Is infant baptism from the Bible?

[hobie]

It is God’s will that all come to repentance and a knowledge of the truth
Nowhere does God say it is His will that infants be baptized.

Correct, there is no biblical support for such a practice, its origin is not scriptural but if you research it comes from a so called 'tradition'. In every case in the Bible where baptism was performed, including when Jesus, our prime example, was baptized, the person being baptized was old enough to make the decision themselves. In each story where baptism is mentioned there is also mention of such things as repentance, belief, being taught, etc. A baby can not do any of these things.

 

[Lamb]

Correct, there is no biblical support for such a practice, its origin is not scriptural but if you research it comes from a so called 'tradition'. In every case in the Bible where baptism was performed, including when Jesus, our prime example, was baptized, the person being baptized was old enough to make the decision themselves. In each story where baptism is mentioned there is also mention of such things as repentance, belief, being taught, etc. A baby can not do any of these things.

Actually there are verses to prove that it's God that grants repentance which means God can grant it to a baby as easily as He could an adult. Belief comes from faith which is also from God...faith comes by hearing His Word. Jesus spoke of the little ones who believed in Him. So you need to go back and do more research on that.

 

[Lamb]

Nope.


The accusation is not completely true, but it is also not completely false. You have never made the claim, but you have also avoided answering the question.

Does baptizing a baby actually DO anything, and if so then WHAT?

Lamm has stated that baptism saves (not in that exact word, but all of the things necessary for salvation are accomplished by God simultaneously with baptism). She also stated that “God baptizes”. Right or wrong, her answer and your avoidance is leaving that as the Lutheran position as seen by non Lutherans (who have nothing else to judge by).



Believe me, everyone understands your opinions.

Do you understand that the Baptist argument is not “God cannot do anything because ...”, rather the argument is that “God has not yet chosen to do anything, therefore ...”. You are baptizing a baby because God CAN save them. We are waiting to baptize a believer because God HAS saved them. The “confess” and “repent” and “believe” are not the human effort needed to unlock the power of God’s salvation (which would be synergism but is not what Credobaptist believe), rather they are the “first fruit” of the new heart and the work of the Holy Spirit in someone that God “foreknew”, “predestined”, “called”, “justified”, and “glorified”. As was the case in Acts 2, when God has pierced their heart, then it is for the church to call them to “repent and be baptized” and they will “receive the Holy Spirit”. There is nothing synergistic about it. We are merely “waiting on the Lord” rather than leading the charge by baptizing those that have not even heard the gospel.

Whether YOUR baptism is monergistic or synergistic depends on what YOU believe happens when a priest sprinkles water on an infant.
I can’t answer what YOU believe.



My point in the previous post is that I am aware of scripture where God clearly COMMANDED people to kill the lamb to save the child, and I am aware of scripture that specifically COMMANDS parents to train their children and allow them to come to Jesus and to assemble with other Christians. What I am not aware of is a specific COMMAND to baptize children. This does not make baptizing children forbidden, rather it means that comparing the lamb on the post that God COMMANDED to baptizing children that God DID NOT COMMAND is an “apples to oranges” comparison. One is “commanded” and the other is “not forbidden” ... those are not the same thing.

Jesus (God) told the disciples to go and baptize and teach all nations. It's by HIS authority so yes, it's God's work in baptism. Just as God teaches by His Word that brings us to faith.

 

[Albion]

Correct, there is no biblical support for such a practice, its origin is not scriptural but if you research it comes from a so called 'tradition'.

This is patently untrue. You can try to make a case for Scripture being misunderstood by the majority of Christian churches which baptize without regard to the recipient's age, but not that the idea originated with and is based upon tradition.

In every case in the Bible where baptism was performed, including when Jesus, our prime example, was baptized, the person being baptized was old enough to make the decision themselves.

But as has already been mentioned, the Apostles were commissioned by Our Lord himself to go to all nations, make converts of them, and baptize. You, therefore, are only referring to a few specific examples. By the way, none of them were North Americans, of course, so none of us would be eligible--in accordance with your interpretation.

 

[Albion]

Lamm has stated that baptism saves (not in that exact word, but all of the things necessary for salvation are accomplished by God simultaneously with baptism).

Neither of those statements is true--Lamm didn't say that and your paraphrase doesn't amount to that.

She also stated that “God baptizes”.

