Christian Baptism, does it include infants?

[Carbon]

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.)

Okay, now I really must hit the hay. TTYL brother. good night.

 

[CrowCross]

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


Go ahead, Ill wait.

That would be like asking me to show they didn't baptize dogs.

The question for you was....can you show me an instance of where babies were baptized?

Personally I don't care if you baptize babies....as long as there's no RC like meaning to it.

 

[atpollard]

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.

Do the babies you baptize "believe in Him"?

[Since you noted that Acts 2 did not explicitly FORBID infant baptism, it seems only fair that I should point out that Jesus did not BAPTIZE these children!]

 

[atpollard]

I'm happy to hear that.

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

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?

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

Since my response was SO COMPLETELY misunderstood, let me attempt another response from a different and less subtle angle.

Here is the comment I am responding to:

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).

POINT 1:
This is an appeal to authority fallacy. What Calvin believed is no more "irrefutable truth" or "incapable of error" than the opinions of any other person. So I will listen to them and evaluate them against SCRIPTURE ... the only true "norma normans, non normata".

POINT 2:
The word "infant" or "baby" does not appear in your quote from Jon Calvin. The quote merely advocates the continuity of A COVENANT with A SIGN and that the sign of the NEW Covenant (which is a reality) should be CLEARER than the sign in the OLD Covenant (which was a shadow). Therefore, I repeat my question ... WHAT makes you think the baby is in the New Covenant relationship (born from above) with Christ that they should receive the sign of the NEW SPIRITUAL BIRTH into the NEW Covenant?

(It is a simple matter to know that a baby was born into the Old Covenant of the FLESH by birth, but one is BORN from ABOVE into the New Covenant ... a much harder thing to know.)

 

[Rella]

Since my response was SO COMPLETELY misunderstood, let me attempt another response from a different and less subtle angle.

Here is the comment I am responding to:


POINT 1:
This is an appeal to authority fallacy. What Calvin believed is no more "irrefutable truth" or "incapable of error" than the opinions of any other person. So I will listen to them and evaluate them against SCRIPTURE ... the only true "norma normans, non normata".

POINT 2:
The word "infant" or "baby" does not appear in your quote from Jon Calvin. The quote merely advocates the continuity of A COVENANT with A SIGN and that the sign of the NEW Covenant (which is a reality) should be CLEARER than the sign in the OLD Covenant (which was a shadow). Therefore, I repeat my question ... WHAT makes you think the baby is in the New Covenant relationship (born from above) with Christ that they should receive the sign of the NEW SPIRITUAL BIRTH into the NEW Covenant?

Here is a short summary statement of John Calvin’s argument for applying the sign of baptism to the children of Believers:

John Calvin (1509-1564)

“Reason would tell us that baptism is rightly administered to babies. The Lord did not give circumcision long ago without making them (infants) partakers of everything represented by circumcision. He would have been deceiving his people with a sham, if he had reassured them with false signs. The idea is very shocking. He distinctly states that the circumcision of the infant is the seal of covenant promise. If the covenant remains firm and unmoved, this is just as relevant to the children of Christians today as it was to the children of the Jews under the Old Testament…The truth of baptism applies to infants, so why do we deny them the sign? The Lord himself formally admitted infants to his covenant, so what more do we need?”
John Calvin, Institutes of the christian religion, 4:16:5 (Beveridge Edition)

(It is a simple matter to know that a baby was born into the Old Covenant of the FLESH by birth, but one is BORN from ABOVE into the New Covenant ... a much harder thing to know.)

 

[Mr GLee]

Here is a short summary statement of John Calvin’s argument for applying the sign of baptism to the children of Believers:

John Calvin (1509-1564)

Jesus because he was the Son of man. Born of woman (dying flesh and blood). He is not eternal God, Jesu the Son of man never said the exact words, “I am God.” in respect to his own self He did, however, make the claim to being a outward representative a ambassadors /apostle that prophecies declaring the living words of the invisible head "Christ the husband" Declaring the Holy Father's will I Am before Abraham or The words given to the Son of man by the father.

In Mathew 4 three times to denote the end of the matter he prophesied words from the father as it is written again and again struck the devil out . never saw the faith ball coming

Water baptism was introduced in the old treatment as a ceremonial law (shadow) just like today it is not a sign "I got wet" it proves a person has salvation . a ceremonial law. . . It not a sign pointing to those who perform it but is a sign to the unbelieving world .

Aaron two sons added I did, it it proves it adding to the word of God they we consumed by strange fire (I did it, it prove it) false pride .

if a person needs to feel they have new born agin life reading your bible can be a sign unto ones own self . A evil generation "natural unconverted mankind" seeks after a signs None were given to wonder after .

 

[Eleanor]

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.

Keeping in mind girls were reckoned according to their fathers.

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,

Does Heb 8:8-9, 13 see it that way?

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?

It appears that there is a setting apart of those joined naturally to a believer--children and spouses, for the sake of the believer.

