Christian Baptism, does it include infants?

[Carbon]

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

Credo’s do not like answering that question.

 

[Simons]

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

It doesn't (expressly)... Also, it doesn't expressly say that any of these households even possessed any infants (but I believe that the presence of infants, older children and slaves would be a fair and proper assumption).

I would note that for the Abrahamic covenant, the ritual for infants is expressly stated....and I think that it is fair to conclude that for the New Covenant the ritual for infants is implicitly denied because of the emphasis on belief. An interesting fact is that "we cannot give the name of anyone before the fourth century not in an emergency situation who was baptized as an infant"... see E Ferguson, BAPTISM IN THE EARLY CHURCH p. 379 quoting Wright. So it seems that in the very early church infant baptism wasn't the norm, but also wasn't prohibited (and so it was done for infants who were about to die)

 

[Simons]

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?

Luke 16? Is the KJV too liberal for you? It reads: 34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

 

[Simons]

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.

You seem to take pleasure in "credo" questions (whatever that may be)....so here is a question of that sort for you:

where in your preferred version does it say infants were included in the term "households" when it says households were baptized?

 

[Carbon]

Luke 16? Is the KJV too liberal for you? It reads: 34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

Well it actually says the same thing as the NASB. Are you saying you’re a liberal? I didn’t say you were one.

 

[Carbon]

Well it actually says the same thing as the NASB. Are you saying you’re a liberal? I didn’t say you were one.

Or do you just assume I did as you do the passage about no infants?

 

[Carbon]

You seem to take pleasure in "credo" questions (whatever that may be)....so here is a question of that sort for you:

where in your preferred version does it say infants were included in the term "households" when it says households were baptized?

There couldn’t possibly be infants in any households during the first couple centuries. Good grief, who would have an infant?

 

[Simons]

Well it actually says the same thing as the NASB. Are you saying you’re a liberal? I didn’t say you were one.

understood...you said some versions were liberal....and that is why I asked about a version being too liberal. Are you tired or distracted at the moment....is this topic a bit "too touchy" for you? I ask as your latest posts on this thread aren't on par with your earlier ones

 

[Carbon]

understood...you said some versions were liberal....and that is why I asked about a version being too liberal. Are you tired or distracted at the moment....is this topic a bit "too touchy" for you? I ask as your latest posts on this thread aren't on par with your earlier ones

Yes I am sorta tired. So if anything I said was rude to you I am sorry. But I’m good, thanks.

I believe there is much in scripture both in the OT and the NT for support of infant baptism. I’ll have more time to post this in the next day or do.

There is nothing against it.

 

[Simons]

I believe there is much in scripture both in the OT and the NT for support of infant baptism. I’ll have more time to post this in the next day or do.

I will look forward to seeing what you have to say

 

[atpollard]

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.

For someone that started a topic seeking a debate or conversation, that remark is rather disingenuous and your responses to opposing points have been little more than “taint so” plus not so thinly veiled insults.

This is an unprofitable conversation, so I am bowing out. Let me know if you are ever SERIOUS about discussing the topic.

(One who can produce NOTHING in scripture that indicates a baby was baptized or that the NEW WINE was shoved into the OLD WINESKINS should exercise more care when throwing around accusation of “empty barrels”.)

 

[Carbon]

I will look forward to seeing what you have to say

And you as well.

 

[Carbon]

Infants of believing parents, objects of God's grace, are eligible to be baptized as visible evidence that they are members of the household of faith. In anyone or of all the households of believers that were baptized as recorded in the New Testament, if there were infants, I believe it is clear that they were baptized also. I wouldn't attempt to prove infant baptism on the presumption of there being babies in these households, but I do believe that the presumption is a very strong one. And anyone who views this probability without prejudice will admit that it adds considerable weight to the argument for infant baptism. Especially knowing scripture's treatment of unbiblical doctrines, it would have been mentioned if they were to be excluded from baptism, had it been so. I believe if that were the case, the Holy Spirit would have made it quite clear.

 

[Carbon]

For someone that started a topic seeking a debate or conversation, that remark is rather disingenuous and your responses to opposing points have been little more than “taint so” plus not so thinly veiled insults.

