Problems denying infant baptism

[Darron Steele]

Household baptism:
Anybody read Acts 16:31-4 "And they saide Beleeue on the Lord Iesus Christ, and thou shalt be saued, and thy house. And they spake vnto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And hee tooke them the same houre of the
night, and washed their stripes, and was baptized, hee and all his, straightway. And
when he had brought them into his house, hee set meat before them, and reioyced, beleeuing in God with all his house."

This is the 1611 edition of the King James Version. It ends, in modern spelling: "and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house."

The International Children's Bible: "He and his family were very happy because they now believed in God" (ICB).

His whole household was baptized. His whole household was also believing. There were no people baptized here who did not already believe.

 

[BD17]

There were very specific instructions concerning Old Testament children.
They had to be circumcised on the eight day. On what day must one be baptized??
There are other instructions concerning children in the Old Testament.
The instruction concerning baptism is not "on what day," but rather, at what time in a persons life. In other words, the person must have enough intelligence to understand the gospel and believe that Jesus Christ died for their sins. He must be able to make a choice whether to believe or reject Christ on the basis of the shed blood of Jesus Christ. It doesn't matter if there are a hundred infants in the household. If they cannot understand the gospel baptism is not baptism, it is simply taking a bath. The definition of baptism is applicable only to those who have believed. Baptism is not baptism according to Biblical definition if the person has not believed first. Thus infant baptism doesn't even exist as a Biblical entity. Beleive and be baptized. In every case belief must precede baptism.
There are no green men on the rings of Saturn.
There are no infants baptized in Scripture.
DHK

I love it when context is thrown out the window. The reason baptism is explianed the way it is is because they are the first. Once they are part of the body they would do what was done in the OT and baptize their infants. They would have known this is the new sign and continued the practice. Why is there no instruction to discontinue the OT practice?

Your alien argument is ridiculous, first of God never said in the Bible that He created life elsewhere, second He told Abraham the covenant is everlasting, and provided a new sign that does not require the sheddinig of blood, because Christ shed His blood for us.

 

[Link]

BD17 wrote
>I love it when context is thrown out the window. The reason baptism is explianed the way it is is because they are the first. Once they are part of the body they would do what was done in the OT and baptize their infants. They would have known this is the new sign and continued the practice. Why is there no instruction to discontinue the OT practice? <<

Show me where they baptized in the OT scriptures? All I can see is all the places they washed themselves with water when they were unclean. There are symbols of baptism in the Red Sea and other places. But not our baptismal practice with all that is involved.

And in the Old Testament, there is physical circumcision and circumcision of the heart. Cirumcision of the heart is not something you do to babies. It happens when we turn to God with faith and repentance. Physical circumcision of babies symbolized this circumcision.

The passage that ties circumcision to baptism shows that baptism is effective through FAITH. Look up my two posts on this already.

 

[BD17]

And in the Old Testament, there is physical circumcision and circumcision of the heart. Cirumcision of the heart is not something you do to babies. It happens when we turn to God with faith and repentance. Physical circumcision of babies symbolized this circumcision.

The passage that ties circumcision to baptism shows that baptism is effective through FAITH. Look up my two posts on this already.

Wait a minute if the physical circumcision was done to babies to "sybolize" the circumcision of the heart when we turn to God with faith and repentence, whose faith did it symbolize? According to you and DHK infants are unable to have faith. Yet you say they were circumcised to show this faith.

I think you just proved my point for me. Baptism is a sign just as circumcision was a sign.

 

[Matt Black]

And in the Old Testament, there is physical circumcision and circumcision of the heart. Cirumcision of the heart is not something you do to babies. It happens when we turn to God with faith and repentance. Physical circumcision of babies symbolized this circumcision.

Symbolized for whom?

 

[Eliyahu]

Baptizing an infant would be the same as baptizing a family pet. Neither knows what sin is.

Short and the best comment!:thumbs:


If anyone believes the following Bible is the part of the genuine Bible, she or he can never accept Infant Baptism.

Acts 8:36-37
36 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?
37 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.

The reason why some manuscripts do not have Acts 8:37 is becasue someone who disagreed to Infant Baptism, deleted it.

No Infant can confess " I believe with all mine heart" then she or he get OK's

I think this is why Acts 8:37 is deleted in many manuscripts and translations.
In that case they must explain " what was the Philip's answer to the question by the eunuch in Acts 8:36

 

[Matt Black]

I thought Brethren practised household baptism, Eliyahu? The ones I know do.

 

[mojoala]

Baptizing an infant would be the same as baptizing a family pet. Neither knows what sin is.

The same logic could be applied to the circumcision of the Old Testament.

Circumcizing an infant would be the same as circumsizing a family pet. Neither knows that it is entering into a Covenant with God.

But for someone to say that an Infant is equivalent to a family pet obviously has a serious disregard for children.

Where does an Infant go if it dies. Since we have Roman's 3:10 and 3:23 that says "None are righteous and all have sinned" And the claim is made that there is no exception except for Jesus.

