Is Infant Baptism and Accretion?

[Lanman87]

If the message of the Gospel was to Baptize new believers then we shouldn't deviate from that practice.

You've said that same thing in several posts now, and it's becoming a trifle annoying because it's so obviously a misleading premise. Does the Bible teach that non-believers should be converted and baptized? Yes, of course!

I don't believe it is a misleading premise at all. The Bible tells and shows us to baptize new believers. It never tells us to baptize non-believers or shows us an explicit instance of non-believers or infants being baptized. If it never tells us or shows us to practice such a foundational aspect in Christianity in that way, then why in the world would we do something we are not commanded or shown?

All the other stuff we do "in church" preaching, singing, teaching, serving and so on has both command and precedent in scripture. Things like Sunday School, VBS, various service ministries, colleges, and even broadcasting the service on youtube fall under the heading of preaching, teaching, singing, equipping the saints, and showing love to others. We are told to preach, teach, sing, and so forth and there are no specific set of instructions on how it can be done. Unlike the Old Covenant which gave specific instructions for every little thing, the New Covenant is rooted in who we are in Christ instead of what we outwardly do. This makes perfect sense considering the changes in culture and technology that we have seen through the centuries.

However, Baptism is a sacrament/ordinance of the church. It is the initial ceremony/rite of a Christian. It isn't the same as having a church organ or a praise band or having Sunday School or not. Baptism, in the New Testament, was part of the conversion experience. Baptism, in itself didn't convert, the Holy Spirit converts the heart, mind and soul of each believer. But it was mans response to the work of the Spirit.

To say, well it doesn't tell us not to baptize infants or the Bible didn't record every baptism is an argument from silence. There are a lot of things the Bible doesn't tell us "not to do" that all of us agree would either be sinful or not productive or not in line with teachings of the Gospel message. If we believe the Bible is sufficient then we believe the Bible tells us everything we need to know.

It's because you doubt that God's word (which is joined to the waters in baptism) can actually bring faith?

I don't believe an infant receives faith when they are baptized. Faith comes by hearing, not the waters of baptism. If someone who was baptized as an infant comes to faith it is because they heard the word and believed. Which is the same as if someone who was not baptized as an infant comes to faith.

To say that baptism conveys faith and grace to helpless infants is an argument from tradition and intellect, not scripture. It is the belief that babies need faith and grace and they way we can make sure they receive faith and grace is through baptism. It came from the understandable desire that if our baby dies we want it to go to heaven. And since baptism confers grace and "washes away sin" then we will baptize our babies just in case something happens to them. Which is all well and good, except for that their is no good evidence that this was taught by the Apostles and was part of the "Rule of Faith" handed down to the church. (I don't find the "households" or "Polycarp" arguments to be good arguments). Instead it was a realization that there was a lack of teaching about infants in the scriptures so we needed to do something, so let's baptize them into the church in the hopes that they will come to faith and be saved. (As I said in my original post, this started in the latter half of the second century but didn't become the norm for at least a couple hundred years, I would think that if it had been taught by the Apostles then it would have been the norm from the beginning)

Well, We don't have the ability to convey faith and grace to anyone. Not through baptism, not through preaching, not through teaching and so on. Only God can do that by His divine action. Baptism doesn't force that action (anymore than preaching to a room full of lost people forces them to come to faith). To say that it does is to put the actions of God at our command. Ya'll act like baptism is a way we, as parents and loved ones, can make sure God is granting faith and grace to an infant. We can hope and pray and teach our children about Christ, but ultimately it is God who brings the child to Christ. Whether the child is baptized as an infant or not neither forces or keeps God from granting Faith to the child.

Biblically speaking, there are two things that God uses to bring someone to faith. The preaching/proclaiming of the Gospel and the Work of the Holy Spirit.

Sacraments don't impart faith. The Sacraments and other means of Grace feed our faith, strengthen our faith, grow our faith, and motivate us to live by faith. But they don't bring us to faith. The word being preached/proclaimed and work of the Holy Spirit are the means by which God uses to bring people to faith.

 

[Lamb]

I don't believe an infant receives faith when they are baptized. Faith comes by hearing, not the waters of baptism.

Again, you're one of those who doesn't believe that God's word is with the waters in baptism.

