Is infant baptism from the Bible?

[Faithhopeandcharity]

What exactly is it that makes you so loyal to the Catholic Church, considering that you disagree with her on doctrine after doctrine?

I’m agreeing with you infants should be baptized as I was at 16 days old

what catholic and divine doctrine do I reject?

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

What is meant by a whole household being baptized? Did they include underaged family members in the general term "whole household" or did they mean only adults.

Even if whole household included babies, does the Bible reporting that such was done equate to a command to baptize babies? The Bible reports a lot of things that are not proper to do, that are not commands, but happened. They are reported because they happened. The fact remains that there is no verse in the Bible commanding babies to be baptized.

How many babies over the centuries have been baptized and never embraced the Christian faith? I suspect the majority. Isn't that an insult to God to baptize someone against their will or without their consent? Especially if they go off to become worldlings (partly perhaps because the parents sent them to Caesar's school system).

Baptizing of babies was done in the early church by some, but not all. It became a mandatory thing when the church and state comingled under Constatine and remained so for about 1000 years.

Tell me anyone, does a baby go to Hell if it is not baptized, but Heaven if it is baptized?

How would you counsel a couple who lost a baby from stillbirth?

Matthew 19:14 (But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.) is used by some churches to say we must baptize babies, but the text does not say Jesus baptized these children who came to him. Nor is it likely that these children had already been baptized. So it seems that Jesus is saying all Children belong to the Kingdom of Heaven.

The strange ritual of confirmation seems to be a result of infant baptism. They get the kids to confess faith and then can't baptize them becasue they already have been baptized, so they have to make up a ritual that is not in the Bible.

By the way, I have seen confirmation classes like this and suspect that many kids are not ready for confirmation but do it anyway because of pressure from the parents. That does not seem like a good thing.

Or to catholic school in the last 50 yrs
No one said it’s a biblical mandate
But it is allowed and proper the kingdom is for all people Lk 2:10-11

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

Jn 3:16 for God so love the world including infants
Jn 1:29 takes away the sins of the world including infants

acts 2:38-38 promise from ez 36:25-27

let the little children come into me
To be members of Christ in his body the church sharing in the grace of God
Jn 1:16-17 Jn 10:10 life

1 Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Galatians 3:27
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Including infants

children without baptism in original sin are guaranteed to be rascals!

 

[Josiah]

How many babies over the centuries have been baptized and never embraced the Christian faith? I suspect the majority. Isn't that an insult to God to baptize someone against their will or without their consent? Especially if they go off to become worldlings (partly perhaps because the parents sent them to Caesar's school system).

Baptizing of babies was done in the early church by some, but not all. It became a mandatory thing when the church and state comingled under Constatine and remained so for about 1000 years.

Fritz Kobus


See this:

Lutheran Perspective on Baptism

There are several points, they are to be taken TOGETHER, they will mean several posts (since post length here is restricted). I share NOT with the goal of changing anyone's mind on this but to share the perspective of Lutherans on this. Let me make clear too that there are several issues here...

www.christianityhaven.com

Especially posts 8-10 and 12.

What is meant by a whole household being baptized? Did they include underaged family members in the general term "whole household" or did they mean only adults.

Even if whole household included babies, does the Bible reporting that such was done equate to a command to baptize babies? The Bible reports a lot of things that are not proper to do, that are not commands, but happened. They are reported because they happened. The fact remains that there is no verse in the Bible commanding babies to be baptized.

I agree. Good point! The whole Anabaptist apologetic depends on tradition.... one that actually isn't solid since their insistence that ALL baptisms were done to those 1) Over the age of "we-won't-tell-you" 2) All were done AFTER the recipient gave a convincing and public declaration of their Christian faith and 3) All were done by fully immersing the recipient entirely in water. There are two problems with their whole apologetic: 1) The point you made: What people DID is not a teaching, it is not normative for us, we are NOT limited to DOING exactly as and only as we see illustrated in the Bible. 2) They cannot show that all baptisms recorded in the Bible meet those 3 dogmatic requirements - they can't even show they all meet even one of them!

