Is infant baptism from the Bible?

[Albion]

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

[/QUOTE]
So you're doing what you say is wrong to do--inferring.

 

[Lanman87]

So you're doing what you say is wrong to do--inferring.

I'm saying I don't know and there is no way to know.

 

[Albion]

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.

That most likely was the norm, yes, but that's not the issue here. It's whether baptizing small children is authorized by Scripture and whether or not the several Bible passages which describe entire households being baptized on the confession of the head of the household are to be believed.

THE NORM does not establish anything as being either right or wrong, but just common.

And of course it had to be the norm when the church was still a small institution battling against many rival faiths for acceptance in a mainly pagan society. There is no doubt that evangelizing meant preaching to adults! Do you imagine that Christian missionaries hung around children and tried to talk them into joining a religion without the knowledge of their parents? How ridiculous a concept that would be!

 

[Albion]

I'm saying I don't know and there is no way to know.

All right. But if so, you cannot use the same argument to discount the Bible verses that traditional Christianity refers to when explaining the policy of baptizing without any age requirement.

 

[Lanman87]

That most likely was the norm, yes, but that's not the issue here. It's whether baptizing small children is authorized by Scripture and whether or not the several Bible passages which describe entire households being baptized on the confession of the head of the household are to be believed.

THE NORM does not establish anything as being either right or wrong, but just common.

And of course it had to be the norm when the church was still a small institution battling against many rival faiths for acceptance in a mainly pagan society. There is no doubt that evangelizing meant preaching to adults! Do you imagine that Christian missionaries hung around children and tried to talk them into joining a religion without the knowledge of their parents? How ridiculous a concept that would be!

Christians had babies in the 1st century as well.

Consider the Didache, The oldest non Scriptural document that is considered an authentic record of church activities. It gives instructions on all kinds of things, including baptism. This was written somewhere around the end of the 1st Century so Christians had been having babies for at least 65-70 years. It gives no instruction for infant baptism. It says to let the baptizer and the one being baptized to fast "one or two days before" [being baptized]

Do you really think people made their baby fast for two days before being baptized?

 

[Lanman87]

All right. But if so, you cannot use the same argument to discount the Bible verses that traditional Christianity refers to when explaining the policy of baptizing without any age requirement.

I can if they are using inference to say something conclusive. All I'm doing is saying that it isn't a good and persuasive argument, historical or not, you don't use inference to argue truth. It is, at best speculative.

 

[Albion]

Christians had babies in the 1st century as well.

Yes. Now address the point I made about how Evangelists must have gone about making converts or spreading the Gospel in the early days of Christianity.

Consider the Didache, The oldest non Scriptural document that is considered an authentic record of church activities. It gives instructions on all kinds of things, including baptism. This was written somewhere around the end of the 1st Century so Christians had been having babies for at least 65-70 years. It gives no instruction for infant baptism. It says to let the baptizer and the one being baptized to fast "one or two days before" [being baptized]

Do you really think people made their baby fast for two days before being baptized?

No, I think that the people being discussed there were adults, but that doesn't mean that their children were not also being baptized. As for fasting or anything of that sort, it's hardly any different from how infants are baptized today. Parents and sponsors vouch for the child, promise to rear him in the faith, renounce the Devil and his works on behalf of the child, etc.

 

[Lanman87]

Now address the point I made about how Evangelists must have gone about making converts or spreading the Gospel in the early days of Christianity.

There is nothing to disagree with. Just like today, the Gospel was being preached and people coming to faith. When people came to faith they eventually were baptized.

This included greats like Gregory of Nazianzum, St. Chrysostom, and St. Augustine who were all baptized as converts despite having pious mothers (who you would think would have them baptized as babies). In Confessions Augustine even tells of him begging for baptism on a sickbed but that it was postponed when he got better.

 

[Albion]

There is nothing to disagree with. Just like today, the Gospel was being preached and people coming to faith. When people came to faith they eventually were baptized.

So you are, of necessity, referring to adults. Of course, that is the target audience for the first century evangelists. There is no doubt about that. It doesn't mean there were no people other than these to baptize.

However, the word of God does refer to whole households being baptized on the profession of the head of the household--with not even a mention of all the other members to be baptized being asked if they also profess a belief in Christ--so this reference to whole households must almost certainly mean children.

It would be much more of an oddity for a large household not to have any children. Such a theory is even less credible than the inference made by opponents that there must have been multiple servants making up the whole (large) household referred to in Scripture. But still no children.

You'd be on firmer ground just to believe that there were children who were baptized.

 

[Josiah]

I'm saying I don't know and there is no way to know.

