Is infant baptism from the Bible?

[hobie]

Some may say, what is wrong with baptizing an infant? Well we need to go to the word of God and to the requirements for baptism.

Baptism is for those that hear the Gospel message, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and repent of their sins. This must be done before a person can be baptized.

"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." Acts 2:38.

"Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." Acts 20:21.

Why do we need to repent to God?

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:23.

Only those that receive the Word of God and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ are fit for baptism.

"Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." Acts 2:41

"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16:15, 16.

"But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." Acts 8:12.

"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?
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." Acts 8:36, 37.

The question must now be asked, ‘Can an infant understand the Gospel, accept the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour, and repent of their sins?’ Of course they cannot, so therefore according to the Bible they cannot be baptized and any church that condones infant baptism is not following the Word of God.

 

[Albion]

The New Testament refers to "whole households" being baptized on the profession of the head of the household, so that's Biblical evidence that age is not a prerequisite for baptism (nor is there any such requirement to be found anywhere in Scripture).

You're not planning on second-guessing all the basic beliefs and practices of orthodox Christianity, one after another, are you? They have all been discussed ad nauseum around here already, so I hope not.

 

[MennoSota]

The New Testament refers to "whole households" being baptized
on the profession of the head of the household,
so that's Biblical evidence that age is not a prerequisite for baptism (nor is there any such requirement to be found anywhere in Scripture).

You are projecting into the text, which is eisegesis. Neither verse in Acts 16 says that Paul and Silas baptized every person in the household based upon Lydia's confession or the jailer's confession. It just says that they were baptized...and their household.
It would be a wonderful relief if we all would exegete Bible passages and accept what they actually say.
I'm done with attempting to persuade people here to treat the scriptures with sacred awe. If y'all want to use eisegesis and project dogma into verses, that's on you. I won't partake in it.

 

[Andrew]

Some may say, what is wrong with baptizing an infant? Well we need to go to the word of God and to the requirements for baptism.

Baptism is for those that hear the Gospel message, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and repent of their sins. This must be done before a person can be baptized.

"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." Acts 2:38.

"Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." Acts 20:21.

Why do we need to repent to God?

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:23.

Only those that receive the Word of God and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ are fit for baptism.

"Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." Acts 2:41

"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16:15, 16.

"But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." Acts 8:12.

"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?
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." Acts 8:36, 37.

The question must now be asked, ‘Can an infant understand the Gospel, accept the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour, and repent of their sins?’ Of course they cannot, so therefore according to the Bible they cannot be baptized and any church that condones infant baptism is not following the Word of God.

The promise is also to their generation (children) and the covenant is blessed upon them that follow in their footsteps, this also means that when they having been raised to maturity (without ignorance) must repent and be baptised (buried in Christ) likewise to cover their own children and so forth, or else what good is the promise in the first place?
The Bible clearly says over and over again that a wicked generation has already fallen away and shall not hear Him, have you noticed that the wicked will mock and spit at the bible? Will their parents be to blame having been baptised in Christ? No.
Wicked is as wicked does no matter how saintly their parents are and no matter how hard they pray.

 

[atpollard]

The promise is also to their generation (children) ...

From scripture, what EXACTLY do you see as “the promise”?

 

[Albion]

You are projecting into the text, which is eisegesis.

Not really. Not in this case. When Catholics insist, for example, that the words of the Angel Gabriel at the Annunciation ("Hail, Mary, full of grace....") prove the Immaculate Conception, they might be accused of doing that. Most Bible translations render the greeting as "...have found favor with God," so the passage itself is in doubt as well as the meaning.

But in the case of baptisms, that isn't the case. To presume that households in that time and place would not have had any children is very weak. It's not credible. Could it be a "whole household" meaning four or five adults and servants but no children? That's the claim I have heard from Baptists. Nor did people in those days think of each member of the family choosing such things for themselves. That isn't the case in the Middle East even today.

And also, the opponents of baptizing children say that those other instances in Scripture in which someone makes a confession of faith before being baptized prove that only adults can be baptized; but they have turned a particular conversation into a general rule.

