Is infant baptism from the Bible?

[Lamb]

@Fritz Kobus one thing that would answer most of your questions above is to consider:

Matthew 28:19-20 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

You see baptism isn't meant to be alone. Teaching is supposed to happen. And those who have been taught as adults aren't supposed to leave it at that, they should be baptized.

So doing a fire hose on the street is not what Jesus wants because who is going to teach them God's Word?

Entire households were baptized in the bible but they weren't JUST baptized, they continued learning about God's Word. Baptizing and teaching go together and is what Jesus commanded the disciples to do as they go out into the world. The same goes for us. We have our children baptized and we teach them as they grow.

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

Parents have a right to consent for the child who is under age

little ones do believe

Matt 18:6

 

[Josiah]

I think rather that Anabaptists believe that children are not held accountable until they mature.

Some do. A different issue, however. EVEN IF those under the age of they-won't-tell-you are not accountable for their sin (and thus don't die, etc.) that would not cancel the command to baptize....

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."

1. Not a word about baptism or sin or forgiveness or faith.

2. Nothing about those under the age of we-don't-know not being accountable.


It might benefit to have a discussion of this very weird idea of unaccountability for those under the age of we-won't-tell-you. It's another Anabaptist idea that IMO is entirely unbiblical (and nonsensical). But as I understand it, the reason the Anabaptists invented their new doctrine of Baptism is because they were radical synergists... they simply held that those under an unknowable age CANNOT do their part to save themselves and thus baptist must be limited to those over that unknowable age; they simply redefined baptism as a good work that the recipient performs in part to earn their salvation... or for some, to prove they've done their part in the synergistic process of salvation. Of course this very same radical synergism is the reason for this "Those under the age of we-don't-know don't need forgiveness, salvation or Jesus". Always made me wonder..... if those under that mysterious, unknowable age don't need salvation or faith. wouldn't the greatest blessing possible for them to die before that birthday? Then they'd all go to heaven (of course. one over that age killing them would be sinning but they have forgiveness). But while the Age of Accountibility also flows from their radical synergism, their belief that self saves self by the works of self, it's a separate dogma than Anti-Paedobaptism, Credobaptism and Immersion Baptism - the Anabaptist dogma of Baptism.

Perhaps Paul is suggesting the inability of children to understand the full ramifications of the law and gospel (Romans 7:9).

No one has that ability. Nowhere does Scripture state that those over the age of we-won't-tell-you CAN understand the Gospel. No one can. Only the Holy Spirit can cause that, not celebrating a certain birthday.

Death came upon all.

... and death is the consequence of sin... and that sin being accountable.

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

I think this invention was completely foreign to Calvin.

There are "Reformed Baptists" - a blend of entirely incompatible theologies (and at times nothing other than Calvinism mixed with Credobaptism) - and SOME of them might carry over the Anabaptist idea of Age of Accountability too but I've never encountered such. My wife's family are all Calvinists (Orthodox Presbyterians) and I think they all repudiate all of Anabaptist theology.

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.

I know of nothing that supports that.

And I wonder, why would those under the age of we-won't-tell-you die? Why would God issue the consequence of sin to those who aren't accountable for such? Just a question.

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?

1. Because grace is GIVEN by God. And typically via MEANS.

2. I know of no salvation apart from faith in Christ. I hold that salvation is SOLA GRATIA - SOLUS CHRISTUS-SOLA FIDE - SOLI DEO GLORIA, not a function of birthdays. Saving grace entirely separate from faith is unknown in the Bible. And of course, since faith is "the free gift of God" as the Bible says, is there something about one who hasn't yet celebrated this unknowable birthday that would render the Holy Spirit impotent to grant this gift? What about John the Baptist still in his mother's womb? What about "these little ones who believe in Me" that Jesus speaks of?

Churches baptize babies without the baby's consent.

Where does Scripture state that God needs the CONSENT of the dead, unregenerate, atheistic enemy of God before God can bless them?

Why would the dead, unregenerate, atheistic, enemy of God "consent" to God (whom they renounce) give them salvation (which they don't hold exists and that they don't need)?

Since you want to think Old Testament, I think of the last of the 10 Plagues of Egypt.... where the first born of the Hebrews was SAVED (physically) not because they consented to anything.... not because they knew anything... not because they did anything.. but the faith of the parents did as God commanded and God kept His gracious promise. The Angel of Death did not pass over them because the children consented or because they had celebrated their who-know-which birthday. Just a thought.

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.

There should not be! Actually, my parents started teaching me before I was even born... singing "Jesus songs" to me while still in the womb. We already take our 5 month old son to church, pray with him, sing to him. Our 3 year old goes to Christian preschool, weekly to Sunday School, we read Christian books to him every day, we have devotions together and include him, we pray nightly with him, he leads our meal time prayers.

I bought up the "kai" issue because a foundational apologetic Anabaptists use is that the Bible demands a SEQUENCE - first in chronological time - the person is to be taught, and then once that's concluded, only THEN is the prohibition to baptize (???) lifted and AFTER THAT the person may be baptized. But as I noted, the word is not "then" or "after that." There are 3 koine Greek words that imply or mandate sequence or chronological order but none of those are found in the context of Baptism, the word there is always "kai" - a word that does NOT imply or mean or mandate sequence. But yes, those with the traditional view hold that baptism and teaching are a SET.