I agree. So there goes the foundational Anabaptist apologetic that "All baptisms that happen to be recorded in the Bible illustrate that everyone was past the age of we-don't-know, had first given a convincing oral declaration of their faith and were entirely immersed in water... and we MUST do ONLY as is done as illustrated in the Bible (so no typing on the internet!)."

What we have, then, is the call to baptize... with nothing about age, race, color, gender, nationality, language, intelligence, education, shoe size or any prior work by the recipient being mandated. Not a word about ".... BUT not unless they have attained the age of we-won't-tell you.... " "BUT not unless they hath first in chronological time convincingly recited the sinner's prayer." And yes nothing about "And this includes women, children, African-Americans, poor people, disabled people, deaf people." Just as in the call to love or the command not to kill.

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 all...


- Josiah




.

 

[Lanman87]

What we have

What we do have are examples of people being baptized that are clear and not based on assumption (like who made up a particular household). All of those clear examples of people being baptized are people who, in some form or fashion, expressed faith/belief in Christ. That is the model of baptism in the New Testament and the normative usage in the church for several hundred years (according to Schaff and other historians).

That is the basis for credo-baptism. It is the clear example of the New Testament and the example the church follows.

There is no stronge evidence of infant baptism until at least the late 2nd/early 3rd Century. All you have is more inference using Polycarp's old age.

 

[Lanman87]

So you are, of necessity, referring to adults.

Not necessarily. I believe and witness young children come to faith and get baptized regularly. Both my sons were baptized under the age of 6. Age isn't the defining factor. Faith is. I've seen children as young as 4 be baptized in a Southern Baptist church.

Just an FYI- When a child indicates that the have come to faith, usually when talking to a parent or minister, a pastor usually spends several hours, spread out over weeks, to attempt to determine in a young child has truly come to faith. Understanding that faith is more than belief but includes a understanding of sin and the need for forgiveness, at least on an elementary level. Only when the Pastor is convinced that the child is sincere in their profession of faith is the child put forward for Baptism.

It is much more detailed than just getting a 4 year old to repeat the "sinner's prayer", at least in the churches I've been associated with.

 

[Andrew]

Uhh.. you have to believe and repent first and then receive the Holy Spirit, baptizing infants is not in the bible because it's not necessary, infants and children under the age of 13 are examples of innocence per Jesus Christ.

Although, just as praying to the dead is considered a pious and Holy "thought" I imagine that baptizing an infant because you believe God will have mercy on them is likewise a pious and Holy "thought".

God will have mercy on whomever God wills to have mercy on.. Revelation tells us of a 2nd Resurrection of those who died as unbelievers and says that the meek of which shall he spare as heirs of the Earth, not being blotted out of the book of life. The wicked of which shall be punished accordingly and shall face the second death.

The whole "baptize your baby asap just in case they die" belief was a heretical teaching in the RCC because in the time of "indulgences" the poor had to PAY the church for their child to receive a baptism.
Hence why John Wycliff produced Bibles for the average plow boy, he knew that the NT taught blessings of the generations of believers unto their children and children's children.

There is actually no evidence that the early churches ever practiced infant baptism.

 

[Josiah]

What we do have are examples of people being baptized that are clear and not based on assumption (like who made up a particular household).

Yes We have a FEW illustrations.... So what?

Even if EVERY example of a baptism was of both genders, all race and nationalities and languages, what would that prove? But of course, we don't.

All the baptisms that happen to be illustrated in the Bible (and that isn't a lot) appear to be middle eastern people, all Caucasian, all who seem to speak Greek... and all were baptized in the middle east or very southeastern Europe. And the Baptizer was a Hebrew male. Does that mean ergo we cannot baptize Blacks or Asains? English or Japanese speaking? Not in the USA or Australia? No Gentile or woman can baptize? Can we ONLY do as clearly illustrated by examples in the Bible? Then can we use electricity, powerpoint, computers, guitars? Can we have youth pastors and women's groups? You get my point.

All of those clear examples of people being baptized are people who, in some form or fashion, expressed faith/belief in Christ.

Then prove that every person in those households 1) Had first attained the age of we-don't-know (Anti-Paedobaptism dogma), had FIRST in chronological time publicly and convinibly professed their faith in Christ (Credobaptism). I thin you already posted we just don't know.... we cannot know.

Point is: Where is this prohibition stated against baptizing those under the age of we-cannot-know? It's not to be found- just as we can't find a prohibition on baptizing Asians or English speaking persons or disabled persons... prohibitions against women doing this (although no woman did in the Bible) or against Gentiles doing this (although none did in the Bible).

