Christian Baptism, does it include infants?

[Carbon]

I believe it does include infants. I have noticed this has always been a touchy subject for many. I believe it is an important subject. I also believe, if it is understood, it can easily be seen as a Christian baptism.

It is also very important to know, that infants with believing parents are to be considered within the covenant and therefore members of the Church. And by saying this, we are not asserting their regeneration. Also, I want to be perfectly clear that the administration of the sacrament of baptism to an infant does not in itself bring any guarantee of anything, certainly not salvation.


I am well aware that the opponents of infant baptism argue that the New Testament teaches that repentance and faith must precede baptism and that infants cannot repent and believe therefore must not be baptized. Their argument nevertheless is based on an inference which they themselves deny in respect to parallel truths. We can get to a few examples of this starting in Mark 16.


So I and perhaps others who are interested in discussing this touchy subject. Though I am a paedobaptist, I have no issue with those who desire to wait until their children are at an age to where they believe. That's fine. I will not accuse them of being wrong. That's between them and God.

However, if this subject bothers you so much to where you start to attack the person and not the subject, you may kindly be asked to step away from the debate. At least until you calm down. Maybe for some people, it will be best to not even get involved.

 

[Carbon]

I have found when discussing this doctrine of infant baptism, many minds are completely closed against the evidence in scripture. Let me point out that there is not a word in the Scriptures (New Testament) that could be interpreted as a commandment for forbidding infant baptism. It would make sense that if infant baptism was such a great evil there would be scriptural warnings against it. But, to the contrary, every bit of evidence that there is in the New Testament seems to indicate that infant baptism was practiced under the authority of the apostles. We also know from the Early Church fathers that infant baptism was practiced in the first few centuries of the Church.

 

[Carbon]

In agreeing with Covenant theology, I believe that the church started back with Adam, not at Pentecost. So it is genetically the same in both Testaments. The basis of the argument is the unfolding of the New Testament economy, which is the unfolding and fulfillment of the covenant made with Abraham. And the necessary implication is the unity and continuity of the Church.

 

[Carbon]

In agreeing with Covenant theology, I believe that the church started back with Adam, not at Pentecost. So it is genetically the same in both Testaments. The basis of the argument is the unfolding of the New Testament economy, which is the unfolding and fulfillment of the covenant made with Abraham. And the necessary implication is the unity and continuity of the Church.

Didn't the covenant made with Abraham include the infant offspring of Abraham? That cannot be denied, right?

Isn't this to say that the church under the Old Testament included not only all those who were of age and intelligence to confess the true religion but also their infants? After all, Infants received the sign of circumcision. It was administered to them by divine command:
10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. Genesis 17.
Circumcision was the sign and the seal of the covenant administered to Abrahah.

 

[CrowCross]

Carbon​

Can you point to one verse that shows infants being baptized?

 

[Eleanor]

Didn't the covenant made with Abraham include the infant offspring of Abraham? That cannot be denied, right?

Isn't this to say that the church under the Old Testament included not only all those who were of age and intelligence to confess the true religion but also their infants? After all, Infants received the sign of circumcision. It was administered to them by divine command:

10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. Genesis 17.
Circumcision was the sign and the seal of the covenant administered to Abrahah.

And baptism, the NT counterpart to circumcision (Col 2:11-12), is the sign of one being in the body of Christ, the NC people, just as
circumcision was the sign of one being in the descendants of Abraham, the OC people.

Circumcision did not make one a child of Abraham, it was the sign of one who by birth was a child of Abraham.
Baptism does not place one in Christ, it is the sign of one who by rebirth/faith is in Christ.

 

[atpollard]

Circumcision did not make one a child of Abraham, it was the sign of one who by birth was a child of Abraham.
Baptism does not place one in Christ, it is the sign of one who by rebirth/faith is in Christ.

There is clear evidence the Jewish boy was born into the OT Covenant (he was born a descendent of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), thus circumcision was a confirmation of what God had done. As opponents are quick to point out, a Jewish girl was born into the covenant just the same as a boy without the need for circumcision, so clearly circumcision is not absolutely NECESSARY for entrance into the covenant. It is also worth noting that the NT Church is the BRIDE of Christ, thus His circumcision is vital and we should be looking to the Jewish Bride as our example of submitting to the marriage covenant to the Lamb of God.

