Is infant baptism from the Bible?

[atpollard]

True, MOST (but not all) of the examples of folks being baptized seem to be of folks who were believers.

Which are the examples from scripture of people baptized that seemed to be unbelievers?

 

[Josiah]

Which are the examples from scripture of people baptized that seemed to be unbelievers?

Your comment was that ALL the examples that just happen to be recorded in the Bible are ALL of people who FIRST believed.

It's not true. It is a false claim, meant to support an argument you yourself don't accept (We cannot do anything unless it is universally exampled as one in the Bible), a point you prove every time you post on the internet.


You CLAIM that 1 Corinthians 1:16 states that EVERYONE baptized had FIRST in chronological time had proven they had accepted Jesus as their personal Savior. Where does this verse say that? Prove to us that EVERY member of Stephanas' family had FIRST proven they were Christians and THUS the some unsubstantiated prohibition to baptize was lifted. Can't? Then your claim is false. And your apologetic is wrong.

You CLAIM that Acts 16:15 states that EVERYONE baptized had FIRST in chronological time had proven they had accepted Jesus as their personal Savior. Where does this verse say that? Prove to us that EVERY member of Lydia's family had FIRST proven they were Christians and THUS some unsubstantiated prohibition to baptize was lifted. Can't? Then your claim is false. And your apologetic is baseless.

You CLAIM that Acts 16:33 states that EVERYONE baptized had FIRST in chronological time had proven they had accepted Jesus as their personal Savior. Where does this verse say that? Prove to us your claim is true: that EVERY member of the jailer's family had FIRST proven they were Christians and THUS some unsubstantiated prohibition to baptize was lifted. Can't? Then your claim is false. And your apologetic is baseless.

I don't claim that every member of all these households were.... anything (other than being in a household) but then I'm not inventing a whole new dogma/tradition based on all of them being already Christians or not Christians or someday Christians or Black or Green or tall or fat or whatever. You are. You are basing your entire new tradition on a claim that ALL these people FIRST had proven they were Christians and THUS they could be baptized. But you have NOTHING to substantiate your claim. And thus your whole argument falls flat on it's face.


But your entire apologetic is not only unfounded and untrue.... it's also one you reject. You prove it every time you post on the internet. You do NOT accept that Christians can ONLY do as was always done in the Bible and cannot do otherwise. You prove it when you drive a car... you prove it at your Men's Group.... you prove it as you celebrate Communion by passing around little plastic cups with a squirt of Welch's Grape Juice in them and a bowl of little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread. LITTLE of what you do is exactly as was always done in the Bible and you do NOT forbid anything that was not always done in the Bible. You condemn, repudiate and reject your entire apologetic (which isn't even true).

Nonetheless, Acts 2:38 clearly says ...

.... AND, not THEN.

Your entire apologetic is denounced by the verse you quote. The word is "AND" (a very generic, general connective word) NOT what your entire argument depends upon, the word "THEN" (there are words in Greek that CAN imply or suggest or even require sequence, order, prerequistes, but NONE of those appear in this text or ANY text that has ANYTHING to do with baptism). Your entire apologetic requires that you DELETE the word actually in the text and REPLACE it with an entirely different word you keep proving is NOT in the text.





.

 

[atpollard]

Actually, it does no such thing. As shown in post 248

Irrespective of post 248, Acts 2:38 clearly says ... “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.“ ... which does not say “Parents, go and baptize your infants and they will receive the Holy Spirit without repenting.”

 

[Lamb]

Irrespective of post 248, Acts 2:38 clearly says ... “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.“ ... which does not say “Parents, go and baptize your infants and they will receive the Holy Spirit without repenting.”

That's because it's in the next verse...this promise is for you and your children. Peter was talking to Jews and if you recount biblical history you see how family oriented they were. Of course they would want their children included in this promise! Peter assured them it was for them as well as their children.

 

[Josiah]

Acts 2:38 clearly says ... "Repent, and ..."

EXACTLY... thus your entire apologetic and new tradition collapses..

Your entire argument depends on the word "THEN" because you insist there is a stated MANDATE of sequence and chronological order, that FIRST in time there must be repentance and once that is entirely completed and over, THEN after that, your supposed prohibition on Baptism (which you've never documented exists) is lifted and only THEN can one be baptized.

But as you keep proving, the word is not your required "THEN." There are 3 words in Greek that imply or suggest or require order and sequence but none of those words are used in any verse that has anything to do with Baptism. As you keep proving, the word on which your entire new tradition rests isn't there. Nope. It's missing. Entirely. You keep proving this. You keep proving the support for your new tradition isn't there, it's entirely missing.

The word (you keep proving) is AND. Kai in Greek. It only means "and." It has NOTHING to do with order, sequence, prerequistes. "I woke up this morning and went to the bathroom and made a pot of coffee." All correct, but just delete the word "and" and substitute a very different word "then" and now it's a lie, a falsehood, you changed it from something correct to a lie because you deleted the word I used and substituted a different one with a very different meaning.


