Is infant baptism from the Bible?

[Walpole]

How exactly are you defining "infant"?

Spare me the faux naivety. Most adults know what an infant is...

Infant = a child during the earliest period of its life, especially before he or she can walk; baby

As a reminder, you are participating in a thread entitled, "Is infant baptism from the Bible?"

Again, that you believe it is morally permissible to spank or "lightly tap" a selfish infant is horrific.

 

[Reformed1689]

Spare me the faux naivety. Most adults know what an infant is...

Infant = a child during the earliest period of its life, especially before he or she can walk; baby

As a reminder, you are participating in a thread entitled, "Is infant baptism from the Bible?"

Again, that you believe it is morally permissible to spank or "lightly tap" a selfish infant is horrific.

There is a difference between infant and newborn. Infant can go all the way to two years old.

 

[Walpole]

There is a difference between infant and newborn. Infant can go all the way to two years old.

Incorrect. Those children from one to three years old are called toddlers. There is no culture which refers to two-year olds as infants. The very word "infant" comes from the Latin word meaning "unable to speak." (Two year olds are capable of speaking.)

---> Child Development: Toddlers (1-2 years old) | CDC

 

[Reformed1689]

Incorrect. Those children from one to three years old are called toddlers. There is no culture which refers to two-year olds as infants. The very word "infant" comes from the Latin word meaning "unable to speak." (Two year olds are capable of speaking.)

---> Child Development: Toddlers (1-2 years old) | CDC

Definition of INFANT

 

[Walpole]

Definition of INFANT

Exactly. Thanks for the link and the torpedoing of your own argument.

 

[Reformed1689]

Exactly. Thanks for the link and the torpedoing of your own argument.

Um, apparently you didn't read the link....

 

[Walpole]

Um, apparently you didn't read the link....

It's astonishing you are choosing this hill to die on. It's getting hard to take you seriously anymore...

YOUR LINK: A child in the first period of life


A child's first period of life...

---> Child Development: Infants (0-1 years) | CDC

---> Infants Child Development: Read About the Stages

---> Infant growth: What's normal?

...is not considered toddlerhood.


It's even more astonishing that you think spanking or to "lightly tap" an infant is morally acceptable. Once again, there is nothing more innocent than an infant.

 

[Reformed1689]

It's astonishing you are choosing this hill to die on. It's getting hard to take you seriously anymore...

YOUR LINK: A child in the first period of life


A child's first period of life...

---> Child Development: Infants (0-1 years) | CDC

---> Infants Child Development: Read About the Stages

---> Infant growth: What's normal?

...is not considered toddlerhood.


It's even more astonishing that you think spanking or to "lightly tap" an infant is morally acceptable. Once again, there is nothing more innocent than an infant.

You cherry pick definitions like you cherry pick scripture. Here is the full entry:

Definition of infant
(Entry 1 of 2)

1: a child in the first period of life
2: a person who is not of full age : MINOR
infant

adjective
Definition of infant (Entry 2 of 2)

1: intended for young children
2: being in an early stage of development
3: of, relating to, or being in infancy

 

[Walpole]

You cherry pick definitions like you cherry pick scripture. Here is the full entry:

Definition of infant
(Entry 1 of 2)

1: a child in the first period of life
2: a person who is not of full age : MINOR
infant

adjective
Definition of infant (Entry 2 of 2)

1: intended for young children
2: being in an early stage of development
3: of, relating to, or being in infancy

Again, you are picking the wrong hill to die on...

---> We are talking about biological infancy and baptism, not the legal system and rights afforded to minors. "Infant" in jurisprudence refers to ANY person under the age of 18 or sometimes 21. (Legal Dictionary - Law.com). This is what the second definition refers to, which is not applicable to the discussion, as no one objects to an 18 year-old being baptized.

Ergo, the only definition that is applicable to the discussion is a child in the first period of life.

 

[Reformed1689]

Again, you are picking the wrong hill to die on...

---> We are talking about biological infancy and baptism, not the legal system and rights afforded to minors. "Infant" in jurisprudence refers to ANY person under the age of 18 or sometimes 21. (Legal Dictionary - Law.com). This is what the second definition refers to, which is not applicable to the discussion, as no one objects to an 18 year-old being baptized.

Ergo, the only definition that is applicable to the discussion is a child in the first period of life.

Then yes, let's get back on task then. Infant (defined as under one year old) baptism is not scriptural.