I don't believe it was ever meant to distance the two items. They go together.

Welcome to the traditional view of Baptism! BTW, nor is it to be separated from parents and the community of believers.

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





.

 

[Fritz Kobus]

Some do. A different issue, however. EVEN IF those under the age of they-won't-tell-you are not accountable for their sin (and thus don't die, etc.) that would not cancel the command to baptize....

There is no given age, so of course we would not tell you an age. Never said they won't die. That is a different matter.

1. Not a word about baptism or sin or forgiveness or faith.

The reason I posted 1 Corinthians 11 was to show that children are not able to understand things the way adults can understand.

It might benefit to have a discussion of this very weird idea of unaccountability for those under the age of we-won't-tell-you. It's another Anabaptist idea that IMO is entirely unbiblical (and nonsensical).

So in Matthew 19:14 where Jesus said, "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven," how do you propose those children are of the Kingdom of Heaven? There is nothing in the verse to suggest Jesus was baptizing them. Nor is there anything in the text to suggest that those children had been baptized before being brought to Jesus.

But as I understand it, the reason the Anabaptists invented their new doctrine of Baptism is because they were radical synergists... they simply held that those under an unknowable age CANNOT do their part to save themselves and thus baptist must be limited to those over that unknowable age; they simply redefined baptism as a good work that the recipient performs in part to earn their salvation... or for some, to prove they've done their part in the synergistic process of salvation.

I attended at an Anabaptist church for a year (2019). After the plandemic started I began taking in sermons from an Amish/Mennonite church. I have studied the Anabaptists, read some of their doctrine books, and many of the writings of Menno Simmons, yet I do not see that they are synergists or invented any doctrine. While they believe we have a part in conversion, they also confess that it is only by the grace of God that a man can respond favorably to God's calling. Rather, infant baptism was solidly established by the church/state as a means to enforce mandatory church membership (and to track citizens for purposes of taxation), so rejecting infant baptism was to defy the state. Nor do I see anything in Anabaptist writings to suggest that they consider baptism a good work.

Of course this very same radical synergism is the reason for this "Those under the age of we-don't-know don't need forgiveness, salvation or Jesus".

On I never said they don't need forgiveness or salvation. I just do not see anywhere that says to baptize children who have not first come to faith.

Always made me wonder..... if those under that mysterious, unknowable age don't need salvation or faith. wouldn't the greatest blessing possible for them to die before that birthday? Then they'd all go to heaven (of course. one over that age killing them would be sinning but they have forgiveness).

It is always a blessing to die and go to Heaven, whatever the person's age may be. But I wonder what a Lutheran or Catholic thinks when they have a not-yet-baptized baby die.

, their belief that self saves self by the works of self, it's a separate dogma than Anti-Paedobaptism, Credobaptism and Immersion Baptism - the Anabaptist dogma of Baptism.

Never heard of such a thing as "self saves self by the works of self." That really sounds strange. There are Anabaptists who do not insist on immersion. The Apostolic Christian Church I attended does immersion, but will sprinkle someone who is unable to be immersed.

No one has that ability. Nowhere does Scripture state that those over the age of we-won't-tell-you CAN understand the Gospel. No one can. Only the Holy Spirit can cause that, not celebrating a certain birthday.

Sure, God works faith, but then our brain understands it, and that includes understanding law and gospel. The infant's brain is not capable of that level of understanding.

... and death is the consequence of sin... and that sin being accountable.

Death is a consequence of sin, but also it is a consequence of Adam's sin on the whole human race. Therefore, even a human embryo in the womb, though not having ever committed an actual sin of thought, word, or deed, is still subject to death.

And I wonder, why would those under the age of we-won't-tell-you die? Why would God issue the consequence of sin to those who aren't accountable for such? Just a question.

See previous response.

1. Because grace is GIVEN by God. And typically via MEANS.

I would say grace is given through faith, which comes by hearing the Word of god.

2. I know of no salvation apart from faith in Christ. I hold that salvation is SOLA GRATIA - SOLUS CHRISTUS-SOLA FIDE - SOLI DEO GLORIA, not a function of birthdays. Saving grace entirely separate from faith is unknown in the Bible.

Yet you believe babies are saved by baptism.

What about John the Baptist still in his mother's womb?

If john the Baptist exhibited faith in the womb, then we have a case of a baby not needing baptism to be saved.

What about "these little ones who believe in Me" that Jesus speaks of?

See my discussion in post 306 about paidion vs mikros and who believes. However,, if those little ones believe, how did they acquire their faith? As I note earler in this post, nothing in the text suggests they were baptized--if baptism actually were to give them faith.

Where does Scripture state that God needs the CONSENT of the dead, unregenerate, atheistic enemy of God before God can bless them?

So again, lets start hosing people walking down the street, or better yet, we will go baptize people coming out of whore houses. They surely need it. If I toss water on my athiest neighbor and say "I baptize you in the name of ....." he surely is not going to gain faith, so why would a baby gain faith from the same procedure?

Why would the dead, unregenerate, atheistic, enemy of God "consent" to God (whom they renounce) give them salvation (which they don't hold exists and that they don't need)?

When a person consents to baptism they already have been converted, so are acting by the work of God in their hearts.