Obviously, those passages are speaking of one person who actually converted and was baptized; and the person was approached by the baptizer because even today, we turn to strangers who are adults and do not instead try to evangelize by going to schoolyards intent upon striking up a conversation about the Gospel with kindergarteners. Well duh! The early Christians pegged their appeals to adults! Even now, when the JWs or SDAs come to the door and you answer, they don't ask you if there are any children in the place because it's them that they really need to talk to. Right?

 

[Josiah]

Some may say, what is wrong with baptizing an infant? Well we need to go to the word of God and to the requirements for baptism.

Baptism is for those that hear the Gospel message, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and repent of their sins. This must be done before a person can be baptized.

"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." Acts 2:38.

"Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." Acts 20:21.

Why do we need to repent to God?

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:23.

Only those that receive the Word of God and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ are fit for baptism.

"Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." Acts 2:41

"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16:15, 16.

"But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." Acts 8:12.

"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?
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." Acts 8:36, 37.

The question must now be asked, ‘Can an infant understand the Gospel, accept the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour, and repent of their sins?’ Of course they cannot, so therefore according to the Bible they cannot be baptized and any church that condones infant baptism is not following the Word of God.

None of the verses you quote remotely state, "Thou canst not baptize any until they hath attainedth their Xth birthday." The prohibition you promote is entirely missing in the Bible (as you prove) and from the first 1500 years of Christianity.


See https://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?6945-Lutheran-Perspective-on-Baptism

 

[Josiah]

The Anabaptist Traditions they invented in the 16th Century... but they were honest enough to admit none of this is actually taught in Scripture or existed in history.


The Anabaptists were radical synergists; they held that God does not bless (or well anything) unless and until the receiver FIRST does certain things and then cooperates with God. So to them, the idea that God would do ANYTHING vis-a-vis Baptism when the reciepient is sleeping and did NOTHING was repulsive to them and had to be rejected. God does nothing vis-a-vis people that is not synergistic, they insisted. So they created "hoops" the recipient must DO so that God can do something.


Age Mandate (Anti-Paedobaptism)

The tradition: This is the Anabaptist dogma/tradition that we are forbidden to baptize any under a certain (not disclosed) AGE is attained. The Anabaptists characterized the historic view as “Paedo Baptism” (“Paedo’ is a very generic and general term for an age range; it can be any below 20 but more typically before puberty); and they dogmatically repudiated it; they objected to CHILDREN being baptized, those "too YOUNG" (although never stated what ages are "too young"). They insisted that one must do things … and they must be “old enough” to do these, thus an minimum AGE exists which must be achieved before their supposed "prohibition of Baptism" is removed. “A baby… infant… child…. Young person… is “too young” to do x,y,z.” The point is always “is one old enough.” Age is the issue.

Reaction: Nowhere in Scripture is there any mandate or prohibition or prerequisite stated regarding age vis-à-vis baptism. Nowhere in Scripture was anyone denied baptism because of their age. It should be noted too that infant baptism likely dates to 69 AD and appears to have been universal and unchallenged for 1500 years; no one noticed anything in Scripture that forbids those under the not disclosed minimum age. Few Baptists today teach this.


Repentance mandate (Repentance Baptism).

The tradition. This is the dogma/tradition that we are forbidden to baptize any until they have adequately repented of their sins. Aspects of what exactly is repentance and what is “adequate” are generally unstated.

Reaction: Nowhere in Scripture is there any such mandate vis-à-vis Baptism. Nowhere in Scripture is it shown that anyone was ever denied baptism because they had not “adequately repented.” No such case is known prior to the 16th Century. It does seem that repentance and Baptism are connected (as are several things) but never is chronology stated (never is even a word for “then” appear in any Baptism text). The connection is not challenged, the chronological mandate is the new invention. The definitive word is "and" and not once "then." "Kai" connects.


Profession Mandate (Credobaptism).

The tradition. This is the dogma/tradition that we are forbidden to baptize any unless they have adequately shown that they are among the Elect and/or have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. This is generally the most embraced of these Anabaptist/Baptist Traditions.