Friend, any heretic can prove his heresy is supported by the Bible if he does what you do: Just delete the word the Holy Spirit placed in the text (in this case "and") and substitute a very different word (in this case "THEN") that is needed to support their invention.

You simply keep proving the word your new tradition entirely depends on (THEN) isn't in the text, not in ANY text about Baptism. Your Anabaptist tradition is not only missing from 1500 years of Christianity but from the Bible as well.




Josiah




.

 

[Lamb]

Here's something else to add to this "and" thing that Josiah keeps bringing up.

Look again at Acts 2.

We know that in 2:38 repent and be baptized and in 2:39 this promise is for you and your children...

But go down more...
Let me quote it:

42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

We see that they devoted themselves to the "teaching"...yes baptism and teaching go hand in hand.

THEN we also see that all the believers were together....etc...every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. Jews were family people. They weren't like today's modern man that left their children at home in daycares or with babysitters, their families were a unit which included children. The believers went to temple...do you see that? If their children weren't included in those groups of believers then where did those children end up at if not with their families?

 

[atpollard]

Your entire argument depends on the word "THEN" because you insist there is a stated MANDATE of sequence and chronological order, that FIRST in time there must be repentance and once that is entirely completed and over, THEN after that, your supposed prohibition on Baptism (which you've never documented exists) is lifted and only THEN can one be baptized.

Your entire argument depends on saving infants by baptizing WITHOUT repentance. Does “kai” mean “without”. My argument simply remains “repent and be baptized” ... just like the Bible says.

 

[atpollard]

this promise

WHAT is “this promise” according to Peter in Acts 2?
You keep quoting the promise is for my children, but will not quote what the promise for my children actually is. You make it sound like Peter promised that if I get baptized, then my baptism will save me, my children and all the future generations of grandchildren yet to be born. Is that the promise?

 

[atpollard]

42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

Did saved infants devote themselves to the apostles’ teaching?
Did saved infants break bread?
Did saved infants pray?
Did saved infants sell property?

Or rather, as unsaved infants (Eph 2:1-4) grew up and received the gift of faith (Eph 2:8-9), were they “added to their number daily those who were being saved”?

 

[atpollard]

EXACTLY... thus your entire apologetic and new tradition collapses..

Your entire argument depends on the word "THEN" because you insist there is a stated MANDATE of sequence and chronological order, that FIRST in time there must be repentance and once that is entirely completed and over, THEN after that, your supposed prohibition on Baptism (which you've never documented exists) is lifted and only THEN can one be baptized.

But as you keep proving, the word is not your required "THEN." There are 3 words in Greek that imply or suggest or require order and sequence but none of those words are used in any verse that has anything to do with Baptism. As you keep proving, the word on which your entire new tradition rests isn't there. Nope. It's missing. Entirely. You keep proving this. You keep proving the support for your new tradition isn't there, it's entirely missing.

The word (you keep proving) is AND. Kai in Greek. It only means "and." It has NOTHING to do with order, sequence, prerequistes. "I woke up this morning and went to the bathroom and made a pot of coffee." All correct, but just delete the word "and" and substitute a very different word "then" and now it's a lie, a falsehood, you changed it from something correct to a lie because you deleted the word I used and substituted a different one with a very different meaning.


Friend, any heretic can prove his heresy is supported by the Bible if he does what you do: Just delete the word the Holy Spirit placed in the text (in this case "and") and substitute a very different word (in this case "THEN") that is needed to support their invention.

You simply keep proving the word your new tradition entirely depends on (THEN) isn't in the text, not in ANY text about Baptism. Your Anabaptist tradition is not only missing from 1500 years of Christianity but from the Bible as well.




Josiah




.

Acts 2:38 clearly says ... “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.“ ... which does not say “Parents, go and baptize your infants and they will receive the Holy Spirit without repenting.”

I believe Peter and not you.

 

[Bluezone777]

I believe repentance is a gift of the Holy Spirit so I don't think anyone actively repents of their own accord however if they have not repented then they have shown no evidence that the Holy Spirit has come upon them and started the work of regeneration so why would I encourage or participate in baptizing people who God has not brought into the family by way of His Son made known to us that He started this work by way of their repentance?

This is a followup of my previous post I made here by the way.

 

[Lamb]

WHAT is “this promise” according to Peter in Acts 2?
You keep quoting the promise is for my children, but will not quote what the promise for my children actually is. You make it sound like Peter promised that if I get baptized, then my baptism will save me, my children and all the future generations of grandchildren yet to be born. Is that the promise?

I already answered and provided scripture here in this thread.