The praxis of not forbidding those under the age of "we-won't-tell-you" is NOT based on the household baptisms. Traditionalists bring that up ONLY to disprove the Anabaptist apologetic. The basis is this: 1) We can't find that prohibition anywhere in Scripture. 2) Clearly Tradition is on this side.... such a prohibition was very, very rare until the Anabaptists came around in the 16th Century and not supported by any church or council. 3) We see no problem in God working through parents (consider the Seventh Pleague of Egypt) or God blessing children. The reason the Anabaptists rejected the ancient practice is NOT because of anything in Scripture but because they were radical synergists and Pelagians who argued that babies are unable to do their part in the salvation of themselves. Even medieval Catholicism (that wondered a bit into that, too) would not use that argument.

Now, you raised some good questions.... and it's okay to ask questions (just not appoint self to answer them for God). There IS the verse that states "Baptism now saves you" but I agree that's not easy to see how that cranks out.... I tend to lean toward the argument of the ancient that Baptism is a "means of grace" that God may use to give faith.. faith that CAN be lost,,, so that it's the faith that apprehends the merits of Chrsit and thus savess not the rite itself but the gift granted through it. I agree there are lots of questions and often we just don't have the answers to them But read the 12 posts here:

Lutheran Perspective on Baptism

There are several points, they are to be taken TOGETHER, they will mean several posts (since post length here is restricted). I share NOT with the goal of changing anyone's mind on this but to share the perspective of Lutherans on this. Let me make clear too that there are several issues here...

www.christianityhaven.com

A blessed Advent season to you and yours...


- Josiah



.

 

[Albion]

I’m agreeing with you infants should be baptized as I was at 16 days old

what catholic and divine doctrine do I reject?

In this case, I was reacting to this statement of yours--

"Infants have no sun [sin?] to repent of so it don’t apply to infants"

 

[Fritz Kobus]

Lutheran Perspective on Baptism​

There are several points, they are to be taken TOGETHER, they will mean several posts (since post length here is restricted). I share NOT with the goal of changing anyone's mind on this but to share the perspective of Lutherans on this. Let me make clear too that there are several issues here... www.christianityhaven.com

From Post 8:

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

Is Jesus then saying that it is only a problem to offend children who were baptized? Or all children? But something else is going on in Chapter 18:

Verses 18:3-5 use paidion
3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.

But Verse 18:6 & 10 uses mikros
6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

paidíon, pahee-dee'-on; neuter diminutive of G3816; a childling (of either sex), i.e. (properly), an infant, or (by extension) a half-grown boy or girl; figuratively, an immature Christian:—(little, young) child, damsel.

mikrós, mik-ros'; apparently a primary word; small (in size, quantity, number or (figuratively) dignity):—least, less, little, small.

Is mikros rrefering to those who humble themselves as the little child. If so then verses 6 and 10 might be referring to adults with faith who have humbled themselves like a child. Paidion is not connected with "who believe in me," but micros is. So I am not sure these verses say anything about children's saving faith, just that children very easily believe what they are told (another reason not to send them to Caesar's schools). Hence, we should have a similar unquestioning faith in Jesus.

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."

This does seem to say that children are members of the Kingdom of God, but says nothing of baptism. Seems like a very general statement. Note various instances in the Old Testament where men under the age of 20 were not held accountable. I am not saying that everyone under 20 is automatically saved, but I am saying that it seems God has made special provision for the youth until they reach a point of maturity were they can count the cost of following Jesus (Luke 14:25-33).

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."

I believe the second part of this verse is simply saying that succeeding generations can also rely on this promise, not that babies should be baptized. And it does say "Repent and be baptized," not just, "be baptized."

 

[Fritz Kobus]

The reason the Anabaptists rejected the ancient practice is NOT because of anything in Scripture but because they were radical synergists and Pelagians who argued that babies are unable to do their part in the salvation of themselves.

I suppose there are some like that, but the Anabaptists I am familiar with (Apostolic Christian Church) seem to look at it such that a baby cannot repent. While we know repentance is given to us by God, where is the repentance of a baby being baptized? Or is that what is going on with some churches that will have an adult renounce the Devil for the baby before the baby is baptized?

