Infant Baptism

I am curious about this subject also. We have many friends who are catholic, lutheran, and presbyterian, and they baptize their babies. Is that not biblical? If not, then why do these old, old Christian religions do so?

 

r5, they do so because they are protestants. They were once part of the RCC and left as protesters. Unfortunately they brought some of the baggage of the RCC with them when they left. Martin Luther, was a RCC monk but because a believer by faith. While he saw the truth about justification by faith, he did not think through all the other areas of doctrine which he had been trained. Thus he incorporated them into the church which formed out of his movement. In fact, it seems he never planned to be a protestant, but they kicked him out. Other founders of protestant groups also had the same experience. Baptists historically have looked back to the NT church for both their faith and order and thus have rejected infant baptism as biblical baptism and as a violation of regenerated church membership.

 

With all due respects for Trevor's original post (I have not read the others), sprinkling was begun by the Catholics as a convenience, especially those who were too ill to be immersed. To even make such a statement "we baptist believe that infant baptism should not be practised by Christian families?" "WE BAPTISTS?" This is not a statement made by a true Baptist but one who says he is a Baptist with Catholicism interjected. That's what the early "Jews who believed" in the book of Acts did. They were adding circumcism to faith in Christ. This type of thinking is pure humanism, i.e., human reasoning. That's where cults come from. Nowhere in the Bible is there a command or an example of infants of infants being sprinkled, or, for that matter, even immersed. Only those who were old enough to make the decision to receive Christ as their Saviour were baptized. A baby cannot repent (change his mind to trust Christ), adults can. Baptism was VOLUNTARY, a DECISION made by the convert. A baby cannot make this decision-it is made for him by his parents. You cannot call yourself a true Baptist, either historically or doctrinally and believe in infant baptism. Perhaps you should be honest and call yourself a Catholic.

TJAcorn
posted April 28, 2001 10:08 PM
---------------------------------------------
How come we baptist believe that infant baptism should not be practised by Christian families? Doesn't God still have a covenant with us to bless our children?
Trevor

 

Discussing Luther above, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> While he saw the truth about justification by faith, he did not think through all the other areas of doctrine which he had been trained. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh come on. On what do you base that statement on?

Where does it say in the Bible that only a believer should be baptized? And where does it say infants can't or don't believe?

The fact is that Baptism is an act of God, it is not an act of man. This whole idea that Baptism is some type of public confession of faith has no basis in the Scriptures. That whole concept developed as a way for men to show men how righteous they are. Its very disappointing to see the spectacle that it has turned into.

Christ's Church on earth has been baptizing babies for 2000 years. Only a 1000 years into it did some men decide that it was inappropriate. What is the basis for changing it other than the fact that what had become the RCC still did it?

[ June 21, 2001: Message edited by: Sir Ed ]

 

Oh, come on Ed. It takes a man to walk to the pool of water; it takes a man to dunk under the water; if you hold to sprinkling, it takes a man to sprinkle the water.

In other words, it's an act of men. What you're actually attempting to say is that God works through the baptism; but even if God works through it, it requires a conscious, physical act of a man in order for it to occur.

THAT is the main problem with baptism having a part in salvation, whether the RCC and the Lutherans want to admit it or not.

 

Like I said Don, show me where the Bible says everything you just shared.

 

What, the part where men have to physically put themselves in water?

Matthew 3, Mark 1, Luke 3, John 1, Acts 2, Acts 8, Acts 9, Acts 10, Acts 22...I'll stop there.

Unless, scanning through this, I missed something and you're talking about the baptism of the Holy Ghost, I'm not seeing anything different.

Are you taking opposition to my statement about this being the problem with the RCC and the Lutherans?

 

Once again: Where does it say in the Bible that only a believer should be baptized? And where does it say infants can't or don't believe? Where does it say not to baptize infants?

Doesn't Matthew, v. 19 say "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." It doesn't say baptize those who are old enough to talk does it? What about those who grow old with the mental capacity of a two year old? Do we disobey God and not baptize them too?

The first post in this thread asked "How come we baptist believe that infant baptism should not be practised by Christian families?"

