Is infant baptism from the Bible?

[Josiah]

@Particular;

[Acts 2:38 NASB] 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.

EXACTLY!

Curious you don't read what you post.... curious you don't notice the obvious: this verse destroys your whole apologetic.

The word is "AND" (as you repeatedly note), the word is not "THEN" (as you domatically insist it is, the word your entire apologetic depends upon). Try actually reading the words (Sola Scriptura). You REJECT the word "and", just delete it, and replace it with a word the Holy Spirit NEVER (not once) used in connection to Baptism, the word "THEN."

AND ('kai") is THE most general, generic connective word in the Greek language. It just connects things. There are 3 Greek words that imply or mandate chronological order and sequence (typically translated into English as "then"or "after that") but none of these words exist in any verse about Baptism. The word is 'and' as you keep proving, not "then" as you keep insisting. Friend, any heretic can show Scripture says what he does if he employs your trick: Just delete the word in the text and substitute a different one.



You demand: "Let us not insert as truth, what God does not expressly declare as truth."

Here are the 3 Anabaptist traditions you parrot. Do as you demand, quote the Bible "expressly declaring" these:

"Thou canst NOT baptize any until they hath celebrated a certain birthday, but you won't be told which one that is." (Anti-Paedobaptism Tradition). Just verbatim quote the verse(s) that "expressly declares" this. Don't echo something some Baptist "expressly declared", quote the verse(s) expressly declaring this invention of yours as truth.

"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." (Credobaptism Tradition) Just verbatim quote the verse(s) that "expressly declares" this. Don't echo something some Baptist "expressly declared", quote the verse(s) expressly declaring this invention of yours as truth.

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless you submergeth ever cell of their body entirely under water." (Immersion only baptism Tradition) Just verbatim quote the verse(s) that "expressly declares" this. Don't echo something some Baptist "expressly declared", quote the verse(s) expressly declaring this invention of yours as truth.


If you have verses that state the new Anabaptist traditions you echo, give them. But please don't CHANGE anything by deleting words you don't like and substituting entirely different ones to correct the Holy Spirit (as you do with Acts 2:38). TAKE from Scripture instead of changing Scripture to impose your new rare Anabaptist inventions/tradition on Baptism in lieu of what the Bible states.

[Romans 10:8-10 NASB] 8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus [as] Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

Nothing about Baptism.

Never does the word "then" appear.

Nothing here supports the 3 new traditions you parrot:

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

"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." (Credobaptism Tradition)

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless you submergeth ever cell of their body entirely under water." (Immersion only baptism Tradition)

[Romans 10:13-14 NASB] 13 for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED." 14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?

Nothing about Baptism.

Never does the word "then" appear.

Nothing here supports the 3 new traditions you parrot:

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

"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." (Credobaptism Tradition)

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless you submergeth ever cell of their body entirely under water." (Immersion only baptism Tradition)





.

 

[Josiah]

What we see is that God never, ever, saves a person based upon the works that they do

I think foundational to our disagreement is your embrace of a very small god, with MUCH insistence on what God cannot do. I, on the other hand, embrace a big and able God who does what He promises and wills.


But to your point here: The one BEING baptized does nothing. Nothing. I wasn't even conscience when I was baptized, not even breathing, so tell me what WORK I performed? No, the one baptized is passive, the one BEING baptized just receives what another does. So your whole argument is irrelevant. It's absurd.

It can only apply to the one DOING the baptizing (which we all agree IS doing something). So, your whole apologetic is that if a Christian DOES something, this renders God impotent and unable to save or bless (because some human effort was involved.). Okay. Then you also condemn Christians teaching, loving, caring.. you condemn preaching, evangelism, mission work... you condemn Sunday School and posting anything Christian on the internet. It's absurd. A silly apologetic that you yourself don't accept.


And equally absurd is your repeated apologetic that we can't do anything unless we "SEE" that done in the Bible. So why are you posting on the internet? Why do you drive a car? Do you condemn churches who have websites, youth groups, women groups? Do you condemn churches who celebrate Communion with little plastic cups with a squirt of Welch's Grape Juice in each and a plate with little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread? Nope. So, do YOU accept your own apologetic? Nope. Not at all. It's absurd. A silly apologetic that you yourself don't accept.





