Christian Baptism, does it include infants?

[Carbon]

John the Baptist, told those at his baptism these words:

Matthew 3:8​

“Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:”

Peter said:

Acts 2:38​

“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.”

Philip said this to the eunuch these words:

Acts 8:37​

“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 does not prove that folks are passive in water baptism, very much active, and understanding what they had to do.

Again, why was Jesus baptized?

Again, baptism is not a sacrament,

Maybe not in your church.

it does not convey grace to those being baptized. Infants of all people, would have no recollection of them being baptized and certainly not knowing why! That statement is based upon a false premises of trying to connect circumcision with NT baptism.

You have no legitimate argument here. Baptism replaces circumcision.
I thought you said you consider others' beliefs.

So wrong! Faith is the strongest biblical evidence of one being a child of God's promises. We have proved this in this thread already.

Did you actually read what I wrote? Or understand it?

1st John 5:1~“Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.”

No comment.

Baptism and circumcision are not one and same.

Already addressed this above. What prevents them is: Baptism joined us with the faith and religion of Jesus Christ by giving God an answer of a good conscience, which infants cannot do.

You have the typical understanding of a dispy. On a serious note, I think it would do you well to actually study these things. It will take a bit of time, you won't get it all overnight, but give it a shot it's rewarding.

What prevents them is this: it is not commanded for us to have our children baptized, if not commanded, then we cannot practice this, it would be adding to the scriptures. What prevents them is this: the apostles did not command it, and never practiced it, and neither did Christ.

Silly argument with no substance. The early church practiced it, from the time of the apostles, read your history.

Catholic doctrine, pure and simple. The Lord's supper is not a sacrament~it does not convey grace in any way to those who partake thereof.

Nonsense!

The Lord's supper is not for nourishment and growth, but for our remembrance of Christ's death for us....... it speaks more of our weakness in forgetting more than any thing else.

You dont understand what nourishment and growth mean spiritually, and how this is grace to believers?

Why does not the writer use the same logic in baptizing infants? It would save him from his error in baptizing infants. Something to consider, would you not think so.

You have an argument from silence. No logic, no biblical proof, no historical proof. So, you should probably stop accusing theologians of error, especially not Ames. Do you know who he was? Maybe look into that also?

No pun intended~The writer is in la la land speaking to the wind. The Lord's supper was given to sir up our poor minds in remembering our Lord's death till he comes again.

 

[Carbon]

A verse in the scriptures that has been hotly debated since Luke penned those words.

The subject of Acts 2:38 is not personal salvation, but what shall they do who were pricked in their hearts after hearing Peter's short sermon.

Thanks for your opinion. Just about your whole argument is based on your opinion. I'm going to be blunt, and I mean no disrespect. I firmly believe you have a very shallow understanding of the Lord's Supper and Baptism, and you haven't given my posts any real consideration, but you said you would. I am debating your opinion, there is no debt on these subjects. So, from here on out, dont expect me to be very detailed with you on the subjects, until you actually study the subject. If you do study it and acquire a better understanding, I will be happy to get more involved. But Iw ill not spend all my time trying to help you understand each detail.

 

[Simons]

The early church practiced it, from the time of the apostles, read your history.

to be clear, are you asserting that infant baptism was practiced from the time of the apostles?....and you are saying that reading up on the history of the church shows this to be the case? Some historical references to back up these assertions please (if that is what you are asserting).

 

[Carbon]

to be clear, are you asserting that infant baptism was practiced from the time of the apostles?....and you are saying that reading up on the history of the church shows this to be the case? Some historical references to back up these assertions please (if that is what you are asserting).

Yes, that's what I am saying. You would have to prove there were no infants baptized when whole households were baptized. During the time of the apostles.
As far as the history of the first, second, and third centuries, I have read the history books. It was practiced.
If this is something you are interested in, you do the footwork, why ask me to do it for you? But if you are a Christian, and enjoy reading the history of the church, I would be surprised if you didn't know this.