 

[Walpole]

Then yes, let's get back on task then. Infant (defined as under one year old) baptism is not scriptural.

Your torpedoed your entire argument against infant baptism when you insisted infants can commit sin and hence they are culpable for sin. Ergo, if they can choose to sin, then they are called to repent and they must repen. If they can repent, then they can most certainly be baptized.

You sank your own boat.

 

[Reformed1689]

Your torpedoed your entire argument against infant baptism when you insisted infants can commit sin and hence they are culpable for sin. Ergo, if they can choose to sin, then they are called to repent and they must repen. If they can repent, then they can most certainly be baptized.

You sank your own boat.

That in no way sinks the argument. Infant baptism, by definition, means that you are baptizing someone who has not repented. If an infant were able to make a profession of faith and understand it, then I am all for baptizing them. But seeing as they cannot.... But that doesn't make them without sin.

 

[37818]

Infant immersion is actually practiced by the Eastern Orthodox Churches. But it was never a practice of the New Testament churches.

 

[Walpole]

That in no way sinks the argument. Infant baptism, by definition, means that you are baptizing someone who has not repented. If an infant were able to make a profession of faith and understand it, then I am all for baptizing them. But seeing as they cannot.... But that doesn't make them without sin.

You lost your entire objection to infant baptism the moment you asserted infants commit actual sin. You even claimed it was a lie to assert babies are not capable of committing sin. Here are your words...

And here is the lie. How do you figure babies are incapable of sinning? Where is that in Scripture? Do you have to have full use of facilities to sin? Can quadriplegics not sin?

Are babies capable of being selfish? Yes. Is that sin? Yes. Can babies be angry? Yes. Is it righteous anger or selfish? Most likely the latter. How do you square your view with Romans 3:23?

If one knows they have transgressed the laws of God (i.e. they have sinned), then one must repent. For repentance presumes something is transgressed (i.e. the laws of God). Ergo, by insisting infants are capable of sin, they must also therefore be capable of repenting.

You torpedoed and sunk your own boat.

 

[Adonia]

Whether infant baptism is expressly proscribed in the Scriptures is immaterial. The Church here on earth has the authority given to it by Jesus Christ himself to "bind and loose" and this my friends is one of those binding and loosing issues. There is nothing wrong nor evil with infant baptism, it is bringing the newborn child into the family of God, it is an action against the stain of "original sin" that we are all born with.

 

[Reformed1689]

You lost your entire objection to infant baptism the moment you asserted infants commit actual sin.

No, the two are not related.

If one knows they have transgressed the laws of God (i.e. they have sinned), then one must repent. For repentance presumes something is transgressed (i.e. the laws of God). Ergo, by insisting infants are capable of sin, they must also therefore be capable of repenting.

And this is the lunacy of it. Do you have to know the law to break it? No.

 

[Yeshua1]

Whether infant baptism is expressly proscribed in the Scriptures is immaterial. The Church here on earth has the authority given to it by Jesus Christ himself to "bind and loose" and this my friends is one of those binding and loosing issues. There is nothing wrong nor evil with infant baptism, it is bringing the newborn child into the family of God, it is an action against the stain of "original sin" that we are all born with.

We receive the promised Holy Spirit when we believe, not when water baptized!

 

[37818]

Whether infant baptism is expressly proscribed in the Scriptures is immaterial. The Church here on earth has the authority given to it by Jesus Christ himself to "bind and loose" and this my friends is one of those binding and loosing issues. There is nothing wrong nor evil with infant baptism, it is bringing the newborn child into the family of God, it is an action against the stain of "original sin" that we are all born with.

We receive the promised Holy Spirit when we believe, not when water baptized!

Wow. Arguing past each other.

 

[Walpole]

We receive the promised Holy Spirit when we believe, not when water baptized!

What St. Peter said ---> "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." (Acts 2:38-39)


What St. Peter DID NOT SAY ---> "Repent and then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. You can then be baptized, but being baptized is not for the remission of your sins. Oh and this promise is for you, but NOT your children." (Anti-sacramentalists)

 

[Yeshua1]

What St. Peter said ---> "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." (Acts 2:38-39)


What St. Peter DID NOT SAY ---> "Repent and then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. You can then be baptized, but being baptized is not for the remission of your sins. Oh and this promise is for you, but NOT your children." (Anti-sacramentalists)

The Holy Spirit comes to ondwel and dseal us the very moment that we believe!