms

The problem is Gods word says nothing about baptising children. It deffinately indicates that a person who believes must be baptised but there is no indication of a restriction for children.

 

Nowhere. But then, where in God's Word does it say that infants cannot become deacons? Nowhere, yet the qualifications required of a deacon, as given in the bible, leave us in no doubt on the matter:

1 Timothy 3:8 Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double–tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money,
1 Timothy 3:10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless.
1 Timothy 3:12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
1 Timothy 3:13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.


​

(Incidentally, I am assuming that by "infants" you mean babies or very young children).

Likewise with baptism. The "qualification" that the Ethiopian eunuch had to fulfill before being baptized was to believe. Acts 8.36-37:

36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" 37 Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."


​

I have seen it argued that Acts 8.37 is spurious, but even if (for sake of argument) it were, there would still be verses 12 and 13 of the same chapter:

12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized. 13 Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done.


​

 

I would agree with that, Thinkingstuff, as long as you are not saying, "A person who believes must be baptised but a person who does not yet believe can be baptized."

Sometimes it is wrongly stated that baptists believe in adult baptism. They don't - they believe in the baptism of believers.

 

Show me an infant with a wife and children and you might have a point

 

Sorry, Matt, that was my point. I meant that although we could search the bible in vain for words such as, "No infant may serve as a deacon," the qualifications that are stated make it abundantly clear that such is indeed the case. My namesake Agnus (well, he is my namesake in Latin!) had asked where in the bible is it stated that infants are not to be baptized. My point was that such a statement was unnecessary, in view of the many statements in the bible indicating that it was those who were already believers who were baptized.

 

Ah, but you have to do better than that! In the case of deacons, there is no ambiguity reference infants either in Scripture or Tradition ie: no practice of the Church at any time in history ordaining infants to serve as deacons. That's not the case with baptism, therefore one needs to be more explicit re Scriptures prohibiting infant baptism.

 

Does infant/toddler baptism conflict with Scripture? That's the question and that's the basis of sola scriptura Luther had in mind...that which is not in conflict with Scripture. Luther didn't protest infant baptism, b/c it wasn't in conflict with Scripture.

The later reformers "reformed" Luthers notion of sola scriptura to "only that which is in scripture"

That's what the Reformers did and continue to do...take a little of this theological idea and develop it into their own dogma. A little late in my opinion. I don't believe that the Church had been blind until 1600 years later the Reformers finally figured it all out, or in some cases, still trying to figure it out.

In XC
-

 

No, I suppose the nearest thing to infant deacons would be the so-called "boy bishops"! :laugh: Seriously, though, although my analogy was far from perfect, do we have to throw out all those words in the bible that indicate belief preceding baptism, and all those words of Jesus and the apostles that clearly and unambiguously tell us that salvation necessitates belief, not baptism? Do we have to insert into the bible the notion of godparents, and with it the idea that belief in the Lord Jesus Christ and renouncing "the devil and all his works" can be done by proxy?

 

I'm more than happy to keep the verses to which you refer provided you guys are happy to keep in the verses about baptismal regeneration (which to my mind are pretty unambiguous too) as a quid pro quo.

[ETA - entry into the Old Covenant was by proxy (circumcision of 8-day old boys) so I'm not so sure that the idea of covenant membership by proxy is such an 'insertion' into the Bible]

 

And what happened with the girls? How were the girls saved in the old covenant? There are some real problems in comparing circumcision and baptism in terms of regeneration. Scripture says,"Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin". While Abraham's wife may have called him bloody, circumcision on the eighth day probably does not wash any sin. All of Adam's race could shed every drop of blood on every altar in the world and not wash away a single single sin. Only innocent blood can pay for sin. That is what makes the blood of Jesus unique--He was without sin. No one else can say that--including His mother.

And what about the miscarriages and stillborns? Do they need baptism too? Water does not wash sin--a little dirt perhaps, but not one sin.

Baptism is an act of righteousness by two people: the subject and the administrator. Scripture plainly says no one is redeemed by their acts of righteousness, lest they have opportunity to boast. See Eph. 2:8-10.

We have folks out there baptizing for the dead-- by proxy. I wonder if they got Constantine the Great--he probably believed baptism washes away sin too.

Are there no bounds to our depravity? There have been multitudes killed--refusing to baptize their infants. Christians(?) killing Christians. Amazing.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Yes this is true and horrible. Professing christians killing professing christians. In reality is it the samething as to say christians killing christians? Curious. Still doesn't change the fact that Scripture does not indicate a prohibition to baptising infants.

 

What are we looking for a "thou shalt not immerse thy infants" in the scripture? There is something blatantly outrageous about this line of reasoning. Infant baptism pollutes the purity of the gospel with the works and commandments of men. The Lord says that such worship is in vain.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

I'm trying to find a connection here. You say the Lord says that such worship is in vain. what worship is that? Are you saying baptising infants is in vain? Or is this type line of reasoning in worship is vain? Your statement is how you truly feel. But if you are truly sola scriptura then you must remain silent on baptism of infants because the scriptures don't speak about it. All that you can do is affirm that believers are baptised and if by your reasoning you deduce that infants aren't baptised then that is extra biblical. In actuality you can't make a doctrinal statement one way or another about infant baptism. If you are sola scriptura.

 

Both the worship and the reasoning are in vain.

Whenever two people disagree, they both cannot be right. They could both be wrong. How does one settle a disagreement? A standard which must be acceptable to both sides is proposed. If both sides cannot agree to a standard, there is no basis for further discussion.

That is why Sola Scriptura is such a bone of contention. The standard must be the infallible Word of God. If we add the traditions and commandments of men, we water down and pollute the scripture and create no small amount of confusion. God is not the author of confusion. And He has not authorized any changes. Who has permission to add or take away from scripture?

Infant baptism is either taught in the scripture or it is not. There is no neutral ground. Stop and consider why so many would rather die than have their infants baptized. It certainly must be more than a moot argument.

Sola Scriptura was followed by the people of God long before Martin Luther was born.


Selah,

Bro. James

 

I don't have a problem with scriptures being the standard. The problem is our understanding of the meaning of scriptures. If one is truly sola scriptura then anything the scriptures does not address then a christian can not address doctrinally. You just can't. In the ancient world it may be that infants were baptised because when a whole household was baptised it was the whole household to include slaves and their children. But that is extra biblical knowledge. The scriptures say that Cornellius and his whole household was baptised. What can this mean? we don't know for sure and we can't say because it is not defined in scripture. So we must remain silent. You are right that people would rather die then have their children baptised but that is a decision on their part based on deductive reasoning not on scripture alone. They have arrived at this understanding based on what they believe the next step in scripture means not what is written. Therefore it is a preferance based on their understanding. Not on scripture alone. and if it were scipture alone they would say sciptures make no mention of it one way or another. If you make a doctirnal statement out of it then it is an extra biblical consept and you are no longer sola scriptura.

 

Sounds as if you are, in a contradictory way, supporting my argument. If the practice of infant baptism can be proven only by unnecessary inference plus the commandments of men, the charge of false doctrine still stands.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Sounds as if you are, in an ambiguous way, supporting my argument. If the practice of infant baptism can be proven only by unnecessary inference plus the commandments of men, the charge of false doctrine still stands.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

I'm actually saying scripture is silent on it and so must a sola scriptura person be. To make a doctrine either way is wrong for the sola scriptura person.

 

Scripture is not silent on infant baptism.

Scripture says one must believe in order to be baptized.

Since an infant cannot audibly utter the Words "I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God," one is wrong to baptize infants.

 

Er...I don't think Scripture does say that. Show me where you think it does.