The problem is this if you take hyperliterally, then All encompasses Jesus as well. But we make an exception to Jesus when there is no exception mentioned or following Romans 3:23.

And the the subject comes up concerning the Catholic belief of "Mary's Assumption" the Romans 3:23 started coming out like a tidal wave. Romans 3:23 is cited as having no exception except for Jesus. If Jesus is the only exception, then those under the Age of Reason go to HELL upon an untimely death. All aborted babies go to hell.

If you want to add the additional exception to babies, then let's open the flood gates for other exceptions.

So what shall it be?

 

[BD17]

Short and the best comment!:thumbs:


If anyone believes the following Bible is the part of the genuine Bible, she or he can never accept Infant Baptism.

Acts 8:36-37
36 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?
37 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.

The reason why some manuscripts do not have Acts 8:37 is becasue someone who disagreed to Infant Baptism, deleted it.

No Infant can confess " I believe with all mine heart" then she or he get OK's

I think this is why Acts 8:37 is deleted in many manuscripts and translations.
In that case they must explain " what was the Philip's answer to the question by the eunuch in Acts 8:36

Context, Context , Context, do people not believe in that anymore?

All people baptized in the NT are the first of their kind, so it is different for them.

 

[mojoala]

The reason why some manuscripts do not have Acts 8:37 is becasue someone who disagreed to Infant Baptism, deleted it.

So why do some manuscripts not have the last Chapter of Mark?

 

[DHK]

Salvation remains the same in the Old Testament as in the New. Salvation is by faith. It is not by circumcision, and it is not by baptism. It is by faith alone. Abraham beleived God and it was accounted unto him for righteousness sake. He was saved because he believed God. His works followed because of his beliefs, as a result of it. They did not attain his salvation; his faith did.

Circumcision was a sign of the covenant. It was a sign that the Jewish child had entered into the nation of Israel. This covenantal sign was given to Abraham (Genesis 17) and was again ratified by Mosaic Law (Ex.12:48).

In the New Testament dispensation, this age of grace, we do not have a state church, one church under God, a theocracy as such. Thus no such sign is necessary. Baptism does not take place of circumcision.
Salvation is by faith and faith alone. It is the same as in the Old Testament.
Baptism is the door to the local church. As through circumcision one entered into the nation of Israel, through baptism one enters into a Biblical local church, such as a Baptist church. The members of a church must first be saved and then baptized. That is the Biblical order. That is the only way that they are similar.
However in both testaments we are saved by faith. That is the constant--always. I do not need to be baptized in order to be saved.
DHK

 

[Taufgesinnter]

There were very specific instructions concerning Old Testament children.
They had to be circumcised on the eight day. On what day must one be baptized??

A church council led by Cyprian of Carthage in the mid-200s had to face that issue. Some innovators claimed that because baptism was the equivalent of circumcision for Christians it should be postponed until the eighth day. The council ruled that, no, the ancient practice handed down by the apostles should continue to be followed, and thus the children of Christian parents should be baptized, IIRC, the day after birth unless necessitated sooner. There was no reason to postpone it.

 

[Taufgesinnter]

Salvation remains the same in the Old Testament as in the New. Salvation is by faith. It is not by circumcision, and it is not by baptism. It is by faith alone. Abraham beleived God and it was accounted unto him for righteousness sake. He was saved because he believed God. His works followed because of his beliefs, as a result of it. They did not attain his salvation; his faith did.

"Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God." (James 2:21-23)

Let us never forget that "faith" is not intellectual assent to a set of propositions, but a state of trusting obedience.

 

[DHK]

"
Let us never forget that "faith" is not intellectual assent to a set of propositions, but a state of trusting obedience.

Let us never forget that your statement above is not accurate at all. In fact it contradicts what salvation really is.
I was a Catholic for 20 years. What you have stated is similar to the false gospel of the Catholic Church--a gospel of works which is no gospel at all.

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
--Being justified is more accurately "having been"
It is past tense, not a continuous action.

Romans 5:1 Therefore having been justified on the principle of faith, we have peace towards God through our Lord Jesus Christ; (Darby)
It is action that was in the past.
I was justified in the past when I believed on Christ. I am not continuously justified. I was justified but once and will remain always, forever justified in the sight of God. It has nothing to do with my "obedience" to God. I have been justified no matter what my future holds. It is "just as if I never sinned." My life in the standing of God is clothed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and as far as salvation is concerned no stain of sin can ever touch me.
DHK

 

[Eliyahu]

I thought Brethren practised household baptism, Eliyahu? The ones I know do.

No. PB denies Infant Baptism.

No one can be baptized, if the person cannot confess the faith as shown in Acts 8:37

37 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.


This verse apparently rejects Infant Baptism.

 

[BobRyan]

Salvation remains the same in the Old Testament as in the New. Salvation is by faith. It is not by circumcision, and it is not by baptism. It is by faith alone.
DHK

THis is an important point. ONE Gospel in all ages (Gal 1:6-9) not two.

OT saints were NOT "saved at circumcision".