Since you want to think Old Testament, I think of the last of the 10 Plagues of Egypt.... where the first born of the Hebrews was SAVED (physically) not because they consented to anything.... not because they knew anything... not because they did anything.. but the faith of the parents did as God commanded and God kept His gracious promise. The Angel of Death did not pass over them because the children consented or because they had celebrated their who-know-which birthday. Just a thought.

Yep, similar to a parent fencing their yard so the small children can't run out into the street and be hit by a car. Natural parental thing to protect their children.

There should not be! Actually, my parents started teaching me before I was even born... singing "Jesus songs" to me while still in the womb. We already take our 5 month old son to church, pray with him, sing to him. Our 3 year old goes to Christian preschool, weekly to Sunday School, we read Christian books to him every day, we have devotions together and include him, we pray nightly with him, he leads our meal time prayers.

Absolutely, children should be exposed to the Word of God from the beginning. When faith comes, it comes. When they mature in their faith to the point where they count the costs of discipleship (Luke 14:25-33), then they are ready to be baptized. There will be a lag, but faith and repentance will precede baptism. But the pedobaptists reverse that and then are left hanging when the kids mature, so have to make up a ritual called confirmation.

I bought up the "kai" issue because a foundational apologetic Anabaptists use is that the Bible demands a SEQUENCE - first in chronological time - the person is to be taught, and then once that's concluded, only THEN is the prohibition to baptize (???) lifted and AFTER THAT the person may be baptized. But as I noted, the word is not "then" or "after that." There are 3 koine Greek words that imply or mandate sequence or chronological order but none of those are found in the context of Baptism, the word there is always "kai" - a word that does NOT imply or mean or mandate sequence. But yes, those with the traditional view hold that baptism and teaching are a SET.

Yet John the Baptist knew that repentance precedes baptism. "When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance (Matthew 3:7&8).

 

[Lamb]

There is no given age, so of course we would not tell you an age. Never said they won't die. That is a different matter.


The reason I posted 1 Corinthians 11 was to show that children are not able to understand things the way adults can understand.

So in Matthew 19:14 where Jesus said, "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven," how do you propose those children are of the Kingdom of Heaven? There is nothing in the verse to suggest Jesus was baptizing them. Nor is there anything in the text to suggest that those children had been baptized before being brought to Jesus.


I attended at an Anabaptist church for a year (2019). After the plandemic started I began taking in sermons from an Amish/Mennonite church. I have studied the Anabaptists, read some of their doctrine books, and many of the writings of Menno Simmons, yet I do not see that they are synergists or invented any doctrine. While they believe we have a part in conversion, they also confess that it is only by the grace of God that a man can respond favorably to God's calling. Rather, infant baptism was solidly established by the church/state as a means to enforce mandatory church membership (and to track citizens for purposes of taxation), so rejecting infant baptism was to defy the state. Nor do I see anything in Anabaptist writings to suggest that they consider baptism a good work.


On I never said they don't need forgiveness or salvation. I just do not see anywhere that says to baptize children who have not first come to faith.


It is always a blessing to die and go to Heaven, whatever the person's age may be. But I wonder what a Lutheran or Catholic thinks when they have a not-yet-baptized baby die.



Never heard of such a thing as "self saves self by the works of self." That really sounds strange. There are Anabaptists who do not insist on immersion. The Apostolic Christian Church I attended does immersion, but will sprinkle someone who is unable to be immersed.



Sure, God works faith, but then our brain understands it, and that includes understanding law and gospel. The infant's brain is not capable of that level of understanding.


Death is a consequence of sin, but also it is a consequence of Adam's sin on the whole human race. Therefore, even a human embryo in the womb, though not having ever committed an actual sin of thought, word, or deed, is still subject to death.


See previous response.


I would say grace is given through faith, which comes by hearing the Word of god.



Yet you believe babies are saved by baptism.


If john the Baptist exhibited faith in the womb, then we have a case of a baby not needing baptism to be saved.


See my discussion in post 306 about paidion vs mikros and who believes. However,, if those little ones believe, how did they acquire their faith? As I note earler in this post, nothing in the text suggests they were baptized--if baptism actually were to give them faith.


So again, lets start hosing people walking down the street, or better yet, we will go baptize people coming out of whore houses. They surely need it. If I toss water on my athiest neighbor and say "I baptize you in the name of ....." he surely is not going to gain faith, so why would a baby gain faith from the same procedure?


When a person consents to baptism they already have been converted, so are acting by the work of God in their hearts.



Yep, similar to a parent fencing their yard so the small children can't run out into the street and be hit by a car. Natural parental thing to protect their children.


Absolutely, children should be exposed to the Word of God from the beginning. When faith comes, it comes. When they mature in their faith to the point where they count the costs of discipleship (Luke 14:25-33), then they are ready to be baptized. There will be a lag, but faith and repentance will precede baptism. But the pedobaptists reverse that and then are left hanging when the kids mature, so have to make up a ritual called confirmation.



Yet John the Baptist knew that repentance precedes baptism. "When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance (Matthew 3:7&8).

I didn't read your entire post yet because I just woke up but one thing that is glaringly obvious is that you think that faith has to come first but if you look at where the bible states that entire households were baptized, faith didn't always come first. Entire households in the bible weren't just the male adults. It included everyone including servants and their babies. And then they were all taught the faith. Baptizing and teaching go hand in hand.