Reaction: Nowhere in Scripture is there any such mandate vis-à-vis Baptism. Nowhere in Scripture is it known that anyone was ever denied baptism specifically because they had not first adequately proven their election and/or choice of Jesus. We can see examples where it seems they were first believers, but not every case can that be shown and never is it stated such is required. This prerequisite never existed for 1500 years.


Immerson – Only Baptism

The tradition. This is the dogma/tradition that every part of the recipients body must be under and fully covered by water or it is an invalid Baptism. Along with Credobaptism, this is very stressed (in spite of this actually doing nothing, yet the MODE is absolutely critical).

Reaction. While the Baptism of Jesus was probably by immersion (as were most of the Jewish baptisms) and there is some evidence this was the preferred mode in the early centuries of Christianity, nowhere does Scripture state this is a requirement. There is no evidence that a baptism was declared invalid because some part of the person’s body didn’t get wet. We have statements from the second century specifically indicating that pouring is permitted. Lutherans simply regard the mode as non-dogmatic, a matter of adiaphoron. We do not object to immersion, only to a dogmatic mandate of immersion ONLY (all other modes and quantities of water are forbidden and invalidates it).


The Premise….

The underlying theology is that God does not bless (or do anything) unless the recipient first does his part. So the whole idea that God would do (well, anything) to a baby perhaps sleeping through the whole things was repulsive to the Anabaptists. Their theology required that the recipient first DO or achieve something and "cooperate." But the above four traditions are defended more often by another common Anabaptist belief: That we are mandated to DO exactly as we see modeled in the Bible and are forbidden to do otherwise. This, we not only get "How can one below this age DO x,y,z?" But we also get, "Where in the Bible do we see examples of x,y,z being done? The apologetic rests on both of these.

Lutherans reject both premises. Since Lutherans are monergists (coming at all this in the exact OPPOSITE direction as the radically synergistic Anabaptists), the cooperation of the recipient is not our focus (see post #1), thus the first synergistic premise is rejected by Lutherans. Also, as explained above, while Lutherans do not ignore examples, they are not binding to us (or I could not be posting on the internet, lol). We note that there are no clear examples of anyone being denied baptism because of their age, etc. But for Lutherans, examples reinforce what the Bible teaches, not replace it. I'd note too that actually, no Baptist does Baptism the way it is modeled in the NT
.... if they did, they would disallow Gentile administers, disallow plastic tanks behind a curtain, etc. And they would not give Communion by passing around little cut up pieces of white bread and little plastic cups of grape juice to women and kids - NONE of that even once modeled in the NT The premise is simply invalid. I could note that every post at CH is in English (I could prove that; no one can prove every baptism was of one over the age of X), but does it logically follow that THEREFORE, it is dogmatically forbidden to post on the internet in any language other than English, that the use of English is mandated? Obviously not. The premise is unbiblical and illogical. Examples can reinforce a teaching, they are not substitutes for teaching. See post #4 above.




A presentation of the historic perspective on Baptism can be found here: https://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?6945-Lutheran-Perspective-on-Baptism



Thank you.


- Josiah





.

 

[MennoSota]

Not really. Not in this case. When Catholics insist, for example, that the words of the Angel Gabriel at the Annunciation ("Hail, Mary, full of grace....") prove the Immaculate Conception, they might be accused of doing that. Most Bible translations render the greeting as "...have found favor with God," so the passage itself is in doubt as well as the meaning.

But in the case of baptisms, that isn't the case. To presume that households in that time and place would not have had any children is very weak. It's not credible. Could it be a "whole household" meaning four or five adults and servants but no children? That's the claim I have heard from Baptists. Nor did people in those days think of each member of the family choosing such things for themselves. That isn't the case in the Middle East even today.

And also, the opponents of baptizing children say that those other instances in Scripture in which someone makes a confession of faith before being baptized prove that only adults can be baptized; but they have turned a particular conversation into a general rule.