You may be right. Sorry. No offense intended, I have been in debates about this with Baptists. And usually, pretty quickly it got nasty. Most Baptists I have debated with, this is a no, no. I will not even say the things I was called and what was said.

So, I guess I was rude, but to what degree - unknowingly, when thinking about if I was being rude or insulting, I measured it in light of how the people I debated with acted, and to be honest, there was no comparison. But, I still should have known better. So, I owe you an apology. You are not anyone I debated with in the past on this.

This is an unprofitable conversation, so I am bowing out. Let me know if you are ever SERIOUS about discussing the topic.

I am serious, and I will do my best to not be a jerk. It's one of those things I do that I dont want to do.

(One who can produce NOTHING in scripture that indicates a baby was baptized or that the NEW WINE was shoved into the OLD WINESKINS should exercise more care when throwing around accusation of “empty barrels”.)

 

[Carbon]

@atpollard @Simons
I may be back tomorrow or the following day, Lord willing. Been pretty busy.

 

[Simons]

I wouldn't attempt to prove infant baptism on the presumption of there being babies in these households, but I do believe that the presumption is a very strong one.

it seems that your are missing my point. I have already said that the presence of infants, older children and slaves within the households would be a fair and proper assumption….even though their presence is never expressly claimed.

The problem (that I see for your position) is that scripture doesn’t simply say: everyone in the household was baptized. Instead, scripture says: everyone in the household believed and was baptized. Infants IMHO are incapable of belief. So, although infants most likely existed within those households, if infants aren’t being included among the believers of the household, then why presume that they are included among the baptizands of the household. “Household” is a term that can be used to include (and not include) different individuals when used in different contexts.

And anyone who views this probability without prejudice will admit that it adds considerable weight to the argument for infant baptism.

I respectfully disagree for the reason stated above…

Especially knowing scripture's treatment of unbiblical doctrines, it would have been mentioned if they were to be excluded from baptism, had it been so.

well if the common practice (say for John the Baptist’s baptism) was for it to be an adult baptism, then it would have been simply understood that it was an adult’s baptism that was being commanded (and there wouldn’t have really been a need for an express exclusion). John’s was a baptism of repentance….could infants repent? I am not familiar with the other baptisms within Judaism (that preceded Christian baptism) but they would be worth considering in assessing whether baptism at that time was essentially an adult/non-infant thing

 

[Reformedguy]

It doesn't (expressly)... Also, it doesn't expressly say that any of these households even possessed any infants (but I believe that the presence of infants, older children and slaves would be a fair and proper assumption).

I would note that for the Abrahamic covenant, the ritual for infants is expressly stated....and I think that it is fair to conclude that for the New Covenant the ritual for infants is implicitly denied because of the emphasis on belief. An interesting fact is that "we cannot give the name of anyone before the fourth century not in an emergency situation who was baptized as an infant"... see E Ferguson, BAPTISM IN THE EARLY CHURCH p. 379 quoting Wright. So it seems that in the very early church infant baptism wasn't the norm, but also wasn't prohibited (and so it was done for infants who were about to die)

Implicitly denied? That's subjective. I would also note, nowhere does scripture say the covenant sign is no longer to be applied to our infant children.

 

[Mr GLee]

Implicitly denied? That's subjective. I would also note, nowhere does scripture say the covenant sign is no longer to be applied to our infant children.

The sign as a ceremonial law that represents a person has volunteered to become a baptized member of the kingdom of Priest was not applied to babies. That was a Roman Catholic self righteous tradition.it did nothing to the user .The sign was to the unbelieving world.

Getting wet changes nothing

 

[Reformedguy]

The sign as a ceremonial law that represents a person has volunteered to become a baptized member of the kingdom of Priest was not applied to babies. That was a Roman Catholic self righteous tradition.it did nothing to the user .The sign was to the unbelieving world.

Getting wet changes nothing

Would you say the same for circumcision?

Did a 8 day old male volunteered to take the sign of the community of God and therefore become a member?

 

[atpollard]

I am serious, and I will do my best to not be a jerk. It's one of those things I do that I dont want to do.

Apology accepted ... forgiven and forgotten (as Christian brothers should).
[... and I offer my apology in return if I became inappropriately defensive.]