 

[Albion]

I don't believe it is a misleading premise at all. The Bible tells and shows us to baptize new believers. It never tells us to baptize non-believers or shows us an explicit instance of non-believers or infants being baptized. If it never tells us or shows us to practice such a foundational aspect in Christianity in that way, then why in the world would we do something we are not commanded or shown?

All the other stuff we do "in church" preaching, singing, teaching, serving and so on has both command and precedent in scripture. Things like Sunday School, VBS, various service ministries, colleges, and even broadcasting the service on youtube fall under the heading of preaching, teaching, singing, equipping the saints, and showing love to others. We are told to preach, teach, sing, and so forth and there are no specific set of instructions on how it can be done. Unlike the Old Covenant which gave specific instructions for every little thing, the New Covenant is rooted in who we are in Christ instead of what we outwardly do. This makes perfect sense considering the changes in culture and technology that we have seen through the centuries.

However, Baptism is a sacrament/ordinance of the church. It is the initial ceremony/rite of a Christian. It isn't the same as having a church organ or a praise band or having Sunday School or not. Baptism, in the New Testament, was part of the conversion experience. Baptism, in itself didn't convert, the Holy Spirit converts the heart, mind and soul of each believer. But it was mans response to the work of the Spirit.

To say, well it doesn't tell us not to baptize infants or the Bible didn't record every baptism is an argument from silence. There are a lot of things the Bible doesn't tell us "not to do" that all of us agree would either be sinful or not productive or not in line with teachings of the Gospel message. If we believe the Bible is sufficient then we believe the Bible tells us everything we need to know.



I don't believe an infant receives faith when they are baptized. Faith comes by hearing, not the waters of baptism. If someone who was baptized as an infant comes to faith it is because they heard the word and believed. Which is the same as if someone who was not baptized as an infant comes to faith.

To say that baptism conveys faith and grace to helpless infants is an argument from tradition and intellect, not scripture. It is the belief that babies need faith and grace and they way we can make sure they receive faith and grace is through baptism. It came from the understandable desire that if our baby dies we want it to go to heaven. And since baptism confers grace and "washes away sin" then we will baptize our babies just in case something happens to them. Which is all well and good, except for that their is no good evidence that this was taught by the Apostles and was part of the "Rule of Faith" handed down to the church. (I don't find the "households" or "Polycarp" arguments to be good arguments). Instead it was a realization that there was a lack of teaching about infants in the scriptures so we needed to do something, so let's baptize them into the church in the hopes that they will come to faith and be saved. (As I said in my original post, this started in the latter half of the second century but didn't become the norm for at least a couple hundred years, I would think that if it had been taught by the Apostles then it would have been the norm from the beginning)

Well, We don't have the ability to convey faith and grace to anyone. Not through baptism, not through preaching, not through teaching and so on. Only God can do that by His divine action. Baptism doesn't force that action (anymore than preaching to a room full of lost people forces them to come to faith). To say that it does is to put the actions of God at our command. Ya'll act like baptism is a way we, as parents and loved ones, can make sure God is granting faith and grace to an infant. We can hope and pray and teach our children about Christ, but ultimately it is God who brings the child to Christ. Whether the child is baptized as an infant or not neither forces or keeps God from granting Faith to the child.

Biblically speaking, there are two things that God uses to bring someone to faith. The preaching/proclaiming of the Gospel and the Work of the Holy Spirit.

Sacraments don't impart faith. The Sacraments and other means of Grace feed our faith, strengthen our faith, grow our faith, and motivate us to live by faith. But they don't bring us to faith. The word being preached/proclaimed and work of the Holy Spirit are the means by which God uses to bring people to faith.

As has been pointed out many times, entire households were baptized. The Bible is clear on that point.

As a result, all the efforts being made to talk around that point or to misrepresent it instead of addressing it forthrightly...or to apply some sort of human logic to the matter in place of a reliance upon Scripture...are meaningless and rather offensive to we who have explained the mainline Christian position over and over again.

 

[Albion]

It never tells us to baptize non-believers or shows us an explicit instance of non-believers or infants being baptized.

As noted earlier, it also never explicitly shows an instance of the baptism of redheads or teenagers or Swedes or people with poor eyesight, etc. You, however, don't seem to have any qualms about baptizing any of these, even without an "explicit" example from Scripture.

 

[Lanman87]

Again, you're one of those who doesn't believe that God's word is with the waters in baptism.