Well, God did establish the sacrament, just like Holy Communion, and we have the testimony of Scripture to that.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=1145]hobie[/MENTION]

Is there a clear, obvious example in the Bible of an American being baptized?
Is there a clear, obvious example in the Bible of a Baptists being baptized?
Is there a clear, obvious example in the Bible of a blonde-haired person being baptized in the Bible?
Is there a clear, obvious example in the Bible of a fat person being baptized in the Bible?
Is there a clear, obvious example in the Bible of a person of the Negroid race being baptized in the Bible?
Is there a clear, obvious example in the Bible of a a person being baptized in a plastic tank behind a curtain?
Is there a clear, obvious example in the Bible of a person being baptized by a Gentile, a person of non-Hebraic ethnicity?
Is there a clear, obvious example in the Bible of a person being baptized in the Americas?
If it matters whether there is someone under the age of you-won't-say baptized in the Bible or not, then why don't the above equally matter?


Is there a clear, obvious example in the Bible of women and kids receiving Communion?
Is there a clear, obvious example in the Bible of Communion being passed around with little cut up pieces of white bread and little plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice?
Is there a clear, obvious example in the Bible of woman pastors or youth pastors?
Is there a clear, obvious example in the Bible of churches using electricity, computers, powerpoint?
Is there a clear, obvious example in the Bible of pastors wearing Aloha shirts and Jeans?
Is there a clear, obvious example in the Bible of anyone posting on the internet?
If it matters whether there is someone under the age of you-won't-say baptized in the Bible or not, then why don't the above equally matter?


The whole premise on which the Anabaptist apologetic rests is ABSURD.... and one Baptists reject as wrong ... and one the Baptists NEVER use in anything (even just baptism), so it's just silly to base a whole argument on a point that is wrong, silly, absurd, illogical, rejected.


A question was asked.... the "answer" of which no one disputes.... but the REASON for it is clear. The whole Anabaptist apologetic is this: We MUST do exactly as was always done in the Bible.... we CANNOT do otherwise.... every baptism in the Bible was of one over the age of we-won't-tell-you, of one who adequately repented of all their sins, of those who proved they had adequately chosen Jesus as their personal Savior.... THEREFORE we are mandated to do the same and forbidden to do otherwise. THAT'S why the question is asked.

Problem is: the premise, the point, is silly, absurd, illogical. It's a premise you reject and never employ... but the apologetic is founded on this falsehood you reject.


.

The "answer" is yet another Anabaptist invention (not to derail this discussion to that!): "God doesn't hold those under the age of we-won't-say ACCOUNTABLE." It's the Anabaptist invention of "Age of Accountability." They don't deny that those under that mysterious, never-disclosed age "sin" (well, some do) but exclusively for those under the 'wont-tell-you' age, God lays aside His justice and just winks. Thus, the wages of sin is death doesn't apply to those under the won't-tell-you-what age. No salvation is needed. Now SOME (usually not the Anabaptist) will say the faith of their PARENTS (especially mother) saves them vicariously but again, that's not an Anabaptist/Baptist dogma, "God winks at sin for those under the won't-tell-y0u-which age so they don't need no forgiveness, salvation, Jesus."


The Anabaptists invented all this stuff NOT because of some Scripture they claim every Christian for over 1500 years never notice (or just badly interpreted) BUT because they were radical synergists, and they made Baptism "jibe" with that (in order to be correct). The whole idea that God could bless someone who had done nothing and slept through the whole thing was offensive to them, laughable to them,HAD to be heresy - and Baptism needed to be viewed very differently. To them, God does NOTHING without the recipient taking the first step and in that sense earning or bringing about God's response.... so the point was made (it's kinda logical, assuming radical synergism): "How can one under the age of we-won't-tell-you DO the x,y,z that is required before God will do something for them?" They ask, "How can one DO the x,y,z that is needed to start things if that one is too "young" to DO that (however young "too young" is, we won't say)?" AND "How can they be cooperating with God if they sleep through the whole thing, for heaven's sake!?" Synergists MUST have the recipient take the first step.... MUST have the recipient cooperating in the process. It's the whole point of synergism, the recipient DOING, God just responding to what they first DO and continue to DO. Sincerely, Lamm, this is going right over your head because you are a monergist.