 

[Lanman87]

faith didn't always come first

I'm really really last to this thread and admit that I haven't read all 17 pages so forgive me if you have answered this before;

But "how do you know that faith didn't always come first"?

Look at the household of Cornelius in Acts 10. The entire house of Cornelius plus relatives and close friends were present while Peter was preaching. They received the gift of the Holy Spirit and then were baptized. This indicates that the household was all old enough to speak in tongues as proof of receiving the Holy Spirit.

In Acts 18:8 Crispus "believed in the Lord, together with his entire household" Again, indicating that whatever his household was made up of, they where all able to believe.

In 1 Cor 1:16 Paul says he baptized the household of Stephanus and later in 16:15 says the household of Stephanus were the first converts in Asia. Once again indicated that everyone in the household was old enough to convert.

In the case of the Philippian jailer’s household in Acts 16, the entire household is invited to believe (16:31), has the word of the Lord spoken them (16:32), and rejoices that salvation has come to them (16:34). Again, indicating a preaching of the gospel, hearing, and belief.

As far as Lydia's household we aren't told or shown that they all believed, were filled with the Spirit, or converted. However, it is just as likely they they were all old enough to hear the gospel and believe as it is that there were infants or children to young to be converted. We just don't know enough about Lydia's household to say for certain if infants were baptized. To say one way or the other is pure speculation. I certainly think it is a weak argument to try and prove infant baptism from Lydia's household being baptized.

Especially when you consider that infant baptism didn't become the norm until at least the middle of the 3rd Century, probably later.

 

[Lamb]

I'm really really last to this thread and admit that I haven't read all 17 pages so forgive me if you have answered this before;

But "how do you know that faith didn't always come first"?

Look at the household of Cornelius in Acts 10. The entire house of Cornelius plus relatives and close friends were present while Peter was preaching. They received the gift of the Holy Spirit and then were baptized. This indicates that the household was all old enough to speak in tongues as proof of receiving the Holy Spirit.

In Acts 18:8 Crispus "believed in the Lord, together with his entire household" Again, indicating that whatever his household was made up of, they where all able to believe.

In 1 Cor 1:16 Paul says he baptized the household of Stephanus and later in 16:15 says the household of Stephanus were the first converts in Asia. Once again indicated that everyone in the household was old enough to convert.

In the case of the Philippian jailer’s household in Acts 16, the entire household is invited to believe (16:31), has the word of the Lord spoken them (16:32), and rejoices that salvation has come to them (16:34). Again, indicating a preaching of the gospel, hearing, and belief.

As far as Lydia's household we aren't told or shown that they all believed, were filled with the Spirit, or converted. However, it is just as likely they they were all old enough to hear the gospel and believe as it is that there were infants or children to young to be converted. We just don't know enough about Lydia's household to say for certain if infants were baptized. To say one way or the other is pure speculation. I certainly think it is a weak argument to try and prove infant baptism from Lydia's household being baptized.

Especially when you consider that infant baptism didn't become the norm until at least the middle of the 3rd Century, probably later.

Baptism and teaching go hand in hand. No where does scripture insist that a parent cannot baptize a child but instead in Acts 2 it even insists that the gift is for their children (baptism and Holy Spirit).

Yes, there are examples where people received faith first and then were baptized. But not all of the ones you listed above prove that a baby wasn't present when receiving baptism. Households included servants and their children as well and without having any form of artificial contraception that we have in these modern times, there were plenty of babies around.

Baptism was the norm far before the 3rd century because John's disciple Polycarp was baptized.

 

[Lanman87]

But not all of the ones you listed above prove that a baby wasn't present when receiving baptism. Households included servants and their children as well and without having any form of artificial contraception that we have in these modern times, there were plenty of babies around.

Baptism was the norm far before the 3rd century because John's disciple Polycarp was baptized.

No does it prove that babies were present. It is, at best, speculation either way.

Baptism was the norm far before the 3rd century because John's disciple Polycarp was baptized.

I didn't say it didn't happen. I said it wasn't the norm. Also, Polycarp saying he had been a discple 88 years (or whatever it was) doesn't necessarily mean was baptized as a infant. It could be he was baptized as a young child after coming to faith or he could have been speaking in a hyperbolic sense, like if I tell someone I've been a football fan my whole life. I haven't been a football fan my whole life. I didn't know what football was until I was 4 or 5 years old and didn't really know anything about it until middle school. But I've still told someone that I've been a football fan my whole life.

The first writing to mention infant baptism is not until toward the end of the 2nd Century. Irenaeus if I remember correctly. And certainly Hippolytus of Rome endorsed infant baptism in the early 3rd Century. However, I don't think it was the norm until much later.

Here is a cut and paste from Philip Schaff's huge volume, "The History of the Christian Church".

“In reviewing the patristic doctrine of baptism which was sanctioned by the Greek and Roman, and, with some important modifications, also by the Lutheran and Anglican churches, we should remember that during the first three centuries, and even in the age of Constantine, adult baptism was the rule, and that the actual conversion of the candidate was required as a condition before administering the sacrament (as is still the case on missionary ground). Hence in preceding catechetical instruction, the renunciation of the devil, and the profession of faith. But when the same high view is applied without qualification to infant baptism, we are confronted at once with the difficulty that infants cannot comply with this condition. They may be regenerated (this being an act of God), but they cannot be converted, i.e., they cannot repent and believe, nor do they need repentance, having not yet committed any actual transgression. Infant baptism is an act of consecration, and looks to subsequent instruction and personal conversion, as a condition to full membership of the church. Hence confirmation came in as a supplement to infant baptism.”

