Five Reasons Why Babies Should be Baptized...

[Rens]

What do you mean by "Just do what you want, who cares."

Do what you believe is good, cause he's not gonna listen to any point I make anyway.

 

[Lamb]

Do what you believe is good, cause he's not gonna listen to any point I make anyway.

He who? I don't understand what you're saying. Do what you believe is good? He's not going to listen? I'm really lost as to your point about baptism here.

 

[Rens]

He who? I don't understand what you're saying. Do what you believe is good? He's not going to listen? I'm really lost as to your point about baptism here.

It was an answer to Josiah. If he believes it's good to baptize babies he should do that. None of my business.

 

[atpollard]

I'm thinking here how you can exclude babies from entire households because you don't think God can do anything in baptism because the verse you provide for entire households actually proves my point more than it does yours. Josiahs post about repent and baptized is clearly saying that it's not repent then be baptized.

I am not excluding anyone from anything.
To paraphrase a verbose Lutheran ... 'AND means AND'.

God said "repent and be baptized".
And means and.

Did the baby repent? Yes or No.
Is there any evidence that any adult was baptized (for the forgiveness of sins) and then LATER repented of those sins? Yes or No.
Why apply a double standard, one for adults (which is what God commanded) and one for babies (which is the Church tradition and not commanded in scripture).

(It is not about what God can do, it is about what God has commanded.)
So how about addressing what I am actually saying rather than placing false words in my mouth.
That specific verse was about an entire houshold believing and being baptized. Can a baby believe? If not, then I simply made a true statement about that verse. Why do you then deny the truth of what scripture says and accuse me of making false claims?

I AM STILL WAITING FOR THAT VERSE THAT ACTUALLY COMMANDS US TO BAPTIZE BABIES.

 

[atpollard]

1. Interesting you snipped it, cutting off the next verse: Acts 2:39
2. Your whole premise depends on deleting the word in the text ("and") and substituting a different, foreign, absent word so that it fits your pov ("then")

No it doesn't. My whole premise is based on an argument that you should appreciate ... "AND means AND".
Peter, under the command of the Holy Spirit instructed them to "repent and be baptized" indicating that they were to do both, because and means and. If a grown man came to any church I ever attended, including the Catholic and Lutheran and Baptist and Evangelical and Church of God and Pentecostal, and said that they wanted to be baptized so they could get into heaven, but they were not going to repent because they felt that they had no sins ... no church that I ever attended would have baptized them and hoped they decided to repent some day.

The baby cannot understand, so it cannot believe so it cannot repent so it cannot follow the command given by the the Holy Spirit to repent AND be baptized. I would not 'forbid' infant baptism as you have accused some of doing, but I could not tell someone in good conscience that they get to ignore half of the instructions because Church Tradition says it is OK to treat 'AND' like an 'OR'. Every believer is commanded to REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED. They go together and I am still waiting for the verse that says go and baptize babies.

1. Okay, so you searched and you found a verse where it seems everyone first believed. There are also verses that do not so state. So what?

2. Even IF every example that happens to be recorded in the Bible was of ones who FIRST believed (and that's not the case), the whole premise that we can only do what we specifically see modeled in the Bible is silly.

So what?
I was responding to the claim that there was not even a single verse to suggest that a baby should not be baptized. Other "households" (and there are only a few) may or may not have had babies. This household is a clear example of an entire household being baptized in which there must have been no babies. EVERYONE in the household believed and was baptized ... That agrees with the command of the Holy Spirit to "repent and be baptized, every one of you". It reinforces the claim that if "every one of you" includes babies, then they too must "repent" as well as (and) being "baptized".

You know that every cult would agree with you that it is silly to insist on doing only what we see modeled in the Bible.

Then why are you posting on the Internet? Why does your church use books, electricity, powerpoint? Why baptized in a building in a big pool? Why pass around Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welch's Concord Grape Juice? Chances are, nearly all your church does is not specifically exampled anywhere in the Bible. And why baptize Swedes or Russians or Koreans or Native Americans or Australians.... not a single example of them being baptized in the Bible. Why have a Gentile doing the Baptism, not a single example of that anywhere in the Bible. And why have Sunday School? Youth Groups? why have a church website? None in the Bible.... Even you reject this premise, so why should anyone accept it?

Because unlike rejecting the command to "repent and be baptized", none of these other things violate a specific command in scripture.

Please quote the verses that state God can't do something for us unless we first "understand" it. Now, I do notice how you so carefully avoided saying they can't believe because of course the Bible DOES say that "little ones" can believe. Just as I can believe in God but I don't understand that, I can believe in the Two Natures of Christ but my brain is entirely unable to wrap itself around that to "understand" it.