Obviously, those passages are speaking of one person who actually converted and was baptized; and the person was approached by the baptizer because even today, we turn to strangers who are adults and do not instead try to evangelize by going to schoolyards intent upon striking up a conversation about the Gospel with kindergarteners. Well duh! The early Christians pegged their appeals to adults! Even now, when the JWs or SDAs come to the door and you answer, they don't ask you if there are any children in the place because it's them that they really need to talk to. Right?

Your argument is projection. It is not what the text actually says. You are trying to win an argument of opinion without factual support from the text itself.

 

[Albion]

Your argument is projection. It is not what the text actually says.

Well, I referred to the verse but did not quote it, and you have offered no other interpretation of its meaning anyway, so I view your your comment here as just the obligatory harrumpfing that I would expect from someone forced to defend a losing proposition.

 

[MennoSota]

Well, I referred to the verse but did not quote it, and you have offered no other interpretation of its meaning anyway, so I view your your comment here as just the obligatory harrumpfing that I would expect from someone forced to defend a losing proposition.

You know what they say about opinions...
We have gone over the actual verses and passages ad nauseum. There is nothing a person could do to stop you from projecting your traditional dogma onto the text.

Our difference is that I let the text be what it is and I don't force something into it. I prefer to err on the conservative side and you prefer to err on the progressive side.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/oikos.html

Acts 16:14-15 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.
Acts 16:30-34 Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. 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.

 

[Josiah]

Your argument is projection. It is not what the text actually says.

Again, I must agree with you, [MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]. And note that, for reasons I cannot begin to understand, you are very consistent in dogmatically stating, "The Bible says..." and then going to great lengths to PROVE it does not; all you are doing is projecting your argument into the text in a radical form eisegesis. Jesus' log/speck thing constantly comes to mind as I read you rebuking others for what you yourself do SO constantly and SO much more often and so more radically.


I think if there permitted some basic honestly, then the point would be that Scripture says NOTHING about age in terms of who is or is not permitted to be baptized. It cannot be said, "The Bible says we are to baptize those under the age of one." Nor "The Bible says we are not permitted to baptize those under the age of one." Truth: The Bible says neither. MennoSota, it is pure hypocrisy to condemn one for saying what you can prove the Bible does not say and then insist the Bible says what you yourself PROVE it does not. We can't have a discussion without some basic honesty.... and without a "level playing field " - one set of rules for you, the opposite for everyone else; one rubric that applies to you alone and then condemned and ridiculed when others do EXACTLY as you do. But then this has been pointed to you by MANY here since you came here two years ago.

But in the case of baptisms, that isn't the case. To presume that households in that time and place would not have had any children is very weak. It's not credible. Could it be a "whole household" meaning four or five adults and servants but no children? That's the claim I have heard from Baptists. Nor did people in those days think of each member of the family choosing such things for themselves. That isn't the case in the Middle East even today.

I agree.... BUT


To argue, as defenders of this Anabaptist Baptism Tradition insists, "ALL baptisms in the Bible were of those over the age of X who had proven they were among the Elect and had adequately repented of their sins and proven they had accepted Jesus as their personal Savior - and thus those are dogmatic prerequists for Baptism" are just wrong. As these "household baptisms" reveal. TRUTH is, they cannot show even ONE person in those households met even ONE of their invented mandates. But the opposite is also true. While I agree it is unlikely that no one was under the age of X was included (no one knowing what age that is - Baptists refuse to tell you), on the other hand, no one can prove that there was.


The PROBLEM is with the premise. This ABSURD apologetic that "We must do what is illustrated as always done in the Bible and cannot do otherwise." The entire argument rests on this ABSURD point. Rather than getting sucked into this, we need to reject this absurd, silly premise that they themselves reject and never apply (not even to Baptism). We note that there are no clear examples of anyone being denied baptism because of their age, etc.so why not THAT being the "example to follow?" I'd note too that actually, no Baptist does Baptism the way it is modeled in the NT.... if they did, they would disallow Gentile administers, disallow plastic tanks behind a curtain, etc. And they would not give Communion by passing around little cut up pieces of white bread and little plastic cups of grape juice to women and kids - NONE of that even once modeled in the NT. The premise is simply invalid. The whole apologetic is one they themselves reject and never follow. I could note that every post at CH is in English (I could prove that; no one can prove every baptism was of one over the age of X), but does it logically follow that THEREFORE, it is dogmatically forbidden to post on the internet in any language other than English, that the use of English is mandated? Obviously not. The premise is unbiblical and illogical. Consider this.

