Is infant baptism from the Bible?

[Particular]

Matthew 15:1-9 Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the wordof God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”

This passage applies well to infant baptism, which teaches a means of regeneration/redemption by a physical act of water placement upon an unsuspecting child with the teaching that the child has been saved.
Yet, this teaching is found nowhere in scripture. One must shove the concept into a couple verses by inferring a tradition into a verse without any confirmation.

Infant baptism is a tradition that is best dropped and never brought up again as it introduces a heresy regarding salvation.

 

[Particular]

Infant baptism makes you a member of God's kingdom. The sooner you do it the better.

Like this:
I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen. (pouring water over their head)

Mark 10
“Let the children come to me! Don't try to stop them. People who are like these little children belong to the kingdom of God.+ 15 I promise you that you cannot get into God's kingdom, unless you accept it the way a child does.” 16Then Jesus took the children in his arms and blessed them by placing his hands on them.

Brian, this is a heretical teaching, which makes salvation an act of works apart from God's grace. Mark 10 says nothing about infant baptism and salvation. You are forcing your tradition into the Bible rather than getting your tradition from the Bible.
If God meant to redeem infants by having them baptized, God would have been very, very clear and direct (just like the legal prescriptions of the Mosaic Law). But, God does not redeem by water baptism. God redeems by grace, through faith, which is not of oneself, but is a gift of God.
Your teaching is legalism, law based, and has nothing to do with grace.

 

[Lamb]

Brian, this is a heretical teaching, which makes salvation an act of works apart from God's grace. Mark 10 says nothing about infant baptism and salvation. You are forcing your tradition into the Bible rather than getting your tradition from the Bible.
If God meant to redeem infants by having them baptized, God would have been very, very clear and direct (just like the legal prescriptions of the Mosaic Law). But, God does not redeem by water baptism. God redeems by grace, through faith, which is not of oneself, but is a gift of God.
Your teaching is legalism, law based, and has nothing to do with grace.

You think it's works because you think it's something you can do. But it's not something YOU do. The text is "be baptized" meaning something is happening to you. You admit that it's by God's grace for salvation, yet you ignore God's grace in baptism.

 

[Particular]

You think it's works because you think it's something you can do. But it's not something YOU do. The text is "be baptized" meaning something is happening to you. You admit that it's by God's grace for salvation, yet you ignore God's grace in baptism.

No one is saved by baptism. Not adults and not children. Baptismal regeneration is a false doctrine. God does not teach this. Traditions of men teach this doctrine.

 

[Josiah]

Brian, this is a heretical teaching, which makes salvation an act of works apart from God's grace.

No.

Of course Baptism involves human activity (the proclaimation of words and the applying of water), but that does not mean that the blessing is CAUSED by this. YOU hold that the Word may bring justification, right? You have said so before. But is this because some sacred book exists somewhere in the world? No. Because the message there is PREACHED, TAUGHT, PROCLAIMED by a person or persons. Ask your minister if that involves human activity, even work. Or if his preaching just happens in his sleep without any human muscle involved. Your point is silly. If God cannot use something if human activity is involved, then you are repudiating worship, Sunday School, Bible study, evangelism, mission work, love.

And of course, the person being baptized doesn't necessary DO anything at all (I wasn't even conscience), it's the one applying the water and proclaiming the words that is DOING something.

You are forcing your tradition into the Bible rather than getting your tradition from the Bible. And using a silly, laughable apologetic. Don't just copy/paste stuff without thinking about it.

God redeems by grace, through faith, which is not of oneself, but is a gift of God.

No disagreement with that.

I just deny that if some human activity is involved (like teaching, preaching, evangelism, mission work) therefore God is rendered impotent, I reject your point that Jesus did wrong by preaching because He thus worked and therefore His words could not be a factor in why faith came to listeners (who in all known cases ALSO worked by attending and listening to Him). What a silly apologetic! Where did you get this?





Now, just quote the verses that say what your new tradition says:

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they hath already celebrated a certain birthday but you won't be told which one that is."

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they hath first chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, correctly chanteth the Sinner's Prayer, and property responded to an altar call."'

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless every cell of their body is entirely immersed under water."

Let's see if your new tradition is taught in the Bible (but for some reason, not one person in over 1500 years saw any of those verses).






.

 

[brian100]

But this one implies you will not make it to heaven unless you believe in this Mark 10:15. I do wonder if he's secretly talking about Baptism.