The Anabaptists not only were raging synergists but also held to a very odd rubric (one they rejected and repudiated but insisted on anyway), namely, "We cannot do anything unless it is illustrated as done that way in the Bible, and are forbidden to do anything that is not so illustrated in the Bible." They used this against ANYTHING that Catholics or Lutherans or Anglicans did that seemed monergistic to them or just "too Catholic." "Where was THAT done in the Bible?" Where do you see people crossing themselves in the Bible? You don't, so it is forbidden and wrong and sinful and to be forbidden!!!" They had a long, long list of things that they dogmatically prohibited because "it's never seen in the Bible." They made a huge point about "Children baptized" too, asking ENDLESSLY, "Where do you see children baptized in the Bible?" YOU DON'T - so it's wrong, forbidden, prohibited, "Catholic." SO much of the Anabaptist obsession with getting rid of Catholic practices flows from this premise. And, as I'm sure you noticed, so much of modern Baptist apologetics on this does, as well. Of course, the premise is absurd. And they never abide by it - not even just with baptism. I've posted a few times to show the illogic, the silliness of this whole rubric and shown that NO Baptist actually believes this or does this. They are basing the argument on something they themselves hold is false and invalid (and never employ themselves).



... to the raging synergist, this reinvention of Baptism makes a certain sense. Thus their constant mantra: "How can those under the age of we-won't-tell-you DO _________?" (fill in the blank with whatever, the assumption of synergism is the same). And with the absurd, laughable rubric they themselves repudiate and never use, there is a certain point,too. Thus their constant, endless, mind-numbing, "Where in the Bible do you EVER see an American Baptist being baptized? HUH? Answer the question!!!! It's YOU DON'T! So it's forbidden, it's prohibited, it's against Scripture!" Sound familiar? Gets mind-numbing. So their entire apologetic is founded in the very wrong theology of synergism and a rubric that they themselves regard as wrong.


In my latest thread to share this historic view, I begin with the monergism point and reject the synergistic one. And I address the silliness of founding a whole apologetic on a principle Baptists repudiate as wrong and never use. Remember too, some of us have dedicated a lot of time to conveying the historic view - and it's ALWAYS entirely ignored; those with the reconstruction tradition always evade/ignore it. Consider that. It's a falsehood to say "the historic folks won't discuss this, don't give Scripture" it's that they avoid it.



.

In every case in the Bible where baptism was performed was baptized, the person being baptized was old enough to make the decision themselves.

1. Read the above. You are echoing an absurd rubric that NO ONE accepts.


2. Prove your claim. PROVE that every person baptized in the "households" below was "old enough" (WHATEVER age that is, no one can get a defender of this reinvention to tell us how old "old enough" is). See Acts 10:24-48, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33-34, 1 Corinthians 1:16. Now PROVE by the words in the texts that EVERY person baptized was over a certain age (and please quote that age), also that EVERY ONE OF THEM made some "decision" (whatever "decision" you claim every one of them first made).

In each story where baptism is mentioned there is also mention of such things as repentance, belief, being taught, etc. A baby can not do any of these things.

1. Prove your claim is true for EVERY PERSON baptized in the "households" "family" "friends" mentioned in Acts 10:24-48, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33-34, 1 Corinthians 1:16 - for EVERY SINGLE PERSON in EVERY CASE in ALL of these references. Prove by the words how old each was, prove that each had previously and adequately "repented" and each was previously and adequately "taught" (and tell us what.... taught what?).


2. IF you can prove all the above, then tell us why that matters. After all, OBVIOUSLY, you hold that we can do things even though they are NEVER, EVER, NOT ONCE shown as done in the Bible (Proof? You are posting on the internet). Read the the posts above.



Thank you.



.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=509]RichWh1[/MENTION]

I said it is God’s will that all come to repentance and a knowledge of the truth

And no one disputes that.

The dispute is over the claim that Scripture states, "FIRST in chronological time one must attain the age of we-won't-tell-you, FIRST one must prove they are among the Elect, FIRST one must prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, FIRST they must prove they have adequately repented of all their sins, THEN after all that has been accomplished by the receiver, the dogmatic prohibition to Baptize is removed and they may be baptized." THAT'S the dispute; does Scripture state that?