And remember YOUR DEMAND, YOUR INSISTENCE FOR ALL; "Let us not insert as truth what God does not expressly declare as truth." You ridicule when tradition is inserted into the text. But that's all you do. Never have you ever quoted any verse "expressly declaring" any of the new Anabaptist traditions you endlessly parrot.

What verse(s) "expressly declares" the new Anabaptist traditions you parrot?

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

"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." (Credobaptism Tradition)

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless you submergeth ever cell of their body entirely under water." (Immersion only baptism Tradition)







.

 

[Lamb]

Can God do something through the waters is the question that needs to be asked. Isn't it God's grace that brings us to faith so we may have eternal life? If so then why do people insist that they have to find themselves having some worth first before they think God can baptize them?

 

[MennoSota]

I think foundational to our disagreement is your embrace of a very small god, with MUCH insistence on what God cannot do. I, on the other hand, embrace a big and able God who does what He promises and wills.


But to your point here: The one BEING baptized does nothing. Nothing. I wasn't even conscience when I was baptized, not even breathing, so tell me what WORK I performed? No, the one baptized is passive, the one BEING baptized just receives what another does. So your whole argument is irrelevant. It's absurd.

It can only apply to the one DOING the baptizing (which we all agree IS doing something). So, your whole apologetic is that if a Christian DOES something, this renders God impotent and unable to save or bless (because some human effort was involved.). Okay. Then you also condemn Christians teaching, loving, caring.. you condemn preaching, evangelism, mission work... you condemn Sunday School and posting anything Christian on the internet. It's absurd. A silly apologetic that you yourself don't accept.


And equally absurd is your repeated apologetic that we can't do anything unless we "SEE" that done in the Bible. So why are you posting on the internet? Why do you drive a car? Do you condemn churches who have websites, youth groups, women groups? Do you condemn churches who celebrate Communion with little plastic cups with a squirt of Welch's Grape Juice in each and a plate with little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread? Nope. So, do YOU accept your own apologetic? Nope. Not at all. It's absurd. A silly apologetic that you yourself don't accept.





And remember YOUR DEMAND, YOUR INSISTENCE FOR ALL; "Let us not insert as truth what God does not expressly declare as truth." You ridicule when tradition is inserted into the text. But that's all you do. Never have you ever quoted any verse "expressly declaring" any of the new Anabaptist traditions you endlessly parrot.

What verse(s) "expressly declares" the new Anabaptist traditions you parrot?

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

"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." (Credobaptism Tradition)

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless you submergeth ever cell of their body entirely under water." (Immersion only baptism Tradition)







.

Josiah, after all this time, you are still forcing tradition upon the Bible. It is likely that Particular's God is quite large and capable of graciously saving infants without any need for a ceremonial sprinkling or water dunk of an infant.
This is a Lutheran board, so I don't expect the owners to go against the unfounded traditions of its originators. But, just because you believe in an unfounded tradition, it does not make your vision of God any bigger. In reality, it makes your vision of God unfounded.

 

[MennoSota]

Go ahead and believe that kids shouldn't be baptized and see how that gets you to heaven.

Go ahead and baptize infants and see how few have faith as adults and die in their sins. That would be the majority of Roman Catholics and Lutherans.

 

[atpollard]

Can God do something through the waters is the question that needs to be asked.

Not really. God CAN do anything, so that is not the issue. The questions that need to be asked are “What does God say that He DOES do?” and “What does God command us TO do?”

Nowhere does God say that he will save babies if we sprinkle them with water.
God does command us to REPENT and CONFESS and BE BAPTIZED.

 

[atpollard]

Curious you don't read what you post.... curious you don't notice the obvious: this verse destroys your whole apologetic.

Not MY apologetic. It may destroy what you claim is the apologetic of a bunch of 16th Century wackadoodles (I think that is how you describe them). Credobaptists just think that people should BOTH repent and be baptized (like Peter said) if they want to be saved. Baptizing infants that have never heard the gospel against their will is NOT what Peter commanded.