Examples can reinforce a teaching, they are not substitutes for teaching. Even IF the Baptist could prove that everyone who was baptized was over some unknown age, that would not remotely indicate that attaining that age is a dogmatic prerequist. And IF they actually thought any such thing as valid, they'd be here supporting "Anti-Blondbaptism" and "Anti-American baptism" etc. EXAMPLES can reinforce teaching, it does not replace teaching. Examples are just that, nothing more.


But again, you are correct to expose the wrong claim of the Anabaptist tradition.... no, not every Baptism done in the Bible was to one who had achieved some age they refuse to disclose; they can't show that is true. EVEN if that mattered, which they insist it does not.






.

 

[Albion]

You know what they say about opinions...
We have gone over the actual verses and passages ad nauseum. There is nothing a person could do to stop you from projecting your traditional dogma onto the text.

...or you from falling back onto this fallacious argument every time you find yourself on the losing end of a debate over the meaning of some passage of scripture.

 

[MennoSota]

Again, I must agree with you, [MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]. And note that, for reasons I cannot begin to understand, you are very consistent in dogmatically stating, "The Bible says..." and then going to great lengths to PROVE it does not; all you are doing is projecting your argument into the text in a radical form eisegesis. Jesus' log/speck thing constantly comes to mind as I read you rebuking others for what you yourself do SO constantly and SO much more often and so more radically.


I think if there permitted some basic honestly, then the point would be that Scripture says NOTHING about age in terms of who is or is not permitted to be baptized. It cannot be said, "The Bible says we are to baptize those under the age of one." Nor "The Bible says we are not permitted to baptize those under the age of one." Truth: The Bible says neither. MennoSota, it is pure hypocrisy to condemn one for saying what you can prove the Bible does not say and then insist the Bible says what you yourself PROVE it does not. We can't have a discussion without some basic honesty.... and without a "level playing field " - one set of rules for you, the opposite for everyone else; one rubric that applies to you alone and then condemned and ridiculed when others do EXACTLY as you do. But then this has been pointed to you by MANY here since you came here two years ago.










I agree.... BUT


To argue, as defenders of this Anabaptist Baptism Tradition insists, "ALL baptisms in the Bible were of those over the age of X who had proven they were among the Elect and had adequately repented of their sins and proven they had accepted Jesus as their personal Savior - and thus those are dogmatic prerequists for Baptism" are just wrong. As these "household baptisms" reveal. TRUTH is, they cannot show even ONE person in those households met even ONE of their invented mandates. But the opposite is also true. While I agree it is unlikely that no one was under the age of X was included (no one knowing what age that is - Baptists refuse to tell you), on the other hand, no one can prove that there was.


The PROBLEM is with the premise. This ABSURD apologetic that "We must do what is illustrated as always done in the Bible and cannot do otherwise." The entire argument rests on this ABSURD point. Rather than getting sucked into this, we need to reject this absurd, silly premise that they themselves reject and never apply (not even to Baptism). We note that there are no clear examples of anyone being denied baptism because of their age, etc.so why not THAT being the "example to follow?" I'd note too that actually, no Baptist does Baptism the way it is modeled in the NT.... if they did, they would disallow Gentile administers, disallow plastic tanks behind a curtain, etc. And they would not give Communion by passing around little cut up pieces of white bread and little plastic cups of grape juice to women and kids - NONE of that even once modeled in the NT. The premise is simply invalid. The whole apologetic is one they themselves reject and never follow. I could note that every post at CH is in English (I could prove that; no one can prove every baptism was of one over the age of X), but does it logically follow that THEREFORE, it is dogmatically forbidden to post on the internet in any language other than English, that the use of English is mandated? Obviously not. The premise is unbiblical and illogical. Consider this.