I wonder if it comes from the OC Levitical notions of defilement by Gentiles (non-believers).
The non-believing husband and the non-believing infant do not defile the believing wife (1 Co 7:14).

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.

 

[Red Baker]

I'm reading~believe it or not, I have never debated this subject, and not sure why.

I remember back in 1972 I had a friend that was a Catholic, and asked me to go with him to have his five month old son baptized, and I said yes, I'll go.

We were there standing before the priest who looked at me and asked if I was a Catholic, I said to him, I'm nothing, (meaning a lost sinner, not affiliated with any particular sect, actually did not even go to church) he then said to me you cannot be here and witness this, I said no problem I'll leave, but my friend who was just as unbeliever as me, if not more so wicked, said, I want him here, and the priest then said okay.

That's the only encounter I have have had with a infant being baptized. I came to the Lord around two years later at 26 years old. My friend and I went separate ways after I repented of my lifestyle and begin to live for God.

I love and highly respect Calvin, Luther, Jonathan Edwards, and others who taught infant baptism, But I do not see it taught in the scriptures.

Let me keep reading and I may add some of my thoughts when time permits.

 

[Eleanor]

Do the babies you baptize "believe in Him"?

[Since you noted that Acts 2 did not explicitly FORBID infant baptism, it seems only fair that I should point out that Jesus did not BAPTIZE these children!]

Ac 16:34?

 

[Carbon]

That would be like asking me to show they didn't baptize dogs.

The question for you was....can you show me an instance of where babies were baptized?

Personally I don't care if you baptize babies....as long as there's no RC like meaning to it.

There are two sides to a debate. If it's debatable. So, show yours, show me where there are warnings against infant baptism, or just admit there is none.

 

[Carbon]

Do the babies you baptize "believe in Him"?

And that question has to do with?

Besides, how would I know?

[Since you noted that Acts 2 did not explicitly FORBID infant baptism, it seems only fair that I should point out that Jesus did not BAPTIZE these children!]

It seems only fair that you should know, Jesus baptized no one.

 

[Eleanor]

And that question has to do with?

Besides, how would I know?

Were babies baptized in Ac 16:34?

 

[Carbon]

Since my response was SO COMPLETELY misunderstood, let me attempt another response from a different and less subtle angle.

Here is the comment I am responding to:


POINT 1:
This is an appeal to authority fallacy. What Calvin believed is no more "irrefutable truth" or "incapable of error" than the opinions of any other person. So I will listen to them and evaluate them against SCRIPTURE ... the only true "norma normans, non normata".

POINT 2:
The word "infant" or "baby" does not appear in your quote from Jon Calvin. The quote merely advocates the continuity of A COVENANT with A SIGN and that the sign of the NEW Covenant (which is a reality) should be CLEARER than the sign in the OLD Covenant (which was a shadow). Therefore, I repeat my question ... WHAT makes you think the baby is in the New Covenant relationship (born from above) with Christ that they should receive the sign of the NEW SPIRITUAL BIRTH into the NEW Covenant?

(It is a simple matter to know that a baby was born into the Old Covenant of the FLESH by birth, but one is BORN from ABOVE into the New Covenant ... a much harder thing to know.)

Calvin does not need to mention infants, it's not about infants. It was only because of infants that people protested against it who didn't quite get it. Just like your passage, you suggested was about baptism, but it wasn't about baptism as I mentioned, it was about salvation. I really do understand that many Baptists are reaching into an empty barrel trying to find some substance to prove their believer's baptism doctrine, but there is nothing there.

 

[Carbon]

Were babies baptized in Ac 16:34?

This may be shocking but, I wasn't there to see. However, if he had children and an infant, it sure sounds like they were baptized. Also, if it was so serious as the baptists make it and was wrong, I think that would have been warned against and noted.

But I do know one thing for sure, "what must I do to be saved" - "believe." Not be baptized. So being baptized never saved anyone, no infant, no adult.

 

[Carbon]

I realize there is no specific New Testament command to baptize infants of believing parents, but all the information available indicates that infants were included in the baptisms whenever heads of families were born again. Which is exactly what we would expect if the doctrine that was pointed out is true and all believers do participate in the benefits and blessings of the covenant of Abraham.

 

[Carbon]

Look at Noah, "The Lord said unto Noah, come thou all thy house into the ark." Peter tells us by inspiration and of the Spirit, that the ark was a picture or "figure" of baptism.

20 who once were disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 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, 1 Peter 3:20-21

Take your time and study that passage.

 

[Simons]

Were babies baptized in Ac 16:34?

Hello Eleanor, you mentioned Acts 16:34 but you had other passages that you could have referenced. On 5 occasions in the NT “household” is mentioned in relation to “baptism.” By Paul once and by Luke 4 times.