 

[Carbon]

Yes, that's what I am saying. You would have to prove there were no infants baptized when whole households were baptized. During the time of the apostles.
As far as the history of the first, second, and third centuries, I have read the history books. It was practiced.
If this is something you are interested in, you do the footwork, why ask me to do it for you? But if you are a Christian, and enjoy reading the history of the church, I would be surprised if you didn't know this.

@Simons I am not saying you are not a Christian, please don't take me wrong. I don't know you.

 

[Simons]

You would have to prove there were no infants baptized when whole households were baptized.

Ho-hum…your appeal to “households” still doesn’t fly. Remember scripture says: everyone in the household believed and was baptized….so if you are going to assert that infants were baptized in those accounts then you must show how infants (that were incapable of belief) were able to believe.

As far as the history of the first, second, and third centuries, I have read the history books. It was practiced.

well, apparently there is a gap in your reading as it would seem that you failed to read: Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the first Five Centuries by Everett Ferguson….where you’ll find:

There is general agreement that there is no firm evidence for infant baptism before the latter part of the second century. This fact does not mean that it did not occur, but it does mean that supporters of the practice have a considerable chronological gap to account for. Many replace the historical silence by appeal to theological or sociological considerations. . . .​

​

The most plausible explanation for the origin of infant baptism is found in the emergency baptism of sick children expected to die soon so that they would be assured of entrance into the kingdom of heaven. There was a slow extension of baptizing babies as a precautionary measure. It was generally accepted, but questions continued to be raised about its propriety into the fifth century. It became the usual practice in the fifth and sixth centuries. (pp. 856, 857)​

If this is something you are interested in, you do the footwork

given the general agreement mentioned by Ferguson I am not surprised that you failed to produce anything

 

[Simons]

@Simons I am not saying you are not a Christian, please don't take me wrong. I don't know you.

no worries...I consider myself a Christian, but it sure isn't the great label that it once was

 

[Carbon]

Ho-hum…your appeal to “households” still doesn’t fly. Remember scripture says: everyone in the household believed and was baptized….so if you are going to assert that infants were baptized in those accounts then you must show how infants (that were incapable of belief) were able to believe.

Remember scripture didn't say, "everyone believed."

 

[Carbon]

Ho-hum…your appeal to “households” still doesn’t fly. Remember scripture says: everyone in the household believed and was baptized….so if you are going to assert that infants were baptized in those accounts then you must show how infants (that were incapable of belief) were able to believe.


well, apparently there is a gap in your reading as it would seem that you failed to read: Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the first Five Centuries by Everett Ferguson….where you’ll find:

There is general agreement that there is no firm evidence for infant baptism before the latter part of the second century. This fact does not mean that it did not occur, but it does mean that supporters of the practice have a considerable chronological gap to account for. Many replace the historical silence by appeal to theological or sociological considerations. . . .​

​

The most plausible explanation for the origin of infant baptism is found in the emergency baptism of sick children expected to die soon so that they would be assured of entrance into the kingdom of heaven. There was a slow extension of baptizing babies as a precautionary measure. It was generally accepted, but questions continued to be raised about its propriety into the fifth century. It became the usual practice in the fifth and sixth centuries. (pp. 856, 857)​

given the general agreement mentioned by Ferguson I am not surprised that you failed to produce anything

Besides, it is obvious we both believe we have it pretty much figured out. I'm not going to convince you differently, and neither are you. So, we will have to agree to just disagree.
That is until we can present more convincing evidence. Or it will be just going over and over the same things.

 

[Josheb]

Christian Baptism, does it include infants?

There is no specific verse that explicitly states infants were baptized or that the practice of baptizing infants is permitted, but there are verses that do reasonably infer infants were likely baptized. In Acts 16, for example, there are two reports stating everyone in the individual's household was baptized.

Acts 16:15
Now when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.