In Romans 2 we are told that the circumcision that mattered was "that which is of the heart and that which is done by the Holy Spirit".

Never do you see in the OT "Only males are saved and that happens at circumcision".

Baptism is "an outward sign" of the Romans 10 fact of "inward change" that precedes it.

It is "an APPEAL to God for a clean conscience"!

 

[BobRyan]

Can "whole households" texts prove that this must have been a bunch of infant baptisms?

Claims are made ignoring the fact that the same "whole family" that got baptized is the same "whole family" that listened to Paul's evangelistic word.
This is the part that is "conveniently avoided" by all the rcs posting on this subject even after i point it out.

Note Acts 16:32 and they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house

you would not be speaking the word of God - evangelizing an infant - the infant will not hear that word will not believe that word and will not freely choose Christ and receive baptism. And how this is directly and explicitly referenced in their own infant baptism-support texts.


Acts 18:8 is another good example (one of the 3 or 4 in scripture) where the whole household believes after listening to Paul and then they are baptized. This is even worse because it gives the expicit sequence - they heard, they believed and they were baptized - it points out that this model was followed by all at corinth.

Acts 18:8crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.

The text itself obviates any hope if injecting infant baptism into a silent portion of the text. So the rc's circle back repeating their initial conjecture as if the problem never surfaced. No attempt is made to resolve it.

And then someone will post (we have already defended ourselves what else is there to solve it seems so clear to us. As if they genuinely could not comprehend the force of the obvious disconfirming content of the text. Something i refuse to believe.)


Here at least is a text that is so silent on the details regarding the baptism of Stephanas' household that RC's believe they have plenty of silence in which to inject infant baptism. Surely there is a bunch of infants in Stephanas' household and so when the entire household is mentioned it must apply to the infants that surely must be in his house. I applaud the RC's for using this text - as it does not immediately refute their own conjecture. But they are not safe in it's silence for as it turns out the book of 1cor is devastating on the subject of Stephanas' household as it applies to infants.

The account of Stephanas' household being baptized is 2 verses away from a reference to Crispus' .

1cor 1:14 £ thank God that Ii baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name.
16 now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.

And Acts 18 has already established that the pattern established by Crispus' household was hear, believe and be baptized - all the household.

Acts 18:8crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.

But this context connection between crispus' household and stephanas' household is not the most devastating argument 1cor 16 makes against the assertion that the word "household" applies to infants in the case of stephanas' household specifically. Paul asserts that the entire household was not only baptized but it was engaged in ministry.

1cor 16:15now I urge you, brethren (you know the household of Stephanas, that they were the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves for ministry to the saints),


We see the death of the assertion that the term household as applied to Stehpanas' home must imply infants

1peter 3:21 corresponding to that, Baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

You are quite in the right, Bob, that all the Scriptures doesn't know a thing about infant baptism - it totally is a relic from heathendom adopted by the Roman Catholic Church and never shod by the Reformed Churches.

Nevertheless, John the Baptist defined Christian Baptism when he pointed to Jesus and foretold that He, would baptise with fire (of affliction and probation) and Spirit - the Holy Spirit. Nowhere in the New Testament is water-baptism considered to be this baptism of Jesus'. Water-baptism exclusively was the sign of apostolic authority and was commanded to the apostles only, and in my opinion the Church that came after, assumed unlawful authority by continuing to baptise with water - either by sprinkling or by immersion, and either of infants or of adults. The Church has made of Jesus' spiritual baptism, a religious observance of free-will works, no matter which of the different modes employed.
Baptism through the centuries has been a dividing factor of no good.

 

[Snitzelhoff]

Gerhard, while I partially see your point about water baptism, I disagree. I believe that water baptism serves as a symbol of the spiritual baptism and so is commanded for disciples even in post-apostolic times. My Scriptural basis is in Matthew 28:19-20, where Christ tells the Apostles to baptize disciples AND to "teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." In other words, go and make disciples, then baptize those disciples, then teach them to go make disciples and baptize THOSE disciples. Jesus did not limit that command to the Apostles themselves nor to the apostolic era of the Church.

Quite a bit of space is given in the New Testament as to the purpose and symbolism behind water baptism, and in none of those passages do I see any temporal limitation placed upon it that would nullify the command in Matthew. If I'm wrong, though, feel free to point it out in Scripture.

Michael

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Taufgesnnter: "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God." (James 2:21-23)

Let us never forget that "faith" is not intellectual assent to a set of propositions, but a state of trusting obedience.

HP: If our faith has not reached the point that it genders trusting obedience as you point out, it is dead. Dead faith will never save anyone.

The point is not whether or not one has the opportunity to live long enough to place into reality a chosen end of ones heart, or if the opportunity has yet arrived to carry out ones chosen end as the thief on the cross illustrated, but if in fact the end has been chosen by the will. This is not ‘working for ones salvation’ or paramount to any church or cult that practices salvation by works. Our obedience is not the grounds of our salvation, but neither will our salvation be accomplished apart from the chosen means of trusting obedience as you so aptly point out.