Examples can reinforce a teaching, they are not substitutes for teaching. Even IF the Baptist could prove that everyone who was baptized was over some unknown age, that would not remotely indicate that attaining that age is a dogmatic prerequist. And IF they actually thought any such thing as valid, they'd be here supporting "Anti-Blondbaptism" and "Anti-American baptism" etc. EXAMPLES can reinforce teaching, it does not replace teaching. Examples are just that, nothing more.


But again, you are correct to expose the wrong claim of the Anabaptist tradition.... no, not every Baptism done in the Bible was to one who had achieved some age they refuse to disclose; they can't show that is true. EVEN if that mattered, which they insist it does not.






.

Josiah, not once did you discuss the text I provided.
Opinions are like....

 

[MennoSota]

...or you from falling back onto this fallacious argument every time you find yourself on the losing end of a debate over the meaning of some passage of scripture.

I provided the meaning of the word household. I provided the scripture. You can dig your feet into your dogma if you wish. I don't care. The text just doesn't support your argument. That's my point.

 

[Albion]

I provided the meaning of the word household. I provided the scripture. You can dig your feet into your dogma if you wish. I don't care.

Well, apparently you DO care, since you won't stop saying the same things over and over and applauding yourself for it.

 

[MennoSota]

Well, apparently you DO care, since you won't stop saying the same things over and over and applauding yourself for it.

You are flaming, Albion. Please just address the text surrounding households. This is all I am addressing. Use exegisis to make your point in the text rather than using eisegesis to project your dogma into the text.
I care about properly dividing the word of God. It just so happens that infant baptism becomes an obvious place where properly exegeting a passage is extremely important.

 

[Josiah]

Again, I must agree with you, @MennoSota. And note that, for reasons I cannot begin to understand, you are very consistent in dogmatically stating, "The Bible says..." and then going to great lengths to PROVE it does not; all you are doing is projecting your argument into the text in a radical form eisegesis. Jesus' log/speck thing constantly comes to mind as I read you rebuking others for what you yourself do SO constantly and SO much more often and so more radically.


I think if there permitted some basic honestly, then the point would be that Scripture says NOTHING about age in terms of who is or is not permitted to be baptized. It cannot be said, "The Bible says we are to baptize those under the age of one." Nor "The Bible says we are not permitted to baptize those under the age of one." Truth: The Bible says neither. MennoSota, it is pure hypocrisy to condemn one for saying what you can prove the Bible does not say and then insist the Bible says what you yourself PROVE it does not. We can't have a discussion without some basic honesty.... and without a "level playing field " - one set of rules for you, the opposite for everyone else; one rubric that applies to you alone and then condemned and ridiculed when others do EXACTLY as you do. But then this has been pointed to you by MANY here since you came here two years ago.


To argue, as defenders of this Anabaptist Baptism Tradition insists, "ALL baptisms in the Bible were of those over the age of X who had proven they were among the Elect and had adequately repented of their sins and proven they had accepted Jesus as their personal Savior - and thus those are dogmatic prerequists for Baptism" are just wrong. As these "household baptisms" reveal. TRUTH is, they cannot show even ONE person in those households met even ONE of their invented mandates. But the opposite is also true. While I agree it is unlikely that no one was under the age of X was included (no one knowing what age that is - Baptists refuse to tell you), on the other hand, no one can prove that there was.