Acts 16:33
And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.

Because a "household" in the Bible included children and servants (not just blood relatives) it is likely and reasonable ot assume children, including infants, were baptized.

The New Testament precedent is that a person was baptized in water and the Holy Spirit at the time of their conversion. Groups like those found in Acts 19 are the exception to the rule, not the rule. Therefore, if we are going to follow the New Testament precedent and follow it to the letter then the only time anyone should be water-baptized is at the time of their conversion. Those who baptize a week or month after a person professes faith in Christ are just as culpable of abusing scripture as those who baptized infants before the make such a profession .

Legalism kills.

From the Reformed perspective of the liturgical denominations, baptism in water is not monolithic and some liberties are knowingly taken. In the Presbyterian, Episcopal, and Lutheran denominations various qualifications and explanations are asserted. In the Presbyterian denomination, for example, infant baptism isa "pledge" and sometimes equated with OT circumcision as a "sign" of inclusion in the covenant with God whether the individual is saved or not. In Lutheranism the Great Commission is considered to apply without qualification so even infants can and should be baptized "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". Critics invariably assume some degree of legalism (large or small) and appeal to purity but there are many modern practices that are far removed from scripture but nonetheless tolerated by the adult-only baptizers. Appeals to purity are not only logically fallacious, they are usually also hypocritical (and unnecessarily divisive). According to the Didache, pedobaptism was practiced prior to 100 AD.

Does New Testament baptism include infants? Possibly, and I would argue probably.
Does modern Christianity practice infant baptism with scriptural justification? Depends on how they justify it.

Should infant baptism be a matter that divides us? No.

 

[atpollard]

Again, why was Jesus baptized?

Why was Jesus baptized? Was his birth and circumcision not enough to gain entry into the one covenant extant at that time?

 

[atpollard]

Should infant baptism be a matter that divides us? No.

Umm … prevents Christian fellowship, no.
Divides us into two local congregations with different definitions of what the CHURCH is and what BAPTISM is … probably.

 

[Carbon]

Why was Jesus baptized? Was his birth and circumcision not enough to gain entry into the one covenant extant at that time?

I'm curious about his answer to this.

 

[Carbon]

I'm curious about his answer to this.

@atpollard Thought-provoking good question though.

 

[atpollard]

@atpollard Thought-provoking good question though.

Yeah, that was one of those moments in scripture that make you stop and say “Say what?” … Jesus is going to have to explain His answer to me, too because what John the Baptist said made sense to me. Of course, like John, whatever Jesus says must be the right answer … God does not REQUIRE my understanding, just my obedience.

 

[makesends]

The decree to create was certain before there ever was anything material.
The creation decree was accomplished in time, according to the nature and order of the time and matter of the decree.
The event of the decree did not occur until the time decreed for it to occur.

God's mind and purpose are outside time.

Not quite. . .

God neither ignores nor excludes the very reality which he created--time.

God's decrees are about destinies in time, which do not exclude journeys in time to those destinies.

Agreed all, and well said, if I understand you correctly. I am particularly pleased that you mention the very journeys to those destinies are themselves decreed, and I assume your logic implies, as does mine, that every detail, therefore, of those journeys is decreed.

 

[Red Baker]

Well, first of all. It seems to me you do not understand what a sacrament is. You should look it up.

Greetings Carbon~since the word sacrament is not mentioned in the scriptures, so we must allow the RCC to define their use of the word, and here it is:

"A sacrament is a religious ritual to impart God’s grace necessary for eternal life. An outward sign of inward grace instituted by Christ to work sanctification. Sacramentalism is conditional salvation depending on use of the sacraments."

The seven sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church are:

• Baptism: The sacrament of salvation, which symbolizes God's presence in the human soul.
  
  
• Confirmation: A sacrament that involves the anointing with chrism, the laying on of hands, and the words "Be sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit".
  