 

[atpollard]

You demand: "Let us not insert as truth, what God does not expressly declare as truth."

Here are the 3 Anabaptist traditions you parrot. Do as you demand, quote the Bible "expressly declaring" these:

Where have I made that demand?
Please point out the post.

Where have I stated those 3 Anabaptist traditions?
Please point out the post.

I think you have confused me with someone else.

 

[atpollard]

The word is "AND" (as you repeatedly note), the word is not "THEN" (as you domatically insist it is, the word your entire apologetic depends upon).

“Repent and baptize, repent and baptize
They go together like a horse and carriage
This I tell you, brother
You can't have one without the other”
(sung to the tune of “Love and marriage”)


Why do you baptize without repentance? “and” never means “without”

 

[Bluezone777]

It's not about having worth as it's about repenting which is submitting to Christ which occurs after the Holy Spirit comes upon a man and convicts them of their sin. Baptizing is a public expression of submission to Christ though it is preceded and followed by repentance. There is a reason why repent comes first not baptize in that passage in 2 Peter. The only thing infant baptism does is help create a generation of false converts who are no different then the people who walk around thinking their Christian because they prayed a prayer, signed a card and show up at church once a week yet never show any discernible evidence that they ever repented and are continuing to repent throughout their life. They show no increasing interest in or understanding of scripture, no change in behavior but will swear up and down they are saved until the day they die, stand before the judgment seat and hear " "Depart from me, you worker of sin, I never knew you."

In all things, God seeks ALL glory for Himself in all He does and refuses to share even the smallest bit of it with anyone. He doesn't want to share the glory of saving you with the person who gave you that card to sign, read off that prayer you recited, or dipped you into that baptism pool as He wants you to know that when He saved you that it was all Him and nothing else.

For example, when God moved to take down Goliath who was blaspheming His name among His people that He went out of his way to use a small boy with only a slingshot and five smooth stones to take him down not a large powerful solider armed with a sword, shield and years of training in how to use them. Could he have used the soldier? Of course but he wouldn't get the glory for it or at least not all of it hence why He wouldn't so when Goliath was killed, all His people were praising God and giving thanks to Him not David for the victory which they might have done had David been that tough soldier instead of a shepherd.

 

[atpollard]

Nothing about Baptism.

True, but ...

[Romans 10:8-10 NASB] 8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus [as] Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

... does place a requirement to “confess with your mouth” (which your infants do not do) and “believe in your heart” (which an infant cannot do since he/she has never heard the gospel and does not comprehend languages yet) before claiming “you will be saved” (which the infant is not, because it has not done as commanded). Thus the Lutheran Church falsely claims that the sprinkled infant HAS been saved, when Scripture says what one must do to be saved and the infant has not done what God commanded. You are false prophets speaking presumptuously by claiming that God has said something that God has not said.

That is how that verse applies to baptism.

 

[atpollard]

Nothing about Baptism.

True. However this ...

Romans 10:13-14 NASB] 13 for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED." 14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?

... does state that whoever will CALL on the name of the Lord will be saved, and the infant never called on the name of the Lord (because infants cannot call on anything, they just scream and cry and coo). It also says one must hear a preacher to believe what they have heard to call on the Lord in whom they have believed, but the infant does not understand spoken words, so he/she has never heard and according to Scripture cannot believe in what they have not heard and cannot call on whom they do not believe. So the sprinkled infant is not saved according to this verse.

That is how it applies to baptizing infants.

 

[Josiah]

“Repent and baptize, repent and baptize

I wouldn't argue that point. But that has nothing whatsoever with ANY Anabaptist dogma.

As has been proven, NEVER (not once) is any koine Greek word for "then" or "after" ... any word implying or mandating sequence or order used in any verse having anything to do with Baptism, as you agree, the word we find is "KAI" ('and') the most generic, general connective word of the Greek language. It does not imply (much less dogmatically mandate) sequence.

"I got up this morning and visited the bathroom and made a pot of coffee." All correct. Delete the word I used ("and") and substitute instead a word I never used ("then") and now it's a lie, a false statement. Friend, ANY heresy can be documented by Scripture if the heretic just deletes the word consistently used and substitutes a word never used in that context. The word is AND, not THEN. Funny how you too feel compelled to prove Scripture never states your whole dogma of sequence.