That is the model of baptism in the New Testament and the normative usage in the church for several hundred years (according to Schaff and other historians).

Did this historian say that in the Early Church there was a prohibition from Baptizing any under the age of we-don't-know? That never happened... it was forbidden? Did he write that it was a mandate that ONLY those who had given public and convincing proof of their faith in Jesus were allowed to be baptized? OR did he simply say that before 311 AD, it was often the case that adult converts were baptized? Still to this day, in mission fields where the community is not Christian, it is STILL the case that most are converted adults since the community is unbelieving. But as Christianity came to dominate, I suspect that changed.


In the thread referenced here, I note several long before 311 AD endorsing infant baptism and even indicating they were baptized as a infant. I don't know what PERCENTAGE of recipients were over the age of we-don't know or first were converted, I don't know what ethnicity or race they were by percent, I don't know what percent were baptized in the Near East or by Gentiles, but I think the point is: there was not mention of prohibitions based on age, race, color, IQ or previous professions. Just because the percentage of Japanese baptisms was probably low before 311 AD does not mean ergo it is forbidden to baptize one who lives in Japan. You get my point.

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

There is no stronge evidence of infant baptism until at least the late 2nd/early 3rd Century. All you have is more inference using Polycarp's old age.

I know of no evidence for ANY of the 3 Anabaptists dogma before the 16th Century: Anti-Paedobaptism (forbidden before the age of "we-con't-know), Credobaptism (First in time there must be a public, convincing declaration of faith) or immersion baptism (any other mood is forbidden and invalid). I'm sure there were baptisms of those over the age of who knows and were folks who confessed their faith first, and certainly of immersion baptisms - but that has nothing to do with the BIBLE mandating such and forbidding any other.


And nearly everything that happens on a Sunday morning in most Protestant church is never illustrated in the NT. Is it thus forbidden?

And nowhere does the Bible tell us to not kill Blacks, and there no examples of that being done or condemned. Does that make it okay or does "Thou shalt no kill" cover that? Do we need a list of WHO that applies to? And who it is does not? We are told to teach and to love.... does that man I don't need to love Mexicans because none are in the Bible and it nowhere says they are included? You get my point.



A blessed Advent to you and yours.


Josiah




.

 

[Lanman87]

I thin you already posted we just don't know.... we cannot know.

Correct, but the one's we do know about are all baptism after faith is expressed. I had rather practice what we know was done than what think might have been done.

What is so wrong with Baptizing new converts and teaching our children the Gospel and praying for our Children that God will give them the gift of faith and bring them to a Spiritual birth? At which time they will also be Baptized.

Even if EVERY example of a baptism was of both genders, all race and nationalities and languages, what would that prove? But of course, we don't.

Gender, race, age are not the determining factor. Belief/faith/conversion is the determining factor. That is the common thread in all the specific baptism in the New Testament.

I personally believe that all the members of the households mentioned in the New Testament were old enough to believe and be baptized.

Specifically look at the Jailer in Acts 16:31-34 NASB

31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of God to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and was overjoyed, since he had become a believer in God together with his whole household.

Paul tells him prophetically that if he believes not only he, but his household will be saved.
Then Paul speaks the word of God with everyone in the house
The Jailer washes Paul and Silas' wounds
Then the Jailer and his household are baptized
Then they rejoice that not only had the jailer become a believer but his whole household had come to belief.

Look at what the Bible says about the household of Crispus in Acts 18:8 NASB

Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord together with his entire household; and many of the Corinthians, as they listened to Paul, were believing and being baptized.

All of Crispus' household believed.

Do you really believe this leave room for infants to have been baptized? Can infants become believers?

Maybe their was a 10 year old boy and an 8 year old girl in the household and they came to believe and were baptized. That is certainly possible. We don't know their ages, but we do know they had the capacity to believe.

If that was true of the Jailers household how do we know it wasn't true of the other households? Your assumption is that it is not true of the other households mentioned. My assumption is that it is true. Your base yours on the belief that it would be odd for a household to not include infants. I base my assumption on the example of the jailers house, Crispus' house, and Cornelius's house. Where everyone in the household came to faith and believed.

 

[Fritz Kobus]

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!).

There is understanding in the example you give. The person who has no idea how an airplane flies, has seen hundreds if not thousands of planes fly without crashing, co concludes that crashes are rare and flying is relatively safe.

Faith in Jesus (as savior) understands the gospel message; however, that faith is generated by the power of the Holy Spirit, rather than by experience as in the case of the airplane.

 

[Andrew]

Yes We have a FEW illustrations.... So what?

Even if EVERY example of a baptism was of both genders, all race and nationalities and languages, what would that prove? But of course, we don't.