As noted earlier, it also never explicitly shows an instance of the baptism of redheads or teenagers or Swedes or people with poor eyesight, etc. You, however, don't seem to have any qualms about baptizing any of these, even without an "explicit" example from Scripture.

Not if they are believers. Because believers are who was explicitly baptized. Belief is the only necessity for baptism. Age, hair color, nationality, health problem are all red herring arguments that distract from the belief/doesn't yet believe question.

 

[Albion]

Not if they are believers. Because believers are who was explicitly baptized.

Well, no. That's false. You can say it, but the Bible doesn't support it.

What it teaches us is that whole households were baptized on the affirmation of the head of the house. There's nothing in those passages that says each person was first quizzed and evaluated as to his "Faith" or understanding or commitment.

Belief is the only necessity for baptism.

Says who?

And what harm is done if a child is baptized without having an adult's understanding of the atonement, justification, or etc.?

No more than if an adult is baptized who simply went through the process in order to please his wife. That was mentioned as a possibility by someone or other in an earlier post, and that does happen. Or a nine or ten-year-old whose "faith" is on the order of "Jesus loves me" and little more than that. Yet Baptistic and fundamentalist churches will baptize such children while denying other children.

 

[Lanman87]

As has been pointed out many times, entire households were baptized. The Bible is clear on that point.

As a result, all the efforts being made to talk around that point or to misrepresent it instead of addressing it forthrightly...or to apply some sort of human logic to the matter in place of a reliance upon Scripture...are meaningless and rather offensive to we who have explained the mainline Christian position over and over again.

I do not intend to be offensive. I'm simply saying that the "households" where everyone was baptized didn't necessarily contain infants. We don't know. Which is why it shouldn't be used as an argument for or against infant baptism. Which is why I said I do not consider the "household" argument to be a "good" argument.

The only reason I started this thread was because I was asked a direct question. It is not my habit to duck a question. Even if it is difficult or divisive.

I have done my best to explain why I believe what I believe.

 

[Albion]

I do not intend to be offensive. I'm simply saying that the "households" where everyone was baptized didn't necessarily contain infants. We don't know.

Yes, but that's like saying that cars don't necessarily have wheels. Well, some are up on blocks, aren't they? But we could dismantle almost every verse in the Bible that way, if we chose to do so.

Not only are there several instances of "whole households" being referenced in Scripture, but in none of them is there any hint of these homes or families being childless, despite the realities of the time in history and the culture, etc. which suggest that whole households having no children would be quite an oddity, if true. And the fact of the head of the house making decisions for the whole family was quite routine.

The point here is that, while there is a tiny chance of none of these households having children, while the probability is that they did, this alone doesn't settle the issue.

The opponents of infant baptism then go on to try to concoct an alternate explanation, saying that the whole household must have been composed of servants instead of children, as though that was routine, especially if the household (which really translates as family) had no children present! Do you not see that the alternate explanation is much less convincing than the one that Christianity has accepted for many centuries?

What's more, we have real Bible experts to consult, not ordinary people such as post on CH, who support the "whole households means family, not employees" view! Against your own line of thought and argument, we have to take account of the wisdom and knowledge of numerous linguists, historians, and so on, representing all sorts of denominations, who support the conclusion held by the churches that the great majority of Christians belong to.

And in closing, what again IS the counter-argument? Most often it's that the verses don't use the word infants, so on that basis we all should conclude that infants--and other young children as well who are not infants--absolutely must not be baptized. (!)

Or we can consider your own summary, in which you wrote this: "I'm simply saying that the 'households' where everyone was baptized didn't necessarily contain infants. We don't know."

 

[Lanman87]

And what harm is done if a child is baptized without having an adult's understanding of the atonement, justification, or etc.?

No more than if an adult is baptized who simply went through the process in order to please his wife. That was mentioned as a possibility by someone or other in an earlier post, and that does happen

I believe anytime someone professes a "false faith" and goes through the rite of baptism then an actual baptism didn't take place. It was the appearance of baptism only. If God has not worked in someones heart to make them a new creation then they are just getting wet.

The point here is that, while there is a tiny chance of none of these households having children, while the probability is that they did, this alone doesn't settle the issue.

The opponents of infant baptism then go on to try to concoct an alternate explanation, saying that the whole household must have been composed of servants instead of children, as though that was routine, especially if the household (which really translates as family) had no children present! Do you not see that the alternate explanation is much less convincing than the one that Christianity has accepted for many centuries?