Friend, NEVER ONCE in ANY verse in which even the word "baptism" is found do we also find any Greek word that means (or even usually implies) chronological sequence. Not once (ODD if that's the dogmatic mandate). I have repeatedly ask Baptists to give even one verse on Baptism that has any Greek word that means or indicates chronology or sequence, and they have admitted there is none. The word is "kai." It is the most generic, general, non-specific connecting word in the entire Greek language. It just means "and." It just connects things. Rarely it is used to indicate chronological order and never to mandate it or even stress chronology (one of the words for "then" or "followed by" is used). It's the same in English. Let's say I posted, "I woke up today, went to the bathroom and made a pot of coffee." Would that be the basis for creating a new DOGMA, "Thou canst NOT make coffee before one hath pee'ed?" BTW, I wake up and went to the bathroom and made a pot of coffee - but I actually made the coffee long before I went to the bathroom). Ah, but the Anabaptist just deletes the word consistently, always used in this connection -just deletes it - and replaces it with a word that NEVER - not once - NEVER appears in any baptism text, then bases a whole new DOGMA on that word they substituted for the one Jesus said. A bad way to invent Dogma, IMO.

I noticed that AT Pollard quoted Scripture and all you did was give opinion!

He has not quoted ANY Scripture that states the series of new Anabaptist dogmas he promotes. He quotes good Scriptures, but none of them remotely state what he does. NO "Thou canst not baptize any unless they hath attained their won't-tell-you-which birthday." NO "Thou canst not baptize any unless they hath first in chronological time adequately repented of all their sins." NO, "Thou canst not baptize any unless they hath first proven they art among the Elect." NO, "Thou canst not baptize any unless they hath first adequately proven they hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior." Lots of nice Scriptures, none of them remotely saying what he does, none of them saying the Anabaptist reinventions.


Below are just a few, just a short list, just a sample of the Scriptures I have quoted. You are wrong to say I've never shared Scripture.

Acts 22:16

Acts 23:8

Romans 6:3-4

1 Corinthians 6:11

1 Corinthians 12:13

Galatians 3:26-27

Ephesians 5:25-27

Colossians 2:11-12

Titus 3:5

1 Peter 3:18-22

John 3:5, "No one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit."

Acts 2:38, "Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins."

Acts 22:16, "Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins calling on his name."

Romans 6:3-4, "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life."

1 Corinthians 6:11, "You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

1 Corinthians 12:13, "For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body - Jews or Greeks, slaves or free - and were made to drink of one Spirit."

Galatians 3:27, "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

Ephesians 5:25-27, "Husbands love your wives, as Christ love the church and gave himself up for you, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish."

Colossians 2:11-12, "In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead."

Titus 3:5, "He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit."

1 Peter 3:21, "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you."

Matthew 18:6, "If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin..."

Mark 10:13-15, "People were bringing little children to Jesus to have Him touch them, but he disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."

Acts 2:38-39, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the Holy Spirit. This promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off for all whom the Lord our God will call."


... and MANY more. I've discussed all the above. I've noted the Greek original text in them, for example, the word for "washing" above is a form of the word "baptism."


Just a short list of some of the Scriptures I've brought up and discussed in this regard.


You are wrong to say I've not brought Scripture into the discussion.





.

 

[Lamb]

Amen, what is basically the 'Age of Accountability', when they discern and understand what it means to repent from sin and accept Christ.

What do you believe happens to those who die before your 'Age of Accountability'? Does God save them with a different gospel (the real Gospel is by grace through faith)? I have asked this before and got ignored.

 

[hobie]

Actually there are verses to prove that it's God that grants repentance which means God can grant it to a baby as easily as He could an adult. Belief comes from faith which is also from God...faith comes by hearing His Word. Jesus spoke of the little ones who believed in Him. So you need to go back and do more research on that.

Infants cannot make a conscious decision. Therefore, to baptize them defeats the whole purpose. You cannot find any verse to support it, only Gods mercy and grace and the faith of the parents, as the infants cant discern much less understand at that point of their lives.

 

[hobie]

What do you believe happens to those who die before your 'Age of Accountability'? Does God save them with a different gospel (the real Gospel is by grace through faith)? I have asked this before and got ignored.

As I said its through faith, and who is capable of it at that point, certainly not the infants. Now the King James Version gives a full description of the baptism in many places, Acts 8 is one. The eunuch here was a high official from Ethiopia so certainly was a man of age, and had come to worship in Jerusalem. He was reading the book of Isaiah when Philip was sent to him and explained to him the passages pertaining to the Messiah. When he had grasped their significance and recognized Jesus Christ in these verses, he was ready to be baptized. The KJV continues with the following verses:

"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 may.' And he answered and said, 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.' And he commanded the chariot to stand still. And they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him (Acts 8:36-38).

The question of the eunuch, "What doth hinder me to be baptized?" is answered by Phillip in verse 37:

"If thou believeth with all thine heart, thou mayest."