I think you have confused me with someone else.

If you actually READ post 223, etc., you will see I was replying to Particular. Are you he? Sometimes posters who have been banned return under a different user name. Have you done that?

13 for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED." 14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?

Nothing about baptism here.

So, you hold we are to baptize one who WILL CALL (future tense) on the Name of the Lord (but has not already done so), so does that mandate you cannot baptize one who already has done such? So you hold we cannot baptize one who HAS CALLED on the Lord but only on one who WILL do so. Interesting. That seems problematic to your new Anabaptist invention of Credobaptism.

I believe faith is the free gift of God and not a reward to one who at some future date WILL CALL on the Lord but hasn't yet.

Nothing in this verse about one must have celebrated a certain birthday (but we aren't told which one that is) before one may be baptized, nothing about how one must adequately prove they have accepted Jesus as their personal Savior and perfectly chanted the Sinner's Prayer before they can be baptized. Nothing that supports your new Anabaptist tradition. In fact, it seems to make your Credobaptism view quite problematic.

I disagree that God cannot give faith to one who unable to speak. I guess that's your spin on this singular verse, but I don't agree that FIRST the dead must do something and THEN God rewards that with the gift of faith, nor do I limit God's ability to give faith to those who are able to pronounce certain words in some language. Remember, YOU are the one with all the dogmatic limitations on what God can do, YOU are the one placing all these dogmatic restrictions on baptizing and teaching - not me. I never claimed Scripture says "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and adequately chanteth the Sinner's Prayer (Credobaptism), I never claim Scripture states, "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless every cell of their body is submergedth entirely under water (Immersion only baptism). Those traditions were invented by the Anabaptists in the late 16th Century. The limitations on God and on Baptism are yours, not mine.




.

 

[atpollard]

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless you submergeth ever cell of their body entirely under water." (Immersion only baptism Tradition)

The Greek word translated “baptize” means to immerse.
So the question is like asking me if someone HAS to be nailed to a cross to be Crucified ... the answer is “YES” because the word Crucify means to nail to a cross. You can argue that the Cross can be shaped like a “T” or a “t” or an “X” but you cannot argue that a man cut in half with a sword was crucified.
Baptize means to immerse. You can argue they were immersed in water or they were immersed in the Holy Spirit or even they were immersed in a barrel of vinegar and pickled ... but there is a Greek word for “sprinkle” and “baptizo” (Greek for “Baptize”) is not it.

However the Credobaptist complaint against infant baptism is not the method (sprinkling vs pouring vs immersion) ... it is the lack of a profession of faith (Credo = ‘I Believe’)

 

[atpollard]

If you actually READ post 223, etc., you will see I was replying to Particular. Are you he? Sometimes posters who have been banned return under a different user name. Have you done that?

Sorry, but you addressed the post to Particular, but quoted ATPOLLARD throughout.

Yes, I am Particular returned under a different name ... and I used my DeLorean to travel back in time and create an account even older than the original account. I am diabolical that way.

 

[atpollard]

I disagree that God cannot give faith to one who unable to speak.

So do I. As I have repeatedly stated, the question is not what CAN God do, but what does God say that He DOES do.

Does God save those that call on His name? ... God says He does.
Does God save those who repent and are baptized? ... God says He does.
Does God save those that Confess and Believe (Romans 10)? ... God says that he does.

Does God save those who do not call upon His name, do not repent, do not confess, do not believe and have never heard the Good News ... all because someone dragged them unwillingly to have water poured on their head before they were cognitively aware of their surroundings? ... God never says that He does.

 

[Josiah]

However the Credobaptist complaint against infant baptism is not the method (sprinkling vs pouring vs immersion) ... it is the lack of a profession of faith (Credo = ‘I Believe’)

Credo baptism is ONE of the Anbaptist inventions. ONE of them. ONE of the ones being discussed in this thread.