All the baptisms that happen to be illustrated in the Bible (and that isn't a lot) appear to be middle eastern people, all Caucasian, all who seem to speak Greek... and all were baptized in the middle east or very southeastern Europe. And the Baptizer was a Hebrew male. Does that mean ergo we cannot baptize Blacks or Asains? English or Japanese speaking? Not in the USA or Australia? No Gentile or woman can baptize? Can we ONLY do as clearly illustrated by examples in the Bible? Then can we use electricity, powerpoint, computers, guitars? Can we have youth pastors and women's groups? You get my point.






Then prove that every person in those households 1) Had first attained the age of we-don't-know (Anti-Paedobaptism dogma), had FIRST in chronological time publicly and convinibly professed their faith in Christ (Credobaptism). I thin you already posted we just don't know.... we cannot know.

Point is: Where is this prohibition stated against baptizing those under the age of we-cannot-know? It's not to be found- just as we can't find a prohibition on baptizing Asians or English speaking persons or disabled persons... prohibitions against women doing this (although no woman did in the Bible) or against Gentiles doing this (although none did in the Bible).






Did this historian say that in the Early Church there was a prohibition from Baptizing any under the age of we-don't-know? That never happened... it was forbidden? Did he write that it was a mandate that ONLY those who had given public and convincing proof of their faith in Jesus were allowed to be baptized? OR did he simply say that before 311 AD, it was often the case that adult converts were baptized? Still to this day, in mission fields where the community is not Christian, it is STILL the case that most are converted adults since the community is unbelieving. But as Christianity came to dominate, I suspect that changed.


In the thread referenced here, I note several long before 311 AD endorsing infant baptism and even indicating they were baptized as a infant. I don't know what PERCENTAGE of recipients were over the age of we-don't know or first were converted, I don't know what ethnicity or race they were by percent, I don't know what percent were baptized in the Near East or by Gentiles, but I think the point is: there was not mention of prohibitions based on age, race, color, IQ or previous professions. Just because the percentage of Japanese baptisms was probably low before 311 AD does not mean ergo it is forbidden to baptize one who lives in Japan. You get my point.

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

I know of no evidence for ANY of the 3 Anabaptists dogma before the 16th Century: Anti-Paedobaptism (forbidden before the age of "we-con't-know), Credobaptism (First in time there must be a public, convincing declaration of faith) or immersion baptism (any other mood is forbidden and invalid). I'm sure there were baptisms of those over the age of who knows and were folks who confessed their faith first, and certainly of immersion baptisms - but that has nothing to do with the BIBLE mandating such and forbidding any other.


And nearly everything that happens on a Sunday morning in most Protestant church is never illustrated in the NT. Is it thus forbidden?

And nowhere does the Bible tell us to not kill Blacks, and there no examples of that being done or condemned. Does that make it okay or does "Thou shalt no kill" cover that? Do we need a list of WHO that applies to? And who it is does not? We are told to teach and to love.... does that man I don't need to love Mexicans because none are in the Bible and it nowhere says they are included? You get my point.



A blessed Advent to you and yours.


Josiah




.

Indeed the Bible is silent on the matter of infant baptism. No harm in it I suppose but I do believe the tradition is rooted in fear rather than the infants ability to grasp anything beyond it's desire for milk and sleep.

 

[Lamb]

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.

Where does it say that they have to wait? It doesn't. Think again about how families were important in the bible to include each member (including their servants and their children too). When you think about how they were community driven, you wouldn't have that mindset about waiting because they would be teaching their children from birth about the Savior. They would want their children included and Acts 2 gives them that promise that it's for their children. Not as adults but as children.

 

[Lamb]

Indeed the Bible is silent on the matter of infant baptism. No harm in it I suppose but I do believe the tradition is rooted in fear rather than the infants ability to grasp anything beyond it's desire for milk and sleep.

Baptism isn't rooted in fear but in trust that the Lord has promised to give children the gift of the Holy Spirit and with that forgiveness. That's why baptism is not Law (rooted in fear) but Gospel (pointing to the Savior).

Acts 2:38-39 Peter replied, “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 gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

 

[Andrew]

Baptism isn't rooted in fear but in trust that the Lord has promised to give children the gift of the Holy Spirit and with that forgiveness. That's why baptism is not Law (rooted in fear) but Gospel (pointing to the Savior).

Acts 2:38-39 Peter replied, “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 gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

Not baptism but 'infant baptism' is rooted in fear (IMO). Not all baptised babies grow up believers, Hitler was baptized and we can both figure that he likely did not have the Holy Ghost indwelling.