 

[Fritz Kobus]

In all these multitudes added to the church, no children or babies mentioned, just men and women:
Acts 5:14 “And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.)”

Here they believed before they were baptized (again no children, no babies):
Acts 8:12 “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.”

And apparently Paul did not hold children accountable, just men and women:
Acts 9:2 “And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.”
Acts 22:4 “And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.”

 

[Fritz Kobus]

Here those under 20 were not held responsible by God for this offering:
Exodus 30: 11 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 12 When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the LORD, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them. 13 This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary: (a shekel is twenty gerahs) an half shekel shall be the offering of the LORD. 14 Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering unto the LORD.

Just saying, there is precedent for youth not being held responsible.

 

[Lamb]

@Lanman87 and @Fritz Kobus and where does it specifically forbid infants to be baptized in the bible? Since the early church does show that they baptized infants, then to insist that maybe it wasn't "the norm" until the 3rd century is a faulty reason since no one prior to that put up a fuss about it...although a big fuss was put up about Easter in the 2nd century.

The fact is that baptism is what God does to us. He baptizes us. He can absolutely baptize an infant just as easily as He baptizes an adult and the same benefits goes to both.

Every single one of us is born sinful and in need of God's forgiveness. Every one needs a Savior. Baptism provides that free gift to us and teaching needs to be connected to baptism as Jesus says.

 

[Josiah]

There is no given age, so of course we would not tell you an age. Never said they won't die. That is a different matter.

Not entirely. The Bible says that death is "the wages of SIN." So, it seems at least valid to hold that if one dies, they are sinful and are being held accountable for that. Perhaps it would reveal an unjust God to punish one for something they aren't accountable for.

Death is a consequence of sin

Do those under the age of we-cannot-know die? Then there's sin... and accountability.

The reason I posted 1 Corinthians 11 was to show that children are not able to understand things the way adults can understand.

I don't think that verse is saying that.... but in any case, NO ONE can understand the things of God, they are "foolishness" to them. "NO ONE" the Bible says. Not "No one under that age of you-won't-be-told." NO ONE. Not an 62 year old man with 5 Ph.D.'s, an IQ of 180 and with the entire Bible memorized.... not a little baby with an IQ of 50.... "NO ONE" the Bible says. The ability to understand math has nothing to do with understanding the things of God.

So in Matthew 19:14 where Jesus said, "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven," how do you propose those children are of the Kingdom of Heaven?

By faith. "The free gift of God."

No one suggests that the ONLY way children can be blessed with life and faith is baptism (especially before the Sacrament was instituted).

I see nothing in Matthew 19:14 that suggests that those under the age of you-won't-be-told are forbidden to be baptized. If anything, I think it destroys the Anabaptist apologetic that "little ones" cannot believe, God is not able to give faith to those under the age of you-cannot-know.

infant baptism was solidly established by the church/state as a means to enforce mandatory church membership (and to track citizens for purposes of taxation), so rejecting infant baptism was to defy the state.

I see nothing in Scripture or the ECF's that remotely suggests that.

Read the following:

The Epistle of Barnabas (A.D. 130) “This means that we go down into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our hearts, fear and hope in Jesus and in the Spirit.”

Shepherd of Hermas (A.D. 140?): "they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive.”

St. Justin Martyr (A.D. 160?) "And we, who have approached God through Him, have received not carnal, but spiritual circumcision, which Enoch and those like him observed. And we have received it through baptism, since we were sinners, by God’s mercy; and all men may equally obtain it."

St. Irenaeus (A.D. 190?). "And when we come to refute them [i.e. those heretics], we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith."

St. Irenaeus (A.D. 190?) "“Now, this is what faith does for us, as the elders, the disciples of the apostles, have handed down to us. First of all, it admonishes us to remember that we have received baptism for the remission of sins in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became incarnate and died and raised."

St. Clement of Alexandra (A.D. 215?) "The same also takes place in our case, whose exemplar Christ became. Being baptized, we are illuminated; illuminated, we become sons; being made sons, we are made perfect; being made perfect, we are made immortal."

St. Clement of Alexandra (A.D. 215?) "For it is said, “Put on him the best robe,” which was his the moment he obtained baptism. I mean the glory of baptism, the remission of sins, and the communication of the other blessings, which he obtained immediately he had touched the font."

St. Cyprian (A.D. 255) responding to a man who was asking him the specific question of whether or not the pouring of water in baptism would be valid: "You have asked also, dearest son, what I thought about those who obtain the grace of God while they are weakened by illness – whether or not they are to be reckoned as legitimate Christians who have not been bathed with the saving water, but have had it poured over them."

There are countless more. My point here is not the individual things here said, but the unavoidable and universal affirmation that Baptism is not an inert, ineffectual, mere ritual... and nowhere do we see any sense of it as some "outward ritual indicating an inward decision." Universally, baptism is seen as something God uses to accomplish something.