When you find the verse that states, "Thou canst NOT baptize one unless they hath first adequately proven they have accepted Jesus as their personal Savior" let us know. Anabaptists have been looking for that verse for over 400 years but none yet has found it, perhaps you can. Where is this mandate so taught? Be the first to find it.

Yes, it seems most (but not all) of the EXAMPLES of baptisms are of those who first believed. So what? It seems most where of Hebrews (people of that ethnicity) does that mean we are forbidden to baptize gentiles? It seem most where within 100 miles of the Mediterranean Sea, does that prove we are forbidden to baptize if 200 miles away from that sea? It seems most were administered by a Hebrew male, does that mean a Gentile thus is dogmatically forbidden to baptize anyone?

And where are your examples in the Bible of baptizing in a big tank behind a curtain? Of celebrating Communion with little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups with a squiet of Welch's Grape Juice in each passed around in pews to anyone who takes it? Where are the examples of youth groups, womens' groups, pastors wearing Ahola Shirts and Jeans?

Your appeal to some EXAMPLES to establish prohibitions is absurd. If you can quote the verse that confirms this invention of some Anbaptists, some verse that states, "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they hath first adequately proven they hath accepted Jesus as their personal Savior" then state it. But your appeal to some examples won't work - unless you also condemn posting on the internet, churches using baptism tanks. and all sorts of other things you accept without even one example of such in the Bible.




.

 

[Josiah]

Does God save those that call on His name? ... God says He does.
Does God save those who repent and are baptized? ... God says He does.
Does God save those that Confess and Believe (Romans 10)? ... God says that he does.

Agreed, although the verse you entered says "WILL CALL" - you stressed the future tense, they have not done so YET. I guess arguing we should baptize those who WILL CALL on the name of the Lord but we are forbidden if they already have. But let's move on....

And I disagree that God can only give faith to those who FIRST called on his name, who FIRST repented, who FIRST confessed and believed - and then, only AFTER THAT has been adequately supplied by the dead atheist, only THEN and AFTER they had performed all that, ONLY THEN can God give them faith. We seem to disagree on your chronological mandates, the dogmatic prerequistes you place on God BEFORE He will give the gift of faith. This I'm sure is a fundamental disagreement between us - that is simply revealing itself here. But let's move on...


If you have a verse that states, "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they ALREADY HAVE adequately proven they have accepted Jesus as their personal Savior and perfectly chanted the Sinner's Prayer" then give the verse. Showing that it's likely everyone who baptized anyone was a Hebrew male and that it's likely every baptism performed as told in the Bible was within 100 miles of the Mediterranian Sea is not a verse that states, "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they hath first adquately proven they hath accepted Jesus as their personal Savior."

The one new Anbaptist tradition you are choosing to defend is that FIRST in chronological time the receiver must prove they are a believer before some prohibition to baptize is lifted. Where does the Bible say that, where is this prohibition, this dogmatic prerequisite? You gave a verse you suggest means we can't baptize one who already has called on the name of the Lord, I'm not sure you are correctly applyisng that, but where is the verse that says FIRST one must prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior or correctly responded to an altar call or perfectly chanted the Sinner's Prayer BEFORE SOME PROHIBITION SPECIFICALLY ON BAPTISM is lifted? Where is this verse that states this prohibition, this prerequist on Baptism?




.

 

[atpollard]

Agreed, although the verse you entered says "WILL CALL" - you stressed the future tense, they have not done so YET. I guess arguing we should baptize those who WILL CALL on the name of the Lord but we are forbidden if they already have. But let's move on....

I did not stress the future tense. Any capitalization was in the NASB text (indicating a quote). I stressed “call” (which infants do not). The future tense is tied to the rest of the verses in the paragraph. It was in the future, because the point being made was that they had not even heard yet, because no one had gone to tell them yet, so they had no chance to believe a message they never heard from a person they had never met. (Just like infants).

 

[atpollard]

Your appeal to some EXAMPLES to establish prohibitions is absurd.

Then baptize pets. There is no specific, verbatim prohibition that says “thou shall not baptize pets”.

As for me and my house, we will just stick to doing what God has actually commanded that we should do ... “Repent and be baptized“ (Acts 2) & “Confess and believe” (Romans 10) ... and we will be saved!