 

[Particular]

No.

Of course Baptism involves human activity (the proclaimation of words and the applying of water), but that does not mean that the blessing is CAUSED by this. YOU hold that the Word may bring justification, right? You have said so before. But is this because some sacred book exists somewhere in the world? No. Because the message there is PREACHED, TAUGHT, PROCLAIMED by a person or persons. Ask your minister if that involves human activity, even work. Or if his preaching just happens in his sleep without any human muscle involved. Your point is silly. If God cannot use something if human activity is involved, then you are repudiating worship, Sunday School, Bible study, evangelism, mission work, love.

And of course, the person being baptized doesn't necessary DO anything at all (I wasn't even conscience), it's the one applying the water and proclaiming the words that is DOING something.

You are forcing your tradition into the Bible rather than getting your tradition from the Bible. And using a silly, laughable apologetic. Don't just copy/paste stuff without thinking about it.







No disagreement with that.

I just deny that if some human activity is involved (like teaching, preaching, evangelism, mission work) therefore God is rendered impotent, I reject your point that Jesus did wrong by preaching because He thus worked and therefore His words could not be a factor in why faith came to listeners (who in all known cases ALSO worked by attending and listening to Him). What a silly apologetic! Where did you get this?





Now, just quote the verses that say what your new tradition says:

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they hath already celebrated a certain birthday but you won't be told which one that is."

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they hath first chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, correctly chanteth the Sinner's Prayer, and property responded to an altar call."'

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless every cell of their body is entirely immersed under water."

Let's see if your new tradition is taught in the Bible (but for some reason, not one person in over 1500 years saw any of those verses).






.

I am forcing no tradition. I am reading the Bible and seeing zero infants baptized I conclude that the Bible does not, in fact, teach infant baptism. I do see an early church false doctrine introduced as a tradition and then expanded upon throughout the ages so that now we have the false teaching that water baptism saves a human being.
The tradition is entirely yours and it is entirely wrong.

 

[Particular]

But this one implies you will not make it to heaven unless you believe in this Mark 10:15. I do wonder if he's secretly talking about Baptism.

Mark 10:15 has nothing to do with baptism at all.

Mark 10:15 Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”

 

[Josiah]

I am reading the Bible and seeing zero....

About your tradition....

NO "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they hath already celebrated a certain birthday but you won't be told which one that is."

NO "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they hath first chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, correctly chanteth the Sinner's Prayer, and properly responded to an altar call."'

NO "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless every cell of their body is entirely immersed under water."

seeing zero infants baptized

You'll also see zero infants being denied baptism because they had not yet celebrated a certain birthday (but you don't know which one that is), or for not adequately proving they had first chosen Jesus as their personal savior and chanting the Sinner's Prayer. Nope. No cases of that.

And you'll find not one example of anyone posting on the internet, but you don't teach that ERGO it's forbidden.

And you'll find not one example of churches using powerpoint or bulletins or baptisal dunking tanks or Communion with little plastic cups with a squirt of Welch's Grape Juice in them and a plate with little cup up pieces of Weber's White Bread pass around everyone - and yet where is your condemnation of that since there's not one example of such in the Bible? Where do you get this stuff?


There's NOTHING in the Bible that teaches your new tradition. I do see a false doctrine introduced as a tradition by the Anabaptists that you echo,





.

 

[brian100]

He is saying that as a future reference to Infant Baptism! The only people I know that stop them from coming to Jesus is the Protestant.

Mark10

15 I promise you that you cannot get into God's kingdom, unless you accept it the way a child does.” 16Then Jesus took the children in his arms and blessed them by placing his hands on them.

Protestant's do not accept the children...an ominous warning.

 

[Particular]

About your tradition....

NO "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they hath already celebrated a certain birthday but you won't be told which one that is."

NO "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they hath first chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, correctly chanteth the Sinner's Prayer, and properly responded to an altar call."'

NO "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless every cell of their body is entirely immersed under water."






You'll also see zero infants being denied baptism because they had not yet celebrated a certain birthday (but you don't know which one that is), or for not adequately proving they had first chosen Jesus as their personal savior and chanting the Sinner's Prayer. Nope. No cases of that.

And you'll find not one example of anyone posting on the internet, but you don't teach that ERGO it's forbidden.