I look at the following verses.... and they seem very INCLUSIVE to me, not extremely EXCLUSIVE: Matthew 28:19 Acts 2:38-39 Acts 16:15. And when the foundational argument is used that little ones render God impotent and that they can't have faith, I not only can't think of a single verse that says that but I think of Matthew 18:6 Mark 10:13-15

- Josiah
-

No.
I have responded to far more of what you have asked of me than you have bothered to honestly read and respond to my original post. So I offer my original post to give you another chance to read it and actually respond to the point being raised before I invest the time to chase down all of your verses and respond to you again.

Neither has a single verse been posted that any baptism recorded in scripture was ever performed on a single baby. Not even one.

But just to humor you, here are two verses that say you SHOULDN'T baptize babies:

Acts 2:38 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 baby did not repent, so he/she should not be baptized)

Acts 18:8 Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized.
(Crispus entire household BELIEVED and was baptized ... babies can not understand, therefore everyone who was baptized - the entire household - was old enough to believe.)

Now you have two scripture verses.
I am still waiting for a verse that says you MUST baptize a baby.

 

[Lamb]

Repent and be baptized.

Both are gifts. Do you agree? Are they something we can do to ourselves or is it God working in us?

 

[Josiah]

No it doesn't. My whole premise is based on an argument that you should appreciate ... "AND means AND".
Peter, under the command of the Holy Spirit instructed them to "repent and be baptized" indicating that they were to do both

Good. Then the verse you quoted (and the next verse you left off) in no way indicate a sequence, that one is to follow the other.

You quoted the verse (and left off the next one) because you indicated they prove we SHOULD NOT baptize babies...... The whole premise of your argument is that "and" means "then." Now you admit, it doesn't. There goes the premise.

The baby cannot understand

Nor can an adult. One who is DEAD is incapable of anything. The Bible says NO ONE is even capable of even saying 'Jesus is Lord'. No one. All incapable. A one minute old baby with Downs Syndrome cannot give self spiritual life, cannot raise self from the DEAD, cannot give self faith, cannot save self.... but nor can a 42 year old Swed with an IQ of 230 and 3 Ph.D.s who has memorized every word of the Bible. And yes, this includes "repent" since "repent" is a spiritual act flowing from spiritual life - one repents to GOD (and thus must believe in God), looking to GOD for mercy (and thus must believe God is meriful). I agree that an unbeliever can feel remorse (so can you dog) but that's not repentance.

it cannot believe

Jesus strongly disagrees with you....

And I'm surprised to see a Calvinist argue that the person CHOOSES to believe, and that God is impotent in the case of those under the age of "X."

I find your premise very unbiblical (and a flat contradiction of Calvinism)...

And I find it suprisingly illogical. How is it that one who is DEAD must first be alive before they can no longer be DEAD? How can you insist that a DEAD person cannot be given life unless they are first alive?

so it cannot repent so it cannot follow the command given by the the Holy Spirit to repent AND be baptized.

Read what you posted...... you first indicated that "and" doesn't mean "and" but should be deleted and replaced with the substitute word "THEN" because sequence is mandated.... then you posted the opposite and that the word "and" IS the word Jesus should have used because sequence is not mandated..... now you seem to going back to the very thing you said wasn't your position, that "and" should be replaced with "THEN" because Jesus is mandating sequence. Which is it?

I could not tell someone in good conscience that they get to ignore half of the instructions

.... When I was baptized (within a minute of my birth.... still unconscience and not breathing) no one TOLD me anything. I was not told that I could ignore the call to repentance. I know of no one who tells anyone that. I've NEVER been told that I could ignore repentance; quite the opposite.

says it is OK to treat 'AND' like an 'OR'. Every believer is commanded to REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED.

No one says "or." It's just that in the past 500 years, a small minority of Christians have deleted the word "and" and substituted instead an entirely different, foreign word ("THEN") in order to prohibit some from being baptized.

I am still waiting for the verse that says go and baptize babies.

There's also none that says to love babies (it just says "LOVE as I first love you", doesn't say "and this includes babies"). I disagree with your premise that unless a call of God specially states all the groups of humans to which it applies, then it doesn't apply to them.

You know that every cult would agree with you that it is silly to insist on doing only what we see modeled in the Bible.

I'm sure your denomination insists that it's silly, too. After all, I'd guess nearly everything your congregation does is not modeled anywhere in the Bible. So since your church feels free to do things never done in the Bible, it would find it hypocritical and silly to insist that others do only what is modeled in the Bible.

By your premise, one could support hating the handicapped or African Americans or Mexicans because, "The Bible commands us to love but where does it specifically state we are to love THEM?"




Soli Deo Gloria



- Josiah



.

 

[atpollard]

Repent and be baptized.

Both are gifts. Do you agree? Are they something we can do to ourselves or is it God working in us?

Respectfully, water baptism is something that people do. Baptism of the Spirit is something that God does.
So I am not completely sure how to answer your question.
Which baptism is the baby receiving?