There still has not been a Scriptural answer to this.


[ June 21, 2001: Message edited by: Sir Ed ]

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

 

And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Acts 8:36-38

I think this pretty much says it all. I read the verses while I wrote them and they seemed pretty straightforward. If the eunuch didn't believe, he couldn't be baptized.

If this particular verse isn't clear enough, or you require further evidence, I suggest you read Acts 10:43-48 (Gentiles), Acts 16:14-15 (Lydia) and Acts 16:30-33 (Philippian Jailor).

Dave

[ June 21, 2001: Message edited by: Dajuid ]

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

 

Scriptural baptism straight from the bible!

Matthew 3:6, the subjects were "confessing" - I.E. talking. Infants cannot confess/talk.

Matthew 3:8 John required evidence of conversion. Infants can give no such evidence.

Acts 8:36-38. The Ethiopian expressed his personal faith in Christ before he was baptized.

And on and on and on.

The NT order in baptism teacher only believers baptism.

Matthew 28:19. The great commission places baptism after evangelization.

John 4:1. The order is "made" (first) and "baptized" (second."

Acts 2:38. Repent first, the be baptized.

Acts 2:41. Received, baptized, added.

Acts 8:12. The Samaritans believed, and then were baptized.

Acts 8:13. Simon believed and then was baptized.

Galatians 3:26-27. Children of God by faith (verse 26) baptized (verse 27).

Now to deal with the argument from Matthew 18:1-6 where Jesus said "Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not." These children were old enough to be "called" - spoken to by Jesus. See Matthew 18:2.

They were old enough to believe. Verse 6.

Baptism is for believers only subsequent to their salvation by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Any other type of "baptism" is false.

 

Amen. Excellent post, Dr C!

 

As for infants believing or not believing, please give us the verses that show where they can believe or not believe. See, the problem with the so-called support for infant baptism is that it arises from an argument of silence. As Dr. Cassidy pointed out, there is a whole bunch of verses pointing out that believers were baptized, and that they weren't infants. Those that support infant baptism tend to use the verses that say "and all their household" without recognizing that this phrase is too ambiguous. "All their household" could include infants--or it might not. It might include sheep--or it might not. It might include the household pets--or it might not. It cannot be conclusively stated that "all their household" meant that infants were also baptized.

Further Ed, your statement that only 1,000 years after baptizing infants did someone object is erroneous. I believe it was Tertullian, who is held up by the Lutherans as proving that infant baptism existed early, who was actually telling people that infant baptism was improper.

So Ed, if your premise is that we should baptize infants, then please scripturally prove it. Simply stating that we've been doing it for 2,000 years doesn't mean that it's right.

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

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TJAcorn:
How come we baptist believe that infant baptism should not be practised by Christian families? Doesn't God still have a covenant with us to bless our children? Trevor <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Trevor there were many good pieces in the answers, and some not so good. The argument for Infant Baptism is theological, though not necessarily biblical. Someone brought up the point that the same situation applies with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, and in a sense that is true, since one cannot simply "chapter-n-verse" the Trinity the way one does many doctrines.

Nevertheless, the doctrine of the Trinity is strongly (nay over-whelmingly) inferential. In this spirit, I submit that not only is there no express commands to baptize infants in the bible, AND no example of an infant ever being baptized, but also just as important, there is an appalling lack of inferences to suggest the validity of the doctrine or practice.

Moreover, baptizing infants is a NEW practice. We are then asked to institute a BRAND NEW practice without biblical warrant to do so. I ask you, what other uniquely New Testament practice finds it's sole justification in an Old Testament theological inference? That is a hermeneutical nightmare!

The argument is "as infants were once circumcised under the old covenant, so they should be baptized under the new." This argument can sound logical on the face of it if we grant that baptism is the new covenant sign, AND I DO GRANT THAT.

However, what paedobaptists of all stripes do not recognize(for whatever reason) is the primary fundamental discontinuity between the old covenant and the new. Which is this.

The old covenant was primarily: outward, physical, national/ethnic, and typical. The new covenant is primarily: inward, spiritual, universal and real.