 

[Lamb]

42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

Did saved infants devote themselves to the apostles’ teaching?
Did saved infants break bread?
Did saved infants pray?
Did saved infants sell property?

Or rather, as unsaved infants (Eph 2:1-4) grew up and received the gift of faith (Eph 2:8-9), were they “added to their number daily those who were being saved”?

Were infants present with their families?

 

[atpollard]

I already answered and provided scripture here in this thread.

From everywhere except Acts 2. Peter could not have expected his audience to know scripture that had not yet been written. So the question stands ... to what promise was Peter referring in Acts 2 when he said “this promise is for you and your children and all who are far off”.

Do you honestly claim that it was a promise that Paul would come along later and write?

 

[atpollard]

Were infants present with their families?

Probably. I was not there and the Bible offers no specific statement on the subject, so I cannot offer a definitive answer, but it seems more likely than not that they were with their families. However, being present is not the same as all of the other things described in that paragraph that you chose to share. As I said, I believe that growing up under that education probably led many infants to grow into believers who were ... “added to their number as they were being saved.”

 

[Lamb]

Probably. I was not there and the Bible offers no specific statement on the subject, so I cannot offer a definitive answer, but it seems more likely than not that they were with their families. However, being present is not the same as all of the other things described in that paragraph that you chose to share. As I said, I believe that growing up under that education probably led many infants to grow into believers who were ... “added to their number as they were being saved.”

Scriptures said that it was the believers who met in the temple. If the infants/children were not believers by then God would have made it clear but scripture says this, " They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."

 

[Lamb]

From everywhere except Acts 2. Peter could not have expected his audience to know scripture that had not yet been written. So the question stands ... to what promise was Peter referring in Acts 2 when he said “this promise is for you and your children and all who are far off”.

Do you honestly claim that it was a promise that Paul would come along later and write?

He actually stated in the verse that forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit were given in baptism. The verses I provided to you backed up that claim. Forgiveness of sins is given because in baptism we are clothed in Jesus' righteousness. That same Jesus who died on the cross.

 

[Josiah]

Does “kai” mean “without”

Correct.

It states "AND" not "THEN."


"Kai" also does NOT mean 'THEN, AFTER THAT, NEXT"
It means "AND" - the most generic, general connective word in the Greek language.
It ONLY connects things, it has nothing whatsoever to do with sequence.
Thus it does NOTHING WHATSOEVER to support this new Anabaptist invention of Credobaptism.


You give one verse that you claim states that FIRST in chronological time, one must adequately prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, and only THEN, only AFTER THAT, is some (supposed) prohibition on Baptism lifted and they THEN may be baptized. This is your Credobaptism tradition. You offer one verse that you claim states this. But to do so, you must delete the word in the text and then substitute an entirely different word, one that appears in NO verse that concerns Baptism, then point to this substituted word as your confirmation. But the word the Holy Spirit put there is AND. I know you can't use that word so you delete that and point to the word YOU put there instead, "THEN."

Acts 2:38 clearly says ... “Peter said to them, "Repent, and

Thus your entire apologetic and new tradition collapses...

Your entire argument depends on the word "THEN" because you insist there is a stated MANDATE of sequence and chronological order, that FIRST in time there must be repentance and once that is entirely completed and over, THEN after that, your supposed prohibition on Baptism (which you've never documented exists) is lifted and only THEN can one be baptized.

But as you keep proving, the word is not your required "THEN." There are 3 words in Greek that imply or suggest or require order and sequence but none of those words are used in any verse that has anything to do with Baptism. As you keep proving, the word on which your entire new tradition rests isn't there. Nope. It's missing. Entirely. You keep proving this. You keep proving the support for your new tradition isn't there, it's entirely missing.

The word (you keep proving) is AND. Kai in Greek. It only means "and." It has NOTHING to do with order, sequence, prerequistes. "I woke up this morning and went to the bathroom and made a pot of coffee." All correct, but just delete the word "and" and substitute a very different word "then" and now it's a lie, a falsehood, you changed it from something correct to a lie because you deleted the word I used and substituted a different one with a very different meaning.


Friend, any heretic can prove his heresy is supported by the Bible if he does what you do: Just delete the word the Holy Spirit placed in the text (in this case "and") and substitute a very different word the heretic places into the text (in this case "THEN") that is needed to support their invention.

You simply keep proving the word your new tradition entirely depends on (THEN) isn't in the text, not in ANY text about Baptism. Your Anabaptist tradition is not only missing from 1500 years of Christianity but from the Bible as well. As you seem determined to prove.




Josiah





.

 

[atpollard]

Josiah,

You keep missing the point ... “AND” not “WITHOUT”.
There is no salvation without repentance, no matter how cute the infant is.

 

[atpollard]

He actually stated in the verse that forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit were given in baptism.

So you believe in salvation without repentance for really cute infants. [shrug] Scripture and I disagree.