  
• Eucharist: A sacrament that involves receiving the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ in the form of bread and wine.
  
  
• Reconciliation: Also known as confession or penance, this sacrament involves confessing sins to a priest and receiving forgiveness.
  
  
• Anointing of the Sick: A sacrament that involves anointing the sick with blessed oil.
  
  
• Marriage: A sacrament that symbolizes the unity of a man and a woman.
  
  
• Holy Orders: A sacrament that is part of the service of communion and mission.

If you have a better definition or different one, than tell me, since the word is not in the bible. Moses, David and Paul used the word ordnances. See:

Leviticus 18:4; Psalms 119:91; Hebrews 9:1; 1st Corinthians 11:2; etc.

Brother, we should separate ourselves from the RCC as far as we can.

 

[Red Baker]

No, Red, you changed the meaning of the Greek word "eis" to give the sense of what you needed to fit your soteriology.

Jim, again, I gave the sense of Acts 2:38 based upon the context of Acts 2:37!

Jim, neither Jesus or any of his apostles ever try to give meaning/senses of scriptures by reverting back to the so-called originals, never once do we see practice by them in the gospels, or, Acts of the apostles. They went through many copies of the scriptures from Moses until Christ, and they trusted God to protect his word (and He did). The originals are long gone, 100 percentage of folks who have read our English bibles have never seen them and never will, and neither do we need them per Psalm 12, etc. God will not put his children at the mercy of men who think they have a more insight of the scriptures by knowing another language. Jim, we trust our English bible. Context is king, not the Greek language. Truth does not come by human intelligent, but by divine revelation. Enough on this.

 

[JIM]

Jim, again, I gave the sense of Acts 2:38 based upon the context of Acts 2:37!

Jim, neither Jesus or any of his apostles ever try to give meaning/senses of scriptures by reverting back to the so-called originals, never once do we see practice by them in the gospels, or, Acts of the apostles. They went through many copies of the scriptures from Moses until Christ, and they trusted God to protect his word (and He did). The originals are long gone, 100 percentage of folks who have read our English bibles have never seen them and never will, and neither do we need them per Psalm 12, etc. God will not put his children at the mercy of men who think they have a more insight of the scriptures by knowing another language. Jim, we trust our English bible. Context is king, not the Greek language. Truth does not come by human intelligent, but by divine revelation. Enough on this.

Red, my dear friend in Christ, you lose so much by your refusal to use and consider all the information and data available to you.

You so often use Nehemiah 8:8 to support your practice of changing the meaning of words and passages in scripture from that actually written. That passage in Nehemiah is almost universally understood to be saying the very thing that you object to. The people had been in captivity for so long that many probably were not fluent in the Hebrew language of the scriptures, with some probably totally lacking in a working knowledge of Hebrew. What the Levites, who likely maintained a knowledge of the old Hebrew language, were doing was explaining to the listeners, many who knew only the Chaldean language, what was the meaning of the Hebrew. They were doing exactly what you claim was not ever done. They were giving meaning/senses in the Chaldean language of the scriptures by reverting back to the original Hebrew language.

 

[Alive]

Red, my dear friend in Christ, you lose so much by your refusal to use and consider all the information and data available to you.

You so often use Nehemiah 8:8 to support your practice of changing the meaning of words and passages in scripture from that actually written. That passage in Nehemiah is almost universally understood to be saying the very thing that you object to. The people had been in captivity for so long that many probably were not fluent in the Hebrew language of the scriptures, with some probably totally lacking in a working knowledge of Hebrew. What the Levites, who likely maintained a knowledge of the old Hebrew language, were doing was explaining to the listeners, many who knew only the Chaldean language, what was the meaning of the Hebrew. They were doing exactly what you claim was not ever done. They were giving meaning/senses in the Chaldean language of the scriptures by reverting back to the original Hebrew language.

That may be the case, but it may also have been just as an expository preacher might do on a Sunday morning.