I just do not see anywhere that says to baptize children who have not first come to faith.

Perhaps. But there's nothing anywhere in Scripture (or pretty much 1500 years of Christianity) that states that:
1. It is forbidden to baptize any who have not yet attained the age of we-cannot-know (Anti-Paedobaptism dogma of Anabaptists)
2. One must FIRST in chronological time give an adequate, public, oral proclaimation of their faith in Christ (Credobaptism dogma of Anabaptists)
3. One must have ever cell of their body fully immersed under water (Immersion dogma of Anabaptists)

I'll admit there's nothing that says: "Go and baptize - and this includes babies" But there's also nothing that says, "Go and baptize but only if they have first attained the age of we-won't-tell-you and have given a convincing recitation of The Sinner's Prayer." The Great Commandment is "Love as I have first loved you" but it doesn't say "this applies to both genders and all ages" so can we argue it only applies to women over the age of no-one-knows? There is a Command "Thou shalt not kill" but nothing there about "but this only applies to those over the age of you-cannot know" or "this only applies to women" or "this doesn't apply if the recipient is a Black slave." I think if one is going to place dogmatic prohibitions on a Command and Blessing, maybe the "burden" is on those adding those prohibitions and limitations (especially if such didn't exist for 1500 years).

. However,, if those little ones believe, how did they acquire their faith?

1. There goes the foundational Anabaptist apologetic that "little ones" cannot be given faith because they cannot cognatively understand the things of God (as the Bible says "NO ONE" can).

2. Faith is "the free gift of God."

So again, lets start hosing people walking down the street, or better yet, we will go baptize people coming out of whore houses.

1. So again, this radical individualistic perspective is quite foreign to the Bible. We are baptized by parents into a COMMUNITY of faith, we are being brought into a covenant, a family, a community, a communion... where there will be nurturing and training and teaching and supporting.

2. And remember: We are to honor parents, who ALONE have authority over the spiritual life of their children. The church CANNOT circumvent the authority of parents (we would be violating the Ten Commandments). We can - and should - encourage parents to bring their little ones to Jesus and not hinder them, to bring them regularly to public worship, to train them in the faith, to teach them the things of God. Baptism is not isolated from community, family, training, support, education, nurturing. It's not "baptize them - and that's it." It's "baptizing them and teaching them." It's not only unthinkable to isolate people from community, support, nurturing (the Bible does nothing of the radical individualism found too much in some forms of Protestantism) but also nothing of dishonoring family, circumventing parents.

They surely need it. If I toss water on my athiest neighbor and say "I baptize you in the name of ....." he surely is not going to gain faith, so why would a baby gain faith from the same procedure?

The same could be said of shouting John 3:16 at your atheistic neighbor....does that mean the Word is unusable by God to be a means of His grace, a means of giving life and faith?

Now, the same point applies here. Shouting John 3:16 at your neighbor is not meant to be isolated from loving, supporting, training, encouraging, nurturing... of embracing in the community of believers. There is the Great Commission (Baptize and teach) but it's not separated from the Great Commandment (love) and from all the calls to community, fellowship, support, training, nurturing, loving, caring....





.

 

[Lanman87]

@Lanman87 and @Fritz Kobus and where does it specifically forbid infants to be baptized in the bible?

And where does it specifically tell us to baptize infants?

You can't use sola scriputura as the test for infant baptism because it is not commanded in the Scriptures nor is it forbidden. It can only be inferred by believing the term "households" included infants. I've shown where, in most cases the Bible indicates everyone in the households were baptized with the Spirit and spoke with tongues, believed, or were converted (which infants can't do). It is certainly possible that everyone in those households was old enough to hear and believe the Gospel and God granted faith to entire households at once.

What the scriptures do show, over and over again, is people being converted and showing the fruit of conversion (profession of belief or repentance or in the case of Cornelius's household being given the Holy Spirit) before they are baptized.

If you read a good church history book from a good historian like Shaff, you will see that practices in the early church varied greatly from place to place. Later in his book he says that the Ethiopian church practiced infant baptism very early but other parts of the church it didn't become the norm until much later. I've read a couple of historians who say that the attitude many had toward baptism was to wait until they were old to get baptized because of the belief that sins after being baptized couldn't be forgiven. Which of course, nobody today believes.

I personally believe that infant baptism became the norm after Augustine (ironically, who was baptized after converting as an adult despite having a very pious mother), who was the most influential Theologian in the history of the church, developed the doctrine of original sin. That along with the idea that baptism was a replacement for circumcision in the new covenant sort of combined to make infant baptism the norm starting around the 4th century.

I also have a hard time jelling infant baptism/baptismal regeneration with Sola Fide. I understand that the sacramental belief is that baptism is something God does not us but we still have our part to play. We don't just walk down the street and God dumps a pot of water over our head. Somebody has to make a decision to either be baptized or to baptize the infant. Somebody has to drive the baby to church. A Pastor or Priest has to perform the baptism. All of those things are things we humans do, not God.

The Credo Baptism position is that God works on individuals and gives them the gift of faith which causes a change in heart from a heart of stone to heart of flesh, they receive the Holy Spirit and they to become new creations in Christ. They profess faith in Christ to the church and are Baptized into the church body. Baptism is either the last public act of conversion or the first public act of the new life in Christ. However you want to look at it. That is a position that is consistent both with the examples of Baptism in the New Testament and the belief of Sola Fide in which faith alone saves. Not Faith plus works or Faith plus sacraments or Faith plus anything.