And you'll find not one example of churches using powerpoint or bulletins or baptisal dunking tanks or Communion with little plastic cups with a squirt of Welch's Grape Juice in them and a plate with little cup up pieces of Weber's White Bread pass around everyone - and yet where is your condemnation of that since there's not one example of such in the Bible? Where do you get this stuff?


There's NOTHING in the Bible that teaches your new tradition. I do see a false doctrine introduced as a tradition by the Anabaptists that you echo,





.

I have no new tradition, Josiah. You can make that false statement forever and you will forever be false.

 

[Particular]

He is saying that as a future reference to Infant Baptism! The only people I know that stop them from coming to Jesus is the Protestant.

Mark10

15 I promise you that you cannot get into God's kingdom, unless you accept it the way a child does.” 16Then Jesus took the children in his arms and blessed them by placing his hands on them.

Protestant's do not accept the children...an ominous warning.

Nope. Brian, you are forcing your church tradition into the text. This is exactly what Josiah does as well. Rather than let the Bible speak for itself, you are inputting your church teachings into any verse you imagine might fit with what your church says.
We must always question our church leaders. They are, after all, just as fallible and corrupt in their nature as you and me.
Josiah, makes arguments, not from scripture, but from silence and then states "since nothing in the Bible explicitly disagrees with my assertion, I declare my assertion valid." That is utterly absurd as one could declare that ducks are messengers from God and since the Bible doesn't disagree, the assertion would be proclaimed valid (if one used Josiah's flawed logic).
No, let us not insert as truth, what God does not expressly declare as truth. This is especially important when dealing with the doctrine of salvation. Teaching salvation by baptism is a grave error that has plunged many a person into the sea of fire as they trusted in their church sacrament rather than in God's actual word regarding salvation. May it be far from us to add what God has never added to salvation.

 

[brian100]

Who else stops infants from coming to Jesus? Only Protestants do.

 

[Lamb]

No one is saved by baptism. Not adults and not children. Baptismal regeneration is a false doctrine. God does not teach this. Traditions of men teach this doctrine.

Baptism saves because scripture says it does. You know the verse. You just don't accept it.

 

[atpollard]

Who else stops infants from coming to Jesus? Only Protestants do.

So does nature; depending on how young they are they cannot obey various parts of this:

[Act 2:37-38 NASB] 37 Now when they heard [this,] they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?" 38 Peter [said] to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

• Some infants cannot hear (too young to distinguish sounds)
• most infants cannot comprehend speach
• infants can DO little beyond eat (drink), poop, sleep and cry.
• infants certainly cannot inquire about their salvation
• if infants can repent (turn around from their former ways), there is no evidence one way or another ... so this is pure conjecture.
• ”baptizo”, the Greek word used for ”be baptized” in this verse means to immerse in liquid. Infants cannot immerse themselves without drowning and few infants are actually immersed.

So there are many things that infants are physically incapable of doing. Jesus said "Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” [Luk 18:16 NASB] ... and any child that can “come to Jesus” potentially has the physical ability to obey Peter’s instructions from the Holy Spirit (but not most ”infants”).

 

[Josiah]

Particular,


You are forcing your church tradition into the text. There is NOTHING - not a word - to confirm the new tradition you parrot. NOTHING that remotely states your new church tradition. If you have the following verses, note them.

"Thou canst NOT baptize any until they hath celebrated a certain birthday, but you won't be told which one that is."

"Thou canst NOT baptize any until they hath adequately proven they hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and hath correctly chanteth the Sinner's Prayer."

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless you submergeth ever cell of their body entirely under water."

let us not insert as truth, what God does not expressly declare as truth.

Okat. But this is EXACTLY what the Anabaptists did in the late 16th Century and EXACTLY what you do as you you echo them.

As you keep proving, there is NOTHING - not one word - that states what you do, NOTHING that mandates all the rules you declare. NOT ONE WORD. The Anabaptists just invented this stuff out of thin air (because it jibed with their radical synergism) and you just parrot this rules.

Scripture nowhere "expressly declares" the following, and everyone knows it.

"Thou canst NOT baptize any until they hath celebrated a certain birthday, but you won't be told which one that is."

"Thou canst NOT baptize any until they hath adequately proven they hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and hath correctly chanteth the Sinner's Prayer."

"Thou canst NOT baptize any until you submergeth ever cell of their body entirely under water."