First Paul’s:

1 Cor 1: 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.)​

Later in that epistle Paul mentions the household of Stephanas again:

1 Cor 16: 15 You know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the Lord’s people. I urge you, brothers and sisters, 16 to submit to such people and to everyone who joins in the work and labors at it.​

As such (in the 16 Chapter) for Paul “household” = a body of persons who can a) convert, and b) devote themselves to service. Newborns can’t do either and as such, Paul’s use of “household” in 1 Cor 16:15 would not include newborns…and if Paul was consistent, then his use of “household” in 1 Cor 1:16 would also not include newborns.

Now Luke’s:

Crispus’ Household (Acts 18:8):

Then Paul left the synagogue and went next door to the house of Titius Justus, a worshiper of God. 8 Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized.​

Since newborns can’t believe, either Crispus’s “household” did not include any newborn(s) or Luke was expecting that his readers would employ common sense and understand that for him, in that context, “household” only included those capable of belief.

Philippian Jailer’s Household (Acts 16:31-34) :

They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household.​

For Luke here “household” = a body of persons who could believe. Newborns are incapable of forming belief and as such, Luke’s use of “household” in Acts 16: 31-34 would not include newborns.

Lydia’s Household (Acts 16:15)

Acts 16: 14-15 One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us.​

As pointed out above, Luke’s use of “household” later in this chapter meant a body of persons who were capable of belief. As such, why would we assume that earlier in chapter 16, Luke used household in a different fashion?

Cornelius’ household (Acts 10/11)

Acts 11:He told us how he had seen an angel appear in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.’ 15 “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”​

Acts 10: 44-47 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.

Then Peter said, “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”​

I have reversed the order of the passages b/c chapter 11 is a report on how Peter was called to Cornelius’ house and chapter 10 records what happened after he got there and preached. The passage doesn’t say that a household was baptized, but rather that all the household would be saved. The progression is: heard the message => received the Holy Spirit => were baptized. Hearing the message is not something that newborns are capable of doing.

In conclusion then, the “household” passages DO repeatedly connect baptism with a concurrent belief and DO NOT indicate that infant baptism was conducted during the NT era.

 

[Reformedguy]

Hello Eleanor, you mentioned Acts 16:34 but you had other passages that you could have referenced. On 5 occasions in the NT “household” is mentioned in relation to “baptism.” By Paul once and by Luke 4 times.

First Paul’s:

1 Cor 1: 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.)​

Later in that epistle Paul mentions the household of Stephanas again:

1 Cor 16: 15 You know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the Lord’s people. I urge you, brothers and sisters, 16 to submit to such people and to everyone who joins in the work and labors at it.​

As such (in the 16 Chapter) for Paul “household” = a body of persons who can a) convert, and b) devote themselves to service. Newborns can’t do either and as such, Paul’s use of “household” in 1 Cor 16:15 would not include newborns…and if Paul was consistent, then his use of “household” in 1 Cor 1:16 would also not include newborns.

Now Luke’s:

Crispus’ Household (Acts 18:8):

Then Paul left the synagogue and went next door to the house of Titius Justus, a worshiper of God. 8 Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized.​

Since newborns can’t believe, either Crispus’s “household” did not include any newborn(s) or Luke was expecting that his readers would employ common sense and understand that for him, in that context, “household” only included those capable of belief.

Philippian Jailer’s Household (Acts 16:31-34) :

They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household.​

For Luke here “household” = a body of persons who could believe. Newborns are incapable of forming belief and as such, Luke’s use of “household” in Acts 16: 31-34 would not include newborns.

Lydia’s Household (Acts 16:15)

Acts 16: 14-15 One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us.​

As pointed out above, Luke’s use of “household” later in this chapter meant a body of persons who were capable of belief. As such, why would we assume that earlier in chapter 16, Luke used household in a different fashion?

Cornelius’ household (Acts 10/11)

Acts 11:He told us how he had seen an angel appear in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.’ 15 “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”​

Acts 10: 44-47 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.​

​

Then Peter said, “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”​

I have reversed the order of the passages b/c chapter 11 is a report on how Peter was called to Cornelius’ house and chapter 10 records what happened after he got there and preached. The passage doesn’t say that a household was baptized, but rather that all the household would be saved. The progression is: heard the message => received the Holy Spirit => were baptized. Hearing the message is not something that newborns are capable of doing.

In conclusion then, the “household” passages DO repeatedly connect baptism with a concurrent belief and DO NOT indicate that infant baptism was conducted during the NT era.

Let me ask you credo type question. Where does it say infants were excluded in the term "households"?

 

[Carbon]

Let me ask you credo type question. Where does it say infants were excluded in the term "households"?

Amen to that!

 

[Carbon]

Let me ask you credo type question. Where does it say infants were excluded in the term "households"?

Some have a way of messing with scripture of finding certain (sometimes liberal) versions which best suits them.

Consider this for now. Luke 16.
Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.

He rejoiced with his entire family that who believed in God.
Just him it seems.

Those who disagree are quite desperate

Look at his version. Notice the difference?