Looking at the NT Covenant as a continuation and renewal of the ongoing covenant with God, is there really any indication that the baby born to a Church member (local congregation, since we have no universal Church detector) is part of the Church (universal)? In what way is sprinkling (or pouring or immersing) a reprobate baby to the glory of God or the benefit of the church? The New Covenant is based on a new birth, by what metric do we assume the baby has received the “born from above” that MAKES them Christ’s?

We hang a hat on “the OT did it” and “it is not forbidden”. That seems a poor case for assuming a birth that time reveals in too many cases simply “taint so”. Even if they are born into the blessings of the COVENANT, they are not part of the BODY until they are BORN AGAIN into the body … irrespective of who their parents are.

I hope I have not offended, I just wanted to present things as I saw them.

 

[Carbon]

Carbon​

Can you point to one verse that shows infants being baptized?

Well, can you show me the teaching not to baptize infants?


Go ahead, Ill wait.

 

[Carbon]

There is clear evidence the Jewish boy was born into the OT Covenant (he was born a descendent of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), thus circumcision was a confirmation of what God had done. As opponents are quick to point out, a Jewish girl was born into the covenant just the same as a boy without the need for circumcision, so clearly circumcision is not absolutely NECESSARY for entrance into the covenant. It is also worth noting that the NT Church is the BRIDE of Christ, thus His circumcision is vital and we should be looking to the Jewish Bride as our example of submitting to the marriage covenant to the Lamb of God.

Looking at the NT Covenant as a continuation and renewal of the ongoing covenant with God, is there really any indication that the baby born to a Church member (local congregation, since we have no universal Church detector) is part of the Church (universal)? In what way is sprinkling (or pouring or immersing) a reprobate baby to the glory of God or the benefit of the church? The New Covenant is based on a new birth, by what metric do we assume the baby has received the “born from above” that MAKES them Christ’s?

We hang a hat on “the OT did it” and “it is not forbidden”. That seems a poor case for assuming a birth that time reveals in too many cases simply “taint so”. Even if they are born into the blessings of the COVENANT, they are not part of the BODY until they are BORN AGAIN into the body … irrespective of who their parents are.

I hope I have not offended, I just wanted to present things as I saw them.

Would you listen to Calvin?

He said:
"The covenant is common, the reason for confirming it is common. Only the mode of confirmation is different; for to them, it was confirmed by circumcision, which among us is succeeded by baptism. Otherwise, if the testimony by which the Jews were confirmed concerning the salvation of their seed be taken away from us, by the advent of Christ it has come to pass that the grace of God is more obscure and less attested to us than it was to Jews. If this cannot be confirmed without the greatest dishonor to Christ . . .we must confess that at least it ought not to be more concealed nor less attested that under the obscure shadows of the law."

(Inst. IV, xvi, 6).

 

[atpollard]

Well, can you show me the teaching not to baptize infants?


Gop ahead, Ill wait.

Acts 2:38 comes to mind … as the CONDITION for Baptism and the receiving of the Holy Spirit … the promise that is for all generations to come.

 

[atpollard]

Would you listen to Calvin?

Sure, I’ll listen to him. However, like Luther before him … he is not ‘god breathed scripture’ and he comes from Catholicism (IIRC), so he starts out with baggage that an ATHEIST turned CHRISTIAN searching the Bible for Truth did not have (I have completely DIFFERENT baggage).

 

[Carbon]

Acts 2:38 comes to mind … as the CONDITION for Baptism and the receiving of the Holy Spirit … the promise that is for all generations to come.

How would that work? It does not say not to baptize and infant. Not even close.

But here is a few in support in infant baptism.

1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?

2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,

3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.

6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Matt 18.

13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Matt 19.

37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me. Mark 9.


14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

16 And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them. Mark 10.

15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.

16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein. Luke 18.

 

[atpollard]

He said:
"The covenant is common, the reason for confirming it is common. Only the mode of confirmation is different; for to them, it was confirmed by circumcision, which among us is succeeded by baptism. Otherwise, if the testimony by which the Jews were confirmed concerning the salvation of their seed be taken away from us, by the advent of Christ it has come to pass that the grace of God is more obscure and less attested to us than it was to Jews. If this cannot be confirmed without the greatest dishonor to Christ . . .we must confess that at least it ought not to be more concealed nor less attested that under the obscure shadows of the law."