 

[atpollard]

Good. Then the verse you quoted (and the next verse you left off) in no way indicate a sequence, that one is to follow the other.

You quoted the verse (and left off the next one) because you indicated they prove we SHOULD NOT baptize babies...... The whole premise of your argument is that "and" means "then." Now you admit, it doesn't. There goes the premise.








Nor can an adult. One who is DEAD is incapable of anything. The Bible says NO ONE is even capable of even saying 'Jesus is Lord'. No one. All incapable. A one minute old baby with Downs Syndrome cannot give self spiritual life, cannot raise self from the DEAD, cannot give self faith, cannot save self.... but nor can a 42 year old Swed with an IQ of 230 and 3 Ph.D.s who has memorized every word of the Bible. And yes, this includes "repent" since "repent" is a spiritual act flowing from spiritual life - one repents to GOD (and thus must believe in God), looking to GOD for mercy (and thus must believe God is meriful). I agree that an unbeliever can feel remorse (so can you dog) but that's not repentance.






Jesus strongly disagrees with you....

And I'm surprised to see a Calvinist argue that the person CHOOSES to believe, and that God is impotent in the case of those under the age of "X."

I find your premise very unbiblical (and a flat contradiction of Calvinism)...

And I find it suprisingly illogical. How is it that one who is DEAD must first be alive before they can no longer be DEAD? How can you insist that a DEAD person cannot be given life unless they are first alive?








Read what you posted...... you first indicated that "and" doesn't mean "and" but should be deleted and replaced with the substitute word "THEN" because sequence is mandated.... then you posted the opposite and that the word "and" IS the word Jesus should have used because sequence is not mandated..... now you seem to going back to the very thing you said wasn't your position, that "and" should be replaced with "THEN" because Jesus is mandating sequence. Which is it?







.... When I was baptized (within a minute of my birth.... still unconscience and not breathing) no one TOLD me anything. I was not told that I could ignore the call to repentance. I know of no one who tells anyone that. I've NEVER been told that I could ignore repentance; quite the opposite.







No one says "or." It's just that in the past 500 years, a small minority of Christians have deleted the word "and" and substituted instead an entirely different, foreign word ("THEN") in order to prohibit some from being baptized.








There's also none that says to love babies (it just says "LOVE as I first love you", doesn't say "and this includes babies"). I disagree with your premise that unless a call of God specially states all the groups of humans to which it applies, then it doesn't apply to them.








I'm sure your denomination insists that it's silly, too. After all, I'd guess nearly everything your congregation does is not modeled anywhere in the Bible. So since your church feels free to do things never done in the Bible, it would find it hypocritical and silly to insist that others do only what is modeled in the Bible.

By your premise, one could support hating the handicapped or African Americans or Mexicans because, "The Bible commands us to love but where does it specifically state we are to love THEM?"




Soli Deo Gloria



- Josiah



.

So many words, so little comprehension.
When YOU were baptized, did YOU also repent?
The command was for you to REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED, EVERY ONE OF YOU.
Did your parents obey everything Peter commanded when THEY baptized you? Did you repent (immediately after baptism if you are intent on reversing the order of the commands that Peter gave). AND means AND ... YOU were commanded to do both ("every one of you" in Peter's own words).

By making the decision for someone else, you are placing church tradition above the specific command of scripture. The word of God is God Breathed. Church Traditions, while important, are not God Breathed. If you want to include babies in a Visible Church as children of the Covenant ... go for it. There are scripture verses which explicitly and implicitly support that and none which contradict it. Repurposing baptism as the new circumcision for infants is nowhere commanded in scripture and violates commands like "repent and be baptized, every one of you".

Show me from scripture where I am wrong. Peter said what he said. Why do you ignore half of his command?

 

[atpollard]

Re: babies believing ...

Romans 10:9-10 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

Did the baby believe in his heart that God raised Jesus from the dead?

Romans 10:14-15 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”

This is why I said no.
Refute it with exegesis or scripture. Spare me empty, unsupported opinion.

 

[Lamb]

Re: babies believing ...

Romans 10:9-10 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

Did the baby believe in his heart that God raised Jesus from the dead?

Romans 10:14-15 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”

This is why I said no.
Refute it with exegesis or scripture. Spare me empty, unsupported opinion.

Let's start with your definition of FAITH. How do we get it and what is it? Does it come from us or the Holy Spirit?

 

[Lamb]

Respectfully, water baptism is something that people do. Baptism of the Spirit is something that God does.
So I am not completely sure how to answer your question.
Which baptism is the baby receiving?

The original language says "be baptized". That means something is done to you.

 

[Lamb]

So many words, so little comprehension.
When YOU were baptized, did YOU also repent?
The command was for you to REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED, EVERY ONE OF YOU.
Did your parents obey everything Peter commanded when THEY baptized you? Did you repent (immediately after baptism if you are intent on reversing the order of the commands that Peter gave). AND means AND ... YOU were commanded to do both ("every one of you" in Peter's own words).