I didn't write this but it is pretty well thought out:

Household baptisms


This is one of the most commonly appealed to points of data in the New Testament with respect to paedobaptism. By my reckoning, there are five major examples of household baptism in the New Testament: (1) Cornelius (Acts 10); (2) Lydia (Acts 16); (3) Philippian jailer (Acts 16); (4) Crispus (Acts 18); (5) Stephanus (I Corinthians 1). The important question is, do these household baptisms represent household conversions, or is the household baptized simply on the basis of one or more heads of the household converting? A couple of factors incline me to regard the first of these two possibilities as a better answer.


(1) First, in every case of household baptism except Lydia, the text makes it clear that the entire household converts:

• In Acts 10, Cornelius’ household is baptized (10:48) after they all hear the word, receive the Spirit, and speak in tongues (10:44-46). Hence Peter asks, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (10:47).
• Crispus in Acts 18:8 “believed in the Lord, together with his entire household”—hence the household baptism.
• 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). I can’t see it as plausible that the family would hear the word of God and summons to believe, fail to respond to it, but then rejoice that salvation had come to them.
• After Paul mentions that he baptized the household of Stephanus in I Corinthians 1:16, he later commands the Corinthians to be subject to them because “the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia” (16:15).

(2) Thus when we come to the baptism of Lydia’s household, we are not coming from a blank slate. We are coming from a context which has already included not only four instances of household conversion leading to household baptism, but a consistent pattern of faith ––> baptism (in Acts, for example: 2:38-31, 8:12-13, 35-38, 9:18, 10:47-48, 16:14-15, 32-34, 18:8, 19:3-5, and 22:16).


We are not told one way or the other with respect to the circumstances of Lydia’s household. We don’t have any idea how many people were in her household, or how old they were. We don’t know whether the members of her household were with her in the place of prayer outside the gate to the riverside, where she heard the gospel, or whether they had contact with Paul and his companions during their subsequent stay in Lydia’s home (Acts 16:12, 15). Either Paul and his companions shared the gospel with the rest of Lydia’s household leading to their faith and baptism, or the members of her household were baptized without any connection to a personal gospel response. We don’t know, and thus we should be cautious about drawing too much from this text. I think the safer assumption is in the direction of the pattern established throughout Acts, rather than against it.


(3) Furthermore, when we evaluate the case of Lydia, we are not simply coming at it from a pattern of faith/repentance ––> baptism. We also have biblical precedent for some of these elements being left out, but clearly indicated by other factors to be present. The example of the Philippian jailors’ household being converted without Luke explicitly mentioning this (but nevertheless making it clear from the surrounding remarks) provides a precedent for this kind of narrative compression. This is a natural thing for an author to do, unless we insist Luke repeat himself in all the details every time he records similar events.

(4) When one considers the extent to which first-century homes operated according to principles of family solidarity, as opposed to the principles of our individualistic, democratic, egalitarian society, its not difficult to imagine entire households converting to a new religion together. I wonder if to many with a first-century mindset it would simply be taken for granted that if the parent(s) convert to a new religion, the entire family has a new religion. For instance, the wording in the Philippian jailer’s conversion is very striking: “and he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God” (Acts 16:34). Note that his family his rejoicing that he received the word of God. This certainly suggests a kind of headship and corporate family identity, but not one that operates apart from the family’s willing involvement.


(5) It is worth observing that household conversions are not limited to Acts. They are also in the gospels. One is particularly relevant for understanding how first century households, and biblical language, operate. In the healing of the royal official’s son in John 4, we read that “the father knew that was the hour when Jesus had said to him, ‘your son will live.’ And he himself believed, and all his household” (4:53). Note that the father’s recognition of the timing of Jesus’ miracle leads to his household’s conversion. This narrative provides further precedent for both the influence that the head of the household had over his family when he converted, as well as the New Testament tacking on the brief addition “and all his household” as a kind of brief summary of what was likely a much more lengthy and complicated process.

 

[Albion]

I believe anytime someone professes a "false faith" and goes through the rite of baptism then an actual baptism didn't take place. It was the appearance of baptism only.

Agreed, but the church which baptizes such a person is making the decision that it's permissible to do so, just as that same church presumably will not allow an infant or elementary school child to be baptized.

If God has not worked in someones heart to make them a new creation then they are just getting wet.