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

In this case, I was reacting to this statement of yours--

"Infants have no sun [sin?] to repent of so it don’t apply to infants"

How can an infant have personal sin requiring repentance?

 

[Lamb]

How can an infant have personal sin requiring repentance?

An infant is "sinful" meaning that the body is sinful...not that sin has been actually committed. That's what original sin is about. We aren't perfect and holy...we are sinful.

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

An infant is "sinful" meaning that the body is sinful...not that sin has been actually committed. That's what original sin is about. We aren't perfect and holy...we are sinful.

And that’s why they need baptism
Yo remove original sin

 

[Albion]

How can an infant have personal sin requiring repentance?

It's traditionally been called "Original Sin," and that is what your church believes is one kind of sin, along with "Actual Sin," i.e. those that we commit, either by intention or neglect.

There is no question about your church believing that baptism removes/forgives sin. Therefore, and by your own Fundamentalist-like view of the matter, baptizing an infant who has committed no Actual Sins must remove Original Sin.

 

[Josiah]

From Post 8:


Is Jesus then saying that it is only a problem to offend children who were baptized? Or all children?

The point is that children CAN believe. This repudiates the Anabaptist claim that this is not possible.

This does seem to say that children are members of the Kingdom of God, but says nothing of baptism.

Well, it indicates what I claimed; children can believe.

Note various instances in the Old Testament where men under the age of 20 were not held accountable.

I know of no such cases.

I think of this: "The wages of sin is death." Death happens where there is sin AND that is accountable.

In any case, the Anabaptist claim that those under a "we-won't-tell-you-what" age are unaccountable is a different topic.

(Luke 14:25-33).

Sorry, I see nothing here that states that those under the age of 20 are unaccountable (and thus need no Savior or forgiveness). And nothing here that states that those under a mysterious, unknown age are not to be baptized.

I believe the second part of this verse is simply saying that succeeding generations can also rely on this promise, not that babies should be baptized.

There is no verse that says those under a certain age are to be baptized. No one has claimed that. There's also no verse that says those under a certain age are not to be baptized. The whole AGE issue belongs to the Anabaptists (they just don't know what age that is). There is also a command to "love one another" but nothing there about "but only if they are over the age of we-won't-tell-you." Or "this includes those under that age of we-won't-tell-you."

The mandate seems quite general. People are to be baptized. Those with the traditional, historic position do not accept that we become people at a certain unknowable age. "Go and baptize... teach.... make disciples." Nothing there about "but NOT until they've reached a certain age that won't be disclosed to you." The command doesn't seem to have anything whatsoever to do with chronological age. The Anabaptists
whole point is AGE yet Scripture never so much as mentions age in this context.

And it does say "Repent and be baptized," not just, "be baptized."

True. So perhaps baptism is not an inert, irrelevant, ineffectual thing...

And of course, the word is "and" not "then." The Greek word here (kai) is THE most general connective word in the Greek language... it just connects things, it by no means implies sequence. There are 3 Greek words that DO imply or state sequence but none of those words are used in any sentence with the word "baptism." Perhaps if the Holy Spirit was saying that FIRST one must repent and after that is completed, after that, some prohibition is lifted and the person may THEN be baptized.... well, perhaps the Holy Spirit would have used one of the 3 Greek words that say that instead of using a word that by no means even implies that, much less states that?

Lutheran Perspective on Baptism

There are several points, they are to be taken TOGETHER, they will mean several posts (since post length here is restricted). I share NOT with the goal of changing anyone's mind on this but to share the perspective of Lutherans on this. Let me make clear too that there are several issues here...

www.christianityhaven.com

Blessings on your Advent season!


Josiah



.

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

It's traditionally been called "Original Sin," and that is what your church believes is one kind of sin, along with "Actual Sin," i.e. those that we commit, either by intention or neglect.

There is no question about your church believing that baptism removes/forgives sin. Therefore, and by your own Fundamentalist-like view of the matter, baptizing an infant who has committed no Actual Sins must remove Original Sin.