By making the decision for someone else, you are placing church tradition above the specific command of scripture. The word of God is God Breathed. Church Traditions, while important, are not God Breathed. If you want to include babies in a Visible Church as children of the Covenant ... go for it. There are scripture verses which explicitly and implicitly support that and none which contradict it. Repurposing baptism as the new circumcision for infants is nowhere commanded in scripture and violates commands like "repent and be baptized, every one of you".

Show me from scripture where I am wrong. Peter said what he said. Why do you ignore half of his command?

Repent and be baptized. Are you saying that these happen instantaneously together? Or can they be moments, months, years apart? I know people who have held off being baptized for years. Is that okay then? I mean, if you're pushing that they have to be together, it shouldn't be okay.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Has anybody changed their mind about paedobaptism?

 

[Josiah]

Respectfully, water baptism is something that people do. Baptism of the Spirit is something that God does.

How did I "do" baptism? I wasn't even conscience, I wasn't breathing. What exactly do you insist that I did? True, OTHERS do something FOR me but that's always the case with baptism, no one baptizes themselves. Generally people don't commune self or teach self, either.

 

[Josiah]

When YOU were baptized, did YOU also repent? The command was for you to REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED, EVERY ONE OF YOU.

You keep contradicting yourself.... you've insisted that the word "and" mandates sequence, chronological order (the correct word the Bible should have used being "THEN"), but you also insist that's not the case, but you insist that is the case but it's not the case. When you make up your mind, we can discuss.


AGAIN, the word is "and". What part of that keeps escaping you? It means things are associated. Friend, ANY false teaching can be defended if one just deletes the word that's there and replace it with a completely foreign word that's not there but the person thinks would have been the correct word for the Holy Spirit to inspire. Friend, the word is "AND."


Friend, the following is a true, correct and accurate statement: I got up this morning and visited the bathroom and took a shower and got dressed and made some coffee and read the newspaper and checked my email. ABSOLUTELY correct, accurate and true. But I didn't do them in that order. Did I thus lie? Was I wrong to say "and?" Did I violate simple English grammar? No. It's just that your (sometime) premise is absurd. And by using "and" does it mandate I did them all at the same time or even that one immediately followed the other? No. Of course not. That's completely absurd.

Did you repent (immediately after baptism?

When you make up your mind, let us know.... does "and" mean "and" or did the Bible consistently goof and the Holy Spirit SHOULD have inspired "THEN IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER?"


Peter never wrote, " then immediately thereafter." Friend, he wrote "and." Friend, any position (no matter how absurd) can be defended if one just deletes the word that is there and in its place, in its stead, in lieu of it, substitutes an entirely foreign, different word that one thinks the Holy Spirit SHOULD have inspired if the Holy Spirit was just as informed of this as self is.

Why do you ignore half of his command?

I never posted that we should ignore Baptism or Repenting.

I'm stating you are ignoring the word "and." I am disagreeing with your whole premise, your insistence that the word "and" should be ignored and in its place, in its stead, in lieu of it, substituted for it must be the words: "then immediately thereafter" You are ignoring the word that is consistently used.



And yes, there are times when unbaptized people (probably over the mysterious, never-stated age of "X") and they are told to receive baptism. But the Great Commission says we are to baptize (the one administering it being the active ones) and the receivers being in the passive ("many WERE baptized"). The Great Commission is about what Christians are to do for others .... not what unbelievers are to do to/for themselves.




- Josiah




.

 

[Lamb]

Baptizing and teaching (Jesus told the disciples how they were to go out and make more disciples).

Repent and be baptized. Peter told the 3,000 in Acts 2:38. But in the next sentence he assures the crowd that this is for their children too.

The order that is stressed by some here in the thread is NOT stressed in scripture.

 

[atpollard]

Let's start with your definition of FAITH. How do we get it and what is it? Does it come from us or the Holy Spirit?

Are you claiming that a BABY has faith? Based upon what?
(Notice that I answered your question with a question, just like you did with mine.)

 

[atpollard]

The original language says "be baptized". That means something is done to you.

Who sprinkled water on the baby, God or a person?
Who baptized with tongues of fire in Acts 2, God or a person?

Both were something done to the recipient. The main difference is who is doing the something.

 

[atpollard]

Repent and be baptized. Are you saying that these happen instantaneously together? Or can they be moments, months, years apart? I know people who have held off being baptized for years. Is that okay then? I mean, if you're pushing that they have to be together, it shouldn't be okay.

"Love and marriage, love and marriage,
Go together like a horse and carriage.
This I tell ya, brother, you can't have one without the other."

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [NKJV]

Did the baby do everything that Peter commanded?
On what authority do you pick and choose which parts of God's command to obey?