Again, I agree. But again also, I have to point out that we've been discussing what the churches will permit, whether that's proper or not.

I didn't write this but it is pretty well thought out:

Household baptisms


This is one of the most commonly appealed to points of data in the New Testament with respect to paedobaptism. By my reckoning, there are five major examples of household baptism in the New Testament: (1) Cornelius (Acts 10); (2) Lydia (Acts 16); (3) Philippian jailer (Acts 16); (4) Crispus (Acts 18); (5) Stephanus (I Corinthians 1). The important question is, do these household baptisms represent household conversions, or is the household baptized simply on the basis of one or more heads of the household converting? A couple of factors incline me to regard the first of these two possibilities as a better answer.


(1) First, in every case of household baptism except Lydia, the text makes it clear that the entire household converts:

• In Acts 10, Cornelius’ household is baptized (10:48) after they all hear the word, receive the Spirit, and speak in tongues (10:44-46). Hence Peter asks, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (10:47).
• Crispus in Acts 18:8 “believed in the Lord, together with his entire household”—hence the household baptism.
• 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). I can’t see it as plausible that the family would hear the word of God and summons to believe, fail to respond to it, but then rejoice that salvation had come to them.
• After Paul mentions that he baptized the household of Stephanus in I Corinthians 1:16, he later commands the Corinthians to be subject to them because “the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia” (16:15).

(2) Thus when we come to the baptism of Lydia’s household, we are not coming from a blank slate. We are coming from a context which has already included not only four instances of household conversion leading to household baptism, but a consistent pattern of faith ––> baptism (in Acts, for example: 2:38-31, 8:12-13, 35-38, 9:18, 10:47-48, 16:14-15, 32-34, 18:8, 19:3-5, and 22:16).


We are not told one way or the other with respect to the circumstances of Lydia’s household. We don’t have any idea how many people were in her household, or how old they were. We don’t know whether the members of her household were with her in the place of prayer outside the gate to the riverside, where she heard the gospel, or whether they had contact with Paul and his companions during their subsequent stay in Lydia’s home (Acts 16:12, 15). Either Paul and his companions shared the gospel with the rest of Lydia’s household leading to their faith and baptism, or the members of her household were baptized without any connection to a personal gospel response. We don’t know, and thus we should be cautious about drawing too much from this text. I think the safer assumption is in the direction of the pattern established throughout Acts, rather than against it.


(3) Furthermore, when we evaluate the case of Lydia, we are not simply coming at it from a pattern of faith/repentance ––> baptism. We also have biblical precedent for some of these elements being left out, but clearly indicated by other factors to be present. The example of the Philippian jailors’ household being converted without Luke explicitly mentioning this (but nevertheless making it clear from the surrounding remarks) provides a precedent for this kind of narrative compression. This is a natural thing for an author to do, unless we insist Luke repeat himself in all the details every time he records similar events.

(4) When one considers the extent to which first-century homes operated according to principles of family solidarity, as opposed to the principles of our individualistic, democratic, egalitarian society, its not difficult to imagine entire households converting to a new religion together. I wonder if to many with a first-century mindset it would simply be taken for granted that if the parent(s) convert to a new religion, the entire family has a new religion. For instance, the wording in the Philippian jailer’s conversion is very striking: “and he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God” (Acts 16:34). Note that his family his rejoicing that he received the word of God. This certainly suggests a kind of headship and corporate family identity, but not one that operates apart from the family’s willing involvement.


(5) It is worth observing that household conversions are not limited to Acts. They are also in the gospels. One is particularly relevant for understanding how first century households, and biblical language, operate. In the healing of the royal official’s son in John 4, we read that “the father knew that was the hour when Jesus had said to him, ‘your son will live.’ And he himself believed, and all his household” (4:53). Note that the father’s recognition of the timing of Jesus’ miracle leads to his household’s conversion. This narrative provides further precedent for both the influence that the head of the household had over his family when he converted, as well as the New Testament tacking on the brief addition “and all his household” as a kind of brief summary of what was likely a much more lengthy and complicated process.

 

[Lanman87]

Here is another question.

According to this article reviewing a historical book on baptism the practice of infant baptism didn't become the norm until the 5th/6th century mark.

We also know that many of the Church Fathers, even those from Christian homes, were baptized as adults.