Yes that’s true but there is no repentance required for original sin only personal sin

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

Btw I don’t have a church

only Christ has authority to found the one true church

 

[Albion]

Yes that’s true but there is no repentance required for original sin only personal sin

Fine, but you still rejected the Roman Catholic Church's teaching concerning the effects of baptism when you posted your own theory: "Infants have no sun [sin?] to repent of so it don’t apply to infants."

And you did list yourself as a Catholic on your personal profile.

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

Fine, but you still rejected the Roman Catholic Church's teaching concerning the effects of baptism when you posted your own theory: "Infants have no sun [sin?] to repent of so it don’t apply to infants."

And you did list yourself as a Catholic on your personal profile.

Sorry I was on only refering to personal sin
I stand corrected

 

[Lamb]

Yes that’s true but there is no repentance required for original sin only personal sin

All sin needs to be forgiven.

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

All sin needs to be forgiven.

True enough but that’s what baptism does
Acts 22:16

 

[Lamb]

True enough but that’s what baptism does
Acts 22:16

So even babies need it.

 

[Fritz Kobus]

The point is that children CAN believe. This repudiates the Anabaptist claim that this is not possible.

I think rather that Anabaptists believe that children are not held accountable until they mature.
1 Corinthians 11 "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

Well, it indicates what I claimed; children can believe.

No argument, but what is the depth of their understanding, as noted before, can they count the costs (Luke 14:25-33). Perhaps Paul is suggesting the inability of children to understand the full ramifications of the law and gospel (Romans 7:9).

I know of no such cases.

Numbers 14: 29 "Your carcases shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward which have murmured against me. 30 Doubtless ye shall not come into the land, concerning which I sware to make you dwell therein, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun. 31 But your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, them will I bring in, and they shall know the land which ye have despised." Also see Numbers 32:11.

Surely some under the age of 20 also murmured against God. Kids are good at copying adults. And then it seems to call all those under 20 "little ones." Not saying we should use 20 as a minimum for baptism, but it does show that God made a distinction on who was responsible (guilty) and not.

I think of this: "The wages of sin is death." Death happens where there is sin AND that is accountable.

The whole creation was subject to frustration. Death came upon all. That is the impact of The Original Sin.

In any case, the Anabaptist claim that those under a "we-won't-tell-you-what" age are unaccountable is a different topic.

Pretty sure many in the Reformed camp also hold to an age of accountability.

Sorry, I see nothing here that states that those under the age of 20 are unaccountable (and thus need no Savior or forgiveness). And nothing here that states that those under a mysterious, unknown age are not to be baptized.

Again, age 20 is in the Old Testament. There is no given age in the new testament. All are in need of a savior, but those who are not yet matured apparently are covered by grace. Is that any harder to believe than that an infant who is baptized, knows nothing of baptism or why water was poured or sprinkled upon itself, maybe even fought against the people baptizing them, and knows nothing of the law or gospel, is covered by grace?

The mandate seems quite general. People are to be baptized.

Churches baptize babies without the baby's consent. Therefore, why don't we toss water on passers-by along the street and chant the baptismal words? Perhaps many would thus be saved?

True. So perhaps baptism is not an inert, irrelevant, ineffectual thing...

Baptism is a command and perhaps could be looked at as the initiation of a new convert into the church.

And of course, the word is "and" not "then." The Greek word here (kai) is THE most general connective word in the Greek language... it just connects things, it by no means implies sequence. There are 3 Greek words that DO imply or state sequence but none of those words are used in any sentence with the word "baptism." Perhaps if the Holy Spirit was saying that FIRST one must repent and after that is completed, after that, some prohibition is lifted and the person may THEN be baptized.... well, perhaps the Holy Spirit would have used one of the 3 Greek words that say that instead of using a word that by no means even implies that, much less states that?

Even if there is not a sequence, when an infant is baptized there is a separation of perhaps 10-15 years between these two items that are in the verse separated by kai. I don't believe it was ever meant to distance the two items. They go together.