Why don't you abide by your own mandate here? Why demand this of everyone else but so entirely exempt just yourself from this? You insist we cannot insert as truth what God has not 'expressly declared" and yet as you keep proving, you have NOT ONE VERSE that "expressly declares" ANY part of this new Anabaptist tradition you endlessly parrot. You've proven it. Over and over. For nearly a year now.







.

 

[Particular]

Who else stops infants from coming to Jesus? Only Protestants do.

Hey, if an infant is moved by God to believe and follow God, no one will stand against it. But, you know that never happens.
Parents get their children baptized and then perpetuate the lie that the water baptism caused God to extend saving grace upon them. Yet there is zero teaching that God does this. Instead, it is a legalistic ritual that attempts to coerce God to do what God never promised He would do. It therefore is a lie that causes sinners to die in their sins, completely oblivious to their need of redemption.

 

[Particular]

Particular,


You are forcing your church tradition into the text. There is NOTHING - not a word - to confirm the new tradition you parrot. NOTHING that remotely states your new church tradition. If you have the following verses, note them.

"Thou canst NOT baptize any until they hath celebrated a certain birthday, but you won't be told which one that is."

"Thou canst NOT baptize any until they hath adequately proven they hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and hath correctly chanteth the Sinner's Prayer."

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless you submergeth ever cell of their body entirely under water."









Okat. But this is EXACTLY what the Anabaptists did in the late 16th Century and EXACTLY what you do as you you echo them.

As you keep proving, there is NOTHING - not one word - that states what you do, NOTHING that mandates all the rules you declare. NOT ONE WORD. The Anabaptists just invented this stuff out of thin air (because it jibed with their radical synergism) and you just parrot this rules.

Scripture nowhere "expressly declares" the following, and everyone knows it.

"Thou canst NOT baptize any until they hath celebrated a certain birthday, but you won't be told which one that is."

"Thou canst NOT baptize any until they hath adequately proven they hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and hath correctly chanteth the Sinner's Prayer."

"Thou canst NOT baptize any until you submergeth ever cell of their body entirely under water."

Why don't you abide by your own mandate here? Why demand this of everyone else but so entirely exempt just yourself from this? You insist we cannot insert as truth what God has not 'expressly declared" and yet as you keep proving, you have NOT ONE VERSE that "expressly declares" ANY part of this new Anabaptist tradition you endlessly parrot. You've proven it. Over and over. For nearly a year now.







.

Sola Scriptura, Josiah. You parrot your sola lutherana while I share scripture alone.

 

[Particular]

Baptism saves because scripture says it does. You know the verse. You just don't accept it.

No, it doesn't. Re-read Acts 2. Peter is not saying that water baptism saves.
You force water into every instance where the common term, baptizo (immersion) is used. You don't care that the context doesn't have water surrounding the word. You just toss it in with no regard because you think it makes your assertion valid.

 

[Josiah]

No, it doesn't.

SOLA SCRIPTURA, my brother!


YOU demanded: "Let us not insert as truth, what God does not expressly declare as truth."

Ah. No Anabaptist tradition. No Catholic tradition. No Lutheran tradition. Just what is "expressly declared." That's your repeated demand of all (although you consistently and absolutely exempt one from this demand).



"Baptism now saves you.' Those are LITERAL, VERBATIM, "expressly declared" black-and-white words of Scripture. You may disagree with Lamm's "take" on this, the same (as far as we know) of all Christians before some wackadoddle Anabaptist came along, the same a nearly all Christians still view it, but it is undeniable those ARE the literal, verbatim, exact, expressly declared ,stated words of the Bible. Sola Scriptura = no spin, look at the words (or as YOU demand, "expressly stated"). So, Lamm has Sola Scriptura, she has the verbatim, literal, "expressly stated" words.

Where do you find the following verbatim, literal, "expressly declared" words that state your new Anabaptist tradition you parrot endlessly? You know, the reference for each of the following Anabaptist traditions you echo on and on?

"Thou canst NOT baptize any until they hath celebrated a certain birthday, but you won't be told which one that is."

"Thou canst NOT baptize any until they hath adequately proven they hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and hath correctly chanteth the Sinner's Prayer."

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless you submergeth ever cell of their body entirely under water."

Why don't you abide by your own mandate here? Why demand this of everyone else but so entirely exempt just yourself from this? You insist we cannot insert as truth what God has not 'expressly declared" and yet as you keep proving, you have NOT ONE VERSE that "expressly declares" ANY part of this new Anabaptist tradition you endlessly parrot. You've proven it. Over and over. For nearly a year now.





.