Gregory of Nazianzus, John Chrysostom, and Basil the Great all come to mind. Plus Augustine of course, but only his mother was a Christian so she may have deferred to his father.

If infant baptism was the norm then why did these church fathers, from Christian families, not get baptized as infants?

I believe it is because infant baptism was practiced in some places and not in others and probably some thought it was proper and other not. Just like today.

That is why I say it wasn't until Augustine's teaching that infant baptism washed away original sin that infant baptism slowly became the norm in the 5th and 6th centuries. Augustine basically taught that unbaptized infants went to hell, and nobody wants their baby to go to hell.

 

[Lanman87]

Agreed, but the church which baptizes such a person is making the decision that it's permissible to do so

No baptist church sets out to baptize someone who makes a false profession of faith. Ultimately, all you can do is make a good faith effort to determine if faith is real or not. Plus, the inclination, especially with adults and older teens/children is to believe them when they claim faith and repentance. But I don't see it as permitting "false faith" baptisms. I see it as being fallible and making good faith efforts to not permit those who haven't come to faith to get baptized. But there is always the possibility that we could be wrong.

One of the ironies is that most churches will spend a much greater amount of time assessing the claim of faith of a 6 year old than they will a 16 year old or a 26 year old.

 

[Lamb]

I do not intend to be offensive. I'm simply saying that the "households" where everyone was baptized didn't necessarily contain infants. We don't know. Which is why it shouldn't be used as an argument for or against infant baptism. Which is why I said I do not consider the "household" argument to be a "good" argument.

The only reason I started this thread was because I was asked a direct question. It is not my habit to duck a question. Even if it is difficult or divisive.

I have done my best to explain why I believe what I believe.

They didn't have contraceptives, so why would you even think that infants weren't a part of the households baptized? You're putting modern thinking into ancient times and it doesn't work out very well for you.

 

[Lamb]

Not if they are believers. Because believers are who was explicitly baptized. Belief is the only necessity for baptism. Age, hair color, nationality, health problem are all red herring arguments that distract from the belief/doesn't yet believe question.

Why would you quote me and then not address what I said about God's word? Jesus instituted baptism, meaning God's word is attached to the waters. You believe that hearing God's word brings faith, but you don't believe that it is present in baptism even though it's what Jesus instituted?

 

[Lanman87]

Why would you quote me and then not address what I said about God's word?

I was quoting Albion from post #44 and was replying to Albion.

I didn't say that is some mystical way that baptism doesn't contain God's word. I am saying that rite of baptism isn't what brings faith to someone. The New Testament, to my knowledge, never says that Baptism is a source of faith or converts people.

As I said, at some point there is no difference between those who were baptized as infants and those who weren't. All have to hear the Gospel and believe.

They didn't have contraceptives, so why would you even think that infants weren't a part of the households baptized? You're putting modern thinking into ancient times and it doesn't work out very well for you.

Please read Post #49. or follow this link He is does a much better job of explaining the Baptist position on "household baptisms" than I ever could.

This is from Dr. Gavin Ortlund, who did the icon video I posted. Dr. Ortlund was raised Presbyterian. His dad is Ray Ortlund, Jr. who was a bigwig in the Presbyterian Church of America and is now Deacon in the Anglican Church of North America. I only point that bout to show the Dr. Gavin Ortlund is very familiar with the theology of infant baptism as that is the tradition he was raised in.

Dr. Ortlund is now the Pastor of a Baptist church in California.

 

[Lanman87]

Agreed, but the church which baptizes such a person is making the decision that it's permissible to do so,

It occured to me that those churches who baptize infants also baptize adults who convert and have never been baptized. It seems to me that it is possible for those churches to baptize people who have a "false faith" Someone can go through RCIA or whatever class Anglicans, Lutherans, or Presbyterians have and still not have a true faith when they are baptized. They can know the answers and checks the boxes (just like in a Baptist church) but ultimately their heart hasn't been changed and they are not new creations in Christ.

 

[Lanman87]

@Albion and @Lamb

Can you please give your thoughts on post #51

The historical context is an important part of this discussion.

 

[Albion]

I was quoting Albion from post #44 and was replying to Albion.

I didn't say that is some mystical way that baptism doesn't contain God's word. I am saying that rite of baptism isn't what brings faith to someone. The New Testament, to my knowledge, never says that Baptism is a source of faith or converts people.