The corrupted Holt and Westcott translations leave out verse 37. Now you can see why...

 

[Josiah]

Infants cannot make a conscious decision.

MAYBE.....PERHAPS.... But quote the verse that states, "Thou canst not baptize any unless they can maketh a conscience decision."


See post 86



.

 

[Lamb]

Infants cannot make a conscious decision. Therefore, to baptize them defeats the whole purpose. You cannot find any verse to support it, only Gods mercy and grace and the faith of the parents, as the infants cant discern much less understand at that point of their lives.

John 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.

 

[Lamb]

As I said its through faith, and who is capable of it at that point, certainly not the infants. Now the King James Version gives a full description of the baptism in many places, Acts 8 is one. The eunuch here was a high official from Ethiopia so certainly was a man of age, and had come to worship in Jerusalem. He was reading the book of Isaiah when Philip was sent to him and explained to him the passages pertaining to the Messiah. When he had grasped their significance and recognized Jesus Christ in these verses, he was ready to be baptized. The KJV continues with the following verses:

"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 may.' And he answered and said, 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.' And he commanded the chariot to stand still. And they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him (Acts 8:36-38).

The question of the eunuch, "What doth hinder me to be baptized?" is answered by Phillip in verse 37:

"If thou believeth with all thine heart, thou mayest."

The corrupted Holt and Westcott translations leave out verse 37. Now you can see why...

So you believe that babies are saved by some other different gospel than salvation by grace through faith? That's not in the bible.

 

[hobie]

MAYBE.....PERHAPS.... But quote the verse that states, "Thou canst not baptize any unless they can maketh a conscience decision."


See post 86



.

There is no maybe or perhaps, give a infant the steering wheel of your car at 70 miles per hour and see if he can 'discern' a 18 wheeler or anything for that matter in his path.

 

[MennoSota]

So you believe that babies are saved by some other different gospel than salvation by grace through faith? That's not in the bible.

Where does the Bible say that faith and the Holy Spirit are granted to all those who receive water baptism?

 

[Lamb]

Where does the Bible say that faith and the Holy Spirit are granted to all those who receive water baptism?

In Acts 2:38-39 where it says that the gift of the Holy Spirit is given in baptism (if you get the gift of the Holy Spirit you have faith to receive it) and this gift is for you AND your children.

 

[Lamb]

There is no maybe or perhaps, give a infant the steering wheel of your car at 70 miles per hour and see if he can 'discern' a 18 wheeler or anything for that matter in his path.

Where does the bible say we have to make a decision for Jesus before getting baptized? HINT: It doesn't.

 

[Albion]

There is no maybe or perhaps, give a infant the steering wheel of your car at 70 miles per hour and see if he can 'discern' a 18 wheeler or anything for that matter in his path.

You still insist upon making the sacrament be something we alone do and make work. Why so? We don't think that when you -- or your child -- get a rabies shot or the flu vaccine, that it is effective against disease only if you understand all the specific details of immunology.

 

[Josiah]

Quote the verse that states, "Thou canst not baptize any unless they can maketh a conscience decision."


See post 86


.

give a infant the steering wheel of your car at 70 miles per hour and see if he can 'discern' a 18 wheeler or anything for that matter in his path.

Just quote the verse that states, "Thou canst not baptize any unless they can maketh a conscience decision."


I am able to post, "We can't baptize any US citizens." Now, it doesn't matter to you at all if Scripture ever actually says that, does it? Because it says that exactly as often as it does, "Thou canst not baptize any unless said recipient can maketh a conscience decision." Or "Thou canst not baptize any until they hath attained the age of we-won't-tell-you- which." Or "Thou canst not baptize any unless they attained the Age of Accountability." But perhaps I change the issue exactly as you do, change it to, "HEY, show me ONE EXAMPLE, even just ONE American citizen being baptized in the Bible! SHOW ME!!!! You can't, can you! So that proves we are dogmatically forbidden to baptize American citizens!" Hey, that apologetic works according to you.



See post 86.




.

 

[Josiah]

You still insist upon making the sacrament be something we alone do and make work. Why so? We don't think that when you -- or your child -- get a rabies shot or the flu vaccine, that it is effective against disease only if you understand all the specific details of immunology.

Radical synergism underpins the entire Anabaptist reinvention. And the silly, absurd rule they reject and never use - that we can't do anything unless it is clearly illustrated as done in the Bible (they make that point by posting on the internet; no figure).