The PROBLEM is with the premise. This ABSURD apologetic that "We must do what is illustrated as always done in the Bible and cannot do otherwise." The entire argument rests on this ABSURD point. Rather than getting sucked into this, we need to reject this absurd, silly premise that they themselves reject and never apply (not even to Baptism). We note that there are no clear examples of anyone being denied baptism because of their age, etc.so why not THAT being the "example to follow?" I'd note too that actually, no Baptist does Baptism the way it is modeled in the NT.... if they did, they would disallow Gentile administers, disallow plastic tanks behind a curtain, etc. And they would not give Communion by passing around little cut up pieces of white bread and little plastic cups of grape juice to women and kids - NONE of that even once modeled in the NT. The premise is simply invalid. The whole apologetic is one they themselves reject and never follow. I could note that every post at CH is in English (I could prove that; no one can prove every baptism was of one over the age of X), but does it logically follow that THEREFORE, it is dogmatically forbidden to post on the internet in any language other than English, that the use of English is mandated? Obviously not. The premise is unbiblical and illogical. Consider this.

Examples can reinforce a teaching, they are not substitutes for teaching. Even IF the Baptist could prove that everyone who was baptized was over some unknown age, that would not remotely indicate that attaining that age is a dogmatic prerequist. And IF they actually thought any such thing as valid, they'd be here supporting "Anti-Blondbaptism" and "Anti-American baptism" etc. EXAMPLES can reinforce teaching, it does not replace teaching. Examples are just that, nothing more.


But again, you are correct to expose the wrong claim of the Anabaptist tradition.... no, not every Baptism done in the Bible was to one who had achieved some age they refuse to disclose; they can't show that is true. EVEN if that mattered, which they insist it does not.


.

Josiah, not once did you discuss the text I provided.

... because I AGREE with what you proved: The verse says NOTHING to confirm your point that everyone in ALL those households was over the age of you-won't-say. You PROVED my point and showed yourself wrong with the verse you quoted. Now, in ONE example, it's a possibility but again, that doesn't prove that every baptism in the Bible was of one over the age of you-won't-say.


I agree with you: Scripture never says the prohibition/mandate you insist upon; you (again) proved that.

But I disagree with your whole premise, this silly idea that everyone should do what you never do: limit everything to exactly what is illustrated in examples of the Bible.



.

 

[MennoSota]

... because I AGREE with what you proved: The verse says NOTHING to confirm your point that everyone in those households was over the age of you-won't-say. You PROVED my point and showed yourself wrong with the verse you quoted.


I agree with you: Scripture never says the prohibition/mandate you insist upon; you (again) proved that.

But I disagree with your whole premise, this silly idea that everyone should do what you never do: limit everything to exactly what is illustrated in examples of the Bible.

It's not my point. You imagine I am making an argument that I am not making. I am simply pointing out that the two passages in Acts 16 prove no point for paedobaptism or against it. The actual text cannot support a valid reason to baptize an infant. Nor does it support a valid reason to not baptize an infant.
Instead, we look at all the texts in scripture and we look for a general guideline regarding water baptism.

 

[Josiah]

Scripture says NOTHING about age in terms of who is or is not permitted to be baptized. It cannot be said, "The Bible says we are to baptize those under the age of one." Nor "The Bible says we are not permitted to baptize those under the age of one." Truth: The Bible says neither. MennoSota, it is pure hypocrisy to condemn one for saying what you can prove the Bible does not say and then insist the Bible says what you yourself PROVE it does not. We can't have a discussion without some basic honesty.... and without a "level playing field " - one set of rules for you, the opposite for everyone else; one rubric that applies to you alone and then condemned and ridiculed when others do EXACTLY as you do. But then this has been pointed to you by MANY here since you came here two years ago.


To argue, as defenders of this Anabaptist Baptism Tradition insists, "ALL baptisms in the Bible were of those over the age of X who had proven they were among the Elect and had adequately repented of their sins and proven they had accepted Jesus as their personal Savior - and thus those are dogmatic prerequists for Baptism" are just wrong. As these "household baptisms" reveal. TRUTH is, they cannot show even ONE person in those households met even ONE of their invented mandates. But the opposite is also true. While I agree it is unlikely that no one was under the age of X was included (no one knowing what age that is - Baptists refuse to tell you), on the other hand, no one can prove that there was.


.

I am simply pointing out that the two passages in Acts 16 prove no point for paedobaptism or against it. The actual text cannot support a valid reason to baptize an infant. Nor does it support a valid reason to not baptize an infant.