As I said, at some point there is no difference between those who were baptized as infants and those who weren't. All have to hear the Gospel and believe.

Sorry to complicate the discussion further, but as I read what you said above, I am thinking that plenty of Christians and their leaders likewise agree that baptism doesn't guarantee saving Faith or salvation or conversion or anything like that.

Yet all of those claims appear somewhere or other in the posts of people who are criticizing "infant baptism." From where I stand, all such talk is a diversion.

 

[Josiah]

The Bible tells us to baptize new believers.

@Lanman87


Where? Quote the verse that states this.

Does it state, "And thou canst not baptize any who are not new believers?"

It never tells us to baptize non-believers or shows us an explicit instance of non-believers or infants being baptized.

1. It also never tells us to Baptize Blacks or First Nation Americans or blond haired Germans. Nor is there a single example of that among the few records of Baptisms in the Book of Acts.

2. This apologetic depends entirely on the premise that we can do ONLY what is illustrated in the Book of Acts. But you've already stated you reject that rubric.

All the other stuff we do "in church" preaching, singing, teaching, serving and so on has both command and precedent in scripture.

Really? Show me where the Book of Acts shows churches having Communion four times a year with little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice passed around to everyone in the pews. Show me the examples of Gentiles administering baptism in a tank behind a curtain in the front of an auditorium. Come on, my friend. It is undeniable that NO ONE - no Christians - do things exactly as was done in the Book of Acts. You have admitted that we take what Scripture TEACHES and apply it (do it) in any way we think is good. So, where is the TEACHING that states: Thou art forbidden to baptize any but new believers .... Thou canst only baptize those who hath attained the age of Who-Knows..... Thou art forbidden to baptize any who hath not publicly proven they have saving faith.... Thou art forbidden to baptize in any way unless by immersion of every cell in a river in Palestine?

We are told to preach, teach, sing, and so forth and there are no specific set of instructions on how it can be done.

We are told to baptize and teach. With not specific set of instructions of age, gender, race, color, ethnicity, etc. No prohibitions on either, no mandates about how to do it. Just the mandate to do it. Not one word about must attain the age of Who-Knows. Not one word about must have proven they have saving faith. Not one word about how much water is mandated or how much of the body must be covered in water. All the prohibitions placed on Baptism by those 16th Century Anabaptists are missing in the Bible (and 1500 years of Christianity).

To say, well it doesn't tell us not to baptize infants or the Bible didn't record every baptism is an argument from silence.

To declare (after 1500 years of Christianity) that Baptism is ONLY an outward symbol of a personal decision.... that we are forbidden to baptize those under the age of Who-Knows, that we are forbidden to baptize any who has not proven they have saving faith, that we are mandated to cover every cell of the human body under water.... all this (indeed EVERYTHING the Anabaptists invented about this) is entirely an argument from silence.

f we believe the Bible is sufficient then we believe the Bible tells us everything we need to know

Okay. Then where does it TELL US all the new Anabaptist inventions about Baptism? Where does it TELL US, "Thou canst not baptize any under the age of Who-Knows..... thou canst not baptize any who hath not first proven they have saving faith.... thou canst not baptize any unless they are a new believer.... baptism is only an outward sign of a personal decision for Christ.... thou must immerse every cell of the body fully under water. Where does the Bible TELL US that?


See post 34.




.

 

[Albion]

It occured to me that those churches who baptize infants also baptize adults who convert and have never been baptized. It seems to me that it is possible for those churches to baptize people who have a "false faith" Someone can go through RCIA or whatever class Anglicans, Lutherans, or Presbyterians have and still not have a true faith when they are baptized.

Of course that's true, but these are not churches that act as though they have the high ground when their own baptismal practices are an inconsistent mess. The historic churches baptize small children because the Bible shows that it's appropriate, and they always have done so.

Meanwhile, the fundamentalist church bodies often baptize people as many times as wanted, yet there is NO basis in history or Scripture for so-called "rebaptisms."

And then when it comes to baptizing children, these churches are very much against what the traditional churches do but they have no uniform standard themselves.

At least the Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, et al churches baptize the infant children of members, period. But among the other churches, some will baptize an 8 or 10 year old who is unable to make an adult profession of faith, while others will wait until 13 or 15, and some will demand that the candidate be older still. Yet I'm supposed to think that these are the folks who have strict standards and hold firmly to the Biblical teachings about Baptism??