The COVENANT (let’s talk NEW for a moment) is initiated BY GOD and results in a new heart and a new life … a promised ETERNAL life. So what evidence is there, what shadow or flicker of indication, suggests that any infant has received that and ACTUALLY IS in that Covenant?

Should we not “sprinkle” Buddhists in the hope that they will one day choose Christ? How is the infant different?
[as I stated, the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE indicates that we are just making babies wet, not part of the CHURCH ETERNAL.]

 

[Carbon]

Sure, I’ll listen to him.

I'm happy to hear that.

However, like Luther before him … he is not ‘god breathed scripture’

Of course not. What does that have to do with it anyway?

and he comes from Catholicism (IIRC),

God gave Calvin quite the mind.

We all come from the same bucket of scum. Yet, you think you have it figured out and Calvins is wrong. Okay.

Yet, these Baptists who claim they have the truth, I wonder, were they born sinless?

so he starts out with baggage that an ATHEIST turned CHRISTIAN searching the Bible for Truth did not have (I have completely DIFFERENT baggage).

Seriously weak argument. If you dont see that now, you will in time hopfully.

 

[Carbon]

The COVENANT (let’s talk NEW for a moment) is initiated BY GOD and results in a new heart and a new life … a promised ETERNAL life. So what evidence is there, what shadow or flicker of indication, suggests that any infant has received that and ACTUALLY IS in that Covenant?

Should we not “sprinkle” Buddhists in the hope that they will one day choose Christ? How is the infant different?
[as I stated, the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE indicates that we are just making babies wet, not part of the CHURCH ETERNAL.]

Another weak argument. A Buddhist? Really? Okay, move on you already lost this one.

 

[Carbon]

Well, I have to hit the hay, 5 am comes early. Ill check back tomorrow. Hope I didn't insult you but a Buddest has nothing to do with God's people or His church.

 

[Carbon]

But let me say, I understand your frustration. You're keeping the Baptist tradition going. I understand this debate is like a matter of life and death.

 

[atpollard]

How would that work? It does not say not to baptize and infant. Not even close.

Perhaps you have a different translation than I do. Let’s compare scripture:

Acts 2
[KJV] 37 Now when they heard [this], they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men [and] brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call.

The QUESTION being asked is “what shall we do?” (a good question)
The ANSWER is “Repent and be baptized” (a good answer)

• Did THEY repent and were THEY baptized?
• Did YOU repent and were YOU baptized?
• (I repent and I was baptized.)

This is “the promise” … the answer to the universal question “what shall we do” about our sin is the same answer Peter gave: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you”. This PROMISE is for them. This promise is for their children. This promise is for “all who are afar off” (that includes you, me and the babies).
So DID the babies “Repent and be baptized”?

Note that this promise is not for EVERYONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION, but for “as many as the Lord our God shall call”. So that begs the question … Did God call the baby, or are MEN making false assumptions?

 

[atpollard]

But let me say, I understand your frustration. You're keeping the Baptist tradition going. I understand this debate is like a matter of life and death.

No, just giving a vigorous defense of my FAITH (what I believe). Sleep well and when you wake up, you can answer the question:

The COVENANT (let’s talk NEW for a moment) is initiated BY GOD and results in a new heart and a new life … a promised ETERNAL life. So what evidence is there, what shadow or flicker of indication, suggests that any infant has received that and ACTUALLY IS in that Covenant?

(Now it is a STRONGER an argument that is not lost by FIAT.)

 

[Carbon]

Perhaps you have a different translation than I do. Let’s compare scripture:

Acts 2
[KJV] 37 Now when they heard [this], they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men [and] brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call.

The QUESTION being asked is “what shall we do?” (a good question)
The ANSWER is “Repent and be baptized” (a good answer)

• Did THEY repent and were THEY baptized?
• Did YOU repent and were YOU baptized?
• (I repent and I was baptized.)

This is “the promise” … the answer to the universal question “what shall we do” about our sin is the same answer Peter gave: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you”. This PROMISE is for them. This promise is for their children. This promise is for “all who are afar off” (that includes you, me and the babies).
So DID the babies “Repent and be baptized”?

Note that this promise is not for EVERYONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION, but for “as many as the Lord our God shall call”. So that begs the question … Did God call the baby, or are MEN making false assumptions?

The first problem you have here is the subject of the verses, it's not baptism, it's personal salvation. And the passage obviously does not deny an infant from baptism. So you have no substance for an argument. Sorry.