Glad you agree with me. (For once, lol) That took over two years, lol


Because your whole premise is silly and one you yourself reject and never employ. You keep TRYING to say "All the Baptisms in the Bible were like this....." then prove that's not true. SOME were, but ALL you now admit you cannot show. It COULD be everyone in all those households was over the age of you-won't-say, but it's also possible that ALL of them were under the age of you-won't-say; so your whole argument just got destroyed. We don't know what was always done.... or even usually done. It COULD be 99% of them were of those over the age of you-won't-say, and it could be 99% of them were UNDER the age of you-won't-say. As you now finally admit (after two years of insisting on the opposite), we DON'T KNOW what was done..... much less what was regarded as mandated or prohibited.

But then your whole premise is silly. This whole idea that we MUST do as done in the Bible (even though you now admit we don't know what was done in this regard) and cannot do otherwise. This idea that a few examples IS teaching and the foundation for inventing new dogma. It's silly. And one you NEVER employ yourself yet insist others do (but only in a few applications). Let's embrace your premise, the whole foundation of your apologetic: Now, I actually COULD prove that EVERY post at CH is written in English. No guessing, no presuming, no "well, I have 5 examples I can prove of this but a lot where I don't know), I can PROVE it. EVERY TIME, in EVERY CASE. Would that mean that ERGO it is forbidden at CH to post in another language (even though you can't find that stated in the rules)? Would it mean posting in another language makes for an invalid post? Of course not, that's silly and illogical. ALL it means that in every case, that's what has been DONE. It's normative for NOTHING. It's just examples of what has been done. But at least that would be provable and 100% always the case. You can't prove what happened with baptisms in the Bible - as you now (after two solid years!) admit. It's a silly premise. And you never accept or employ it.

So, we're back to your rule: Just the words of Scripture. NOTHING influencing them, NOTHING forced into them, NOTHING added or deleted. What the Bible SAYS. Great! So, I'll ask the same questions I have of you on this for over two years: QUOTE the WORDS that state, "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath celebrated their won't-tell-you-which birthday." Where does the Bible SAY THAT?! QUOTE the WORDS that state, "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath adequately repented." "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath proven they are among the Elect." "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath proven they have accepted Jesus as thouest personal Savior." "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless every cell of their body is entirely covered by water." NO eisegesis. NO words added or changed or deleted. NO opinions forced into the text. Just what the Bible says. None of this, "I can't prove what was always done and it doesn't matter anyway but all baptisms were to those over the age of i-won't-say and thus it's dogmatically required all be over the age of I-won't-say."


Now lest you try to impose your silliness on me, NO ONE on the historic side of this claims there is a verse that states, "Thou musteth baptize all beforeth they celebrate their we-won't-tell-you-which birthday." Don't try to reverse the table. We approach from "where does it say, "Thou canst NOT...." By your premise, where is the verse that says we can baptize Americans or Negroids or fat people or smart people or Baptists? Most Christians would agree that we cannot kill women, but yes, I agree, the Bible only says "Do not kill" - it never mentions WOMEN specifically (or unborn children or Jews or African-American slaves) but where does it EXCLUDE specifically children under the age of you-won't-say? The Anabaptist invented a very specific, very focused EXCEPTION but admitted they had not one verse that states that exception. Jesus said, Go and make disciples of all people." We would object to some new dogma, invented 1500 years later, that declares, ".... but thou canst NOT even attempt that to one who is over 6 feet tall or has flat feet." Where did Jesus say that? Where did Jesus say, "But thou canst NOT baptize any who hath not yet attainedth their I-won't-tell-you-which birthday!" "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they hath adequately repented of all their sins. "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they hath proven they are among the elect?" "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they hath proven they have chosen Me as their personal Savior and surrendered the steering wheel of their lives to Me." Where? And while you are at it, where did God ever say the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" applies to Jews or slaves or that jerk at work? We can't find all these "thou canst NOT' prohibitions the Anabaptists invented and you parrot. We don't accept them because we can't find them.





.