 

[Lamb]

And where does it specifically tell us to baptize infants?

You can't use sola scriputura as the test for infant baptism because it is not commanded in the Scriptures nor is it forbidden. It can only be inferred by believing the term "households" included infants. I've shown where, in most cases the Bible indicates everyone in the households were baptized with the Spirit and spoke with tongues, believed, or were converted (which infants can't do). It is certainly possible that everyone in those households was old enough to hear and believe the Gospel and God granted faith to entire households at once.

What the scriptures do show, over and over again, is people being converted and showing the fruit of conversion (profession of belief or repentance or in the case of Cornelius's household being given the Holy Spirit) before they are baptized.

If you read a good church history book from a good historian like Shaff, you will see that practices in the early church varied greatly from place to place. Later in his book he says that the Ethiopian church practiced infant baptism very early but other parts of the church it didn't become the norm until much later. I've read a couple of historians who say that the attitude many had toward baptism was to wait until they were old to get baptized because of the belief that sins after being baptized couldn't be forgiven. Which of course, nobody today believes.

I personally believe that infant baptism became the norm after Augustine (ironically, who was baptized after converting as an adult despite having a very pious mother), who was the most influential Theologian in the history of the church, developed the doctrine of original sin. That along with the idea that baptism was a replacement for circumcision in the new covenant sort of combined to make infant baptism the norm starting around the 4th century.

I also have a hard time jelling infant baptism/baptismal regeneration with Sola Fide. I understand that the sacramental belief is that baptism is something God does not us but we still have our part to play. We don't just walk down the street and God dumps a pot of water over our head. Somebody has to make a decision to either be baptized or to baptize the infant. Somebody has to drive the baby to church. A Pastor or Priest has to perform the baptism. All of those things are things we humans do, not God.

The Credo Baptism position is that God works on individuals and gives them the gift of faith which causes a change in heart from a heart of stone to heart of flesh, they receive the Holy Spirit and they to become new creations in Christ. They profess faith in Christ to the church and are Baptized into the church body. Baptism is either the last public act of conversion or the first public act of the new life in Christ. However you want to look at it. That is a position that is consistent both with the examples of Baptism in the New Testament and the belief of Sola Fide in which faith alone saves. Not Faith plus works or Faith plus sacraments or Faith plus anything.

Acts 2:38 this promise is for you and your children. That's the invitation to baptize your babies! No one questioned it until later on because if you understand how the family unit was for first the Hebrews and then going into Jewish history, you'll know that they valued the family and it wasn't about an individual. Which is why entire households were baptized. It's family, not just me, me, me like in today's modern church world. Think Hebrew, not Greek is the saying from a 2 year bible study I took part in and it really holds true to ward off modern thinking.

You bring up about decision to get baptized...don't you see that it's only because of the Holy Spirit bringing that person to want to do it (or the parents)? It's not about me and what I want, but God's will.

 

[Albion]

And where does it specifically tell us to baptize infants?

The issue isn't that but, instead, it's whether it is permissible or right to baptize infants.

You can't use sola scriputura as the test for infant baptism because it is not commanded in the Scriptures nor is it forbidden. It can only be inferred by believing the term "households" included infants.

That's more than just an inference. Households include children. At that time and place in history, a large household that didn't have a children of any age would be a rarity, so there's really not much of an issue when it comes to "inferring." If such a strict interpretation were required, quite a few teachings from Scripture that we all accept would have to be dumped also.

Interesting to me is the fact that all Baptists and similar Evangelicals INFER that Jesus was immersed in the water of the Jordan River when the passage says nothing of the sort. But when it comes to this aspect of baptism we're talking about now....

 

[Lanman87]

Acts 2:38 this promise is for you and your children.

39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.


I don't see that as go home and baptize your kids. I see it as an encouragement that the promise is for anyone. From your kids in your house to the people across the Globe, the promise is for everyone who the Lord our God calls to himself. If they hear and are converted (repentance and baptism being the result of a changed heart) then they are saved as well.

 

[Lanman87]

That's more than just an inference.

I disagree. I've already shown that entire households were have said to believed, received the Holy Spirit, or been converted.

Specfically, the only one that is in doubt is Lydia's household. We don't know the ages or number in the household. For all we know the youngest was 15 or 12 or 10 or 8 or 6 or 4 or a newborn. We don't know if she had multiple servants who all had families or maybe one elderly servant. For all we know she was single and only had employees (most likely women employees because a man wouldn't work for a woman). Maybe there were no children or men at all and it was only women.

Unless you know for sure, it is inference.

 

[Josiah]

And where does it specifically tell us to baptize infants?

1. Where does the Bible say to love women? There is this: "Love as I first loved you" but where does it say this included women? Or Democrats? Or rich people? Or this: Thou shalt not kill." Does that mean we can kill anyone under the age of 12 because it doesn't say, "And this includes those under 12?'