Now you say, "didn't you just ADMIT that baptism is the new covenant sign?" Why... yes, yes I did. However the question that is yet not expressed is this...

WHEN & HOW does one enter the new covenant, and is that different than the old?

In the Old covenant with its physical/ethnic locus one entered that covenant at the time of physical birth, to covenant parents, through a fleshly gate. One received the fleshly sign, which signified the perpetuity of the physical/ethnic covenant through the progenitors of the covenant race.

Conversely, the new covenant has nothing at all to do with our parentage.(John 1:13) But rather the new covenant finds it's fulfillment in the NEW birth, the Spiritual birth.(John 3:3-8) So YES... yes, baptism corresponds to circumcision, but NOT in every way. Circumcision is a typical sign, one that shows the promise, baptism is a sign of fulfillment in the new birth wrought by the Holy Ghost!

If an infant shows the evidence of regeneration(such as John the Baptist, ironically) they could then theoretically be baptized. As a practical matter, how would the Church, who has the authority of Christ to baptize, recognize such regenerations? Such regenerations if they occur(other than John) are in the secret counsel of the Holy and are witnessed in time by the Church with the same discernment all other regenerations are witnessed by... a credible profession of faith and evidence of a transformed life.

 

All we know from the scriptures is:
1. We are to baptize all.
2. We are only to baptize adults that believe and have repented.

Yeah, I see how that means you don't baptize infants, young children, or mentally incompetent adults.

Matthew, v. 19 say "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." As for the Dr's argument that you cannot teach a newborn, you aren't serious are you?

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

 

Sir Ed, "All we know from the scriptures is:
1. We are to baptize all..."

TWO QUESTIONS
1. ALL of whom?
2. What scriptures?

You have made no attempt to show anything you have said to be Biblically true; but tackle the two questions above and tell us about what you are talking.

 

Previous posts have established that baptizing believers is founded on command, precept and example.

Those who disagree (and have any arguments) usually base their arguments on the Old Covenant and circumcision. Baptism becomes the sign in replacement of circumcision, and since babies were circumcized, babies should be baptized. How did circumcision become the sign of the Covenant? By the command of God! How did Abraham (and later Israel) know who should be circumcized? God laid down the law of circumcision, which includes the specifics of whom and when, etc.! If baptism replaces circumcision, how do you know that? By the command of God! So look to the command of God to know the whom and when, etc. of baptism - Matthew 28:18-20, "..All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth; Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." The first use of the word teach (v.19) means to make disciples. Those who have been made disciples are to be baptized. John 4:1,2 "Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John." Infants were never made disciples. Infants were never baptized. Baptizing infants is based almost wholely on the mistake that whoever was "signed" under the Old Covenant is "signed" under the New. If this foundation be removed, what shall the paedobaptist do?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The first use of the word teach (v.19) means to make disciples. Those who have been made disciples are to be baptized. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thats a pretty big jump you make from your first sentence to the your second.

As for you question above RL, the most obvious answer is in Matthew.

 

Ed, "We're supposed to baptize all" is all you can come up with?

I've been "discussing" the issue of tongues with a Oneness Pentecostal; all he can keep falling back on for support of his beliefs is 1 Cor 13:1. I humbly submit to you that if all you can keep falling back on is one verse, then you have a one-verse theology going, and that's not doctrinally correct.

However, I give you full credit, and I mean this in all seriousness, for the courage of your convictions. However, when faced with overwhelming scriptural support to the opposite of those convictions, one MUST re-evaluate those convictions. I had to do it with "decision theology"; I humbly and with a meek spirit ask you to consider the same regarding infant baptism.

 

No big jump, just simple English (understanding to whom the pronoun refers) - "Baptizing them" Who is them? The them who have been taught or made disciples.

AND, if the most obvious answer is, as you say, in Matthew, it shouldn't be that hard for you to tell us what you mean. Although Matthew is a big book of 28 chapters. You see, you actually give no answers, just some kind of general statement that can't be contradicted nor discussed. Come out of the comfort zone and get in the debate!

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