2. I think the greater burden lies on those who - after 1500 years - declared 3 new dogmas:
+ "Thou art forbidden to baptize any under the age of "we don't tell you" (Anti-Paedobaptism)
+ "Thou are forbidden to baptize any unless they first in chronological time hath convincingly recited the Sinner's Prayer (Credobaptism)
+ "Thou canst baptize any unless every cell of their body is fully immersed in water" (Immersion Baptism)
Where are these prohibitions and limitations stated in the Bible, the verses every Christian on the planet failed to see for 1500 years?

It can only be inferred by believing the term "households" included infants.

The "household of faith" point is to deny the Anabaptist foundational apologetic that "all the baptisms in the Bible are of persons who first attained the age of "we-don't-know," first convince-able recited the Sinner's Prayer, and were fully immersion in water." Not only is the point moot but it's not even true. We have examples of "whole households" being baptized and we simply cannot know if everyone in them met all 3 of those mandates and prohibitions.

I also have a hard time jelling infant baptism/baptismal regeneration with Sola Fide. I understand that the sacramental belief is that baptism is something God does not us but we still have our part to play.

It's important to not equate faith with intellectual understanding. They are two entirely different things. A person can have faith without understanding (as in the vast majority of people boarding an airplane who have NO CLUE how plans fly!).

Saving faith is not a product of the BRAIN of the atheistic, dead, unregenerate, enemy of God. The Bible states it is "the free gift of God." The Bible states that "NO ONE" is capable of understanding the things of God, they are foolishness to him." NO ONE. Not "none under the age of we-cannot-tell-you." Not 'none with an IQ of under 100." NO ONE. That includes the 62 year old with an IQ of 180, 5 Ph.D.'s, a seminary education and who has memorized the entire Bible. Faith is not a product of the brain, it is the gift of God. We begin to understand the things of God only when the Holy Spirit and spiritual life an faith are in our hearts. Faith and knowledge are not meant to be separated (just as baptism and training/nurturing/educating are not) but there's no mandated SEQUENCE in that FIRST the dead, unregenerate, atheistic, enemy of God "understands" the things of God and only then, after that intellectual understanding is complete, tben after that, the prohibtion to baptize is lifted, the Holy Spirit is able to enter, God may then grant the gift of faith and life. I think we have a "set" (as the traditional, orthodox view of Baptism stresses), not some prohibition and some chronological sequence limitation on God.

All of those things are things we humans do, not God.

True enough. But it's not always so.... consider John the Baptist who had faith before he was even born.

And of course this is true with education, too. In the synergistic paradigm, someone has to TEACH the person - that's a human work, not God's. But God USES that work, that "Means of Grace." So even though human effort is involved, such is not salvic - with baptism or teaching.

The Credo Baptism position is that God works on individuals and gives them the gift of faith which causes a change in heart from a heart of stone to heart of flesh, they receive the Holy Spirit and they to become new creations in Christ.

One problem with that is that it has the dead, unregenerate, atheistic, enemy of God - entirely void of the Holy Spirit - giving self faith and life. THEN - after the dead has done all that - as a reward for doing all that - he receives the Holy Spirit and salvation. IMO, that violates not only a lot of Scriptures but of course, obviously, contradicts Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide - Soli Deo Gloria.

The Credobaptism invention of the Anabaptists is that those under a certain unknowable age are 1) Unable to understand the things of God and 2) are prohibited from being Baptized. To the first, yes - but then NO ONE is able to do that unless they have faith and the Holy Spirit, and there is nothing in the Bible that indicates that God is rendered impotent by children. 2) There is no such prohibition.

Now, making more sense (but of no more biblical support) are those Reformed folks who argue that all 3 of the Anabaptist's imventions are unsubstantiated and biblically baseless, but that it may be that Baptism is inert - just a act that doesn't actually do anything. But of course they repudiate Anti-Paedobaptism and Credobaptism.... they just don't dogmatically teach that God may use Baptism.

Not Faith plus works or Faith plus sacraments or Faith plus anything.

I don't agree that faith only comes by "fiat" - springing purely out of the blue. I think - typically - God USES people and actions and MEANS. But that doesn't make it any less His gift.


I don't see loving or teaching or baptizing as moot simply because there is human involvement. Is Baptism simply an inert rite? A ritual act that accomplishes nothing, that God never uses for anything? Perhaps symbolizing stuff or reminding of stuff but ineffectual of anything? Or does Scripture suggest that it actually can accomplish something, that God can use it for something?

I can find no Scriptures that state or indicate the first. But there are several, that when taken together, suggest something quite different.


Let's look at some....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I admit no ONE verse above is indisputable or perspicuous, but together there is a strong indication. And of course we find nothing that indicates that it is a inert, ineffectual, useless ritual....

We need to also consider that Jesus, the Apostles and the Early Church gave great importance to this! Jesus places it along side of (and seemingly equal to) teaching in the Great Commission, for example. It seems less likely that it would be regarded as so critical if it is an inert, ineffectual ritual that changes and accomplishes nothing at all.






See: Lutheran Perspective on Baptism




.

 

[Lanman87]

Where does the Bible say to love women?

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, Eph 5:25

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

[Lanman87]

Where are these prohibitions and limitations stated in the Bible, the verses every Christian on the planet failed to see for 1500 years?

As i posted early and quoted noted Church Historian Phillip Schaff. For the first 300 years or so the normative baptism was baptism after conversion. The real question is why did that fact change hundreds of years after after the founding of the church?