Is infant baptism from the Bible?

[MennoSota]

God baptizes. God gives faith. Baptism is not something we do to ourselves, it is from God.

God the Holy Spirit does immerse us into Christ. No water necessary.
Water baptism IS something we do to ourselves.
If we water baptize our selves and we declare that God gives faith because of the water baptism we perform, then faith comes not by God's grace, but by our works.

 

[Lamb]

None of the verses of Scripture shows infants being baptized. They are symbolic and refer to believers’ baptism.

Entire households were baptized. Do you think any of the ancients were good enough at birth control to not have babies in the household? Households included servants, slaves and their families as well. Do you think they didn't have any infants?

 

[Lamb]

God the Holy Spirit does immerse us into Christ. No water necessary.
Water baptism IS something we do to ourselves.
If we water baptize our selves and we declare that God gives faith because of the water baptism we perform, then faith comes not by God's grace, but by our works.

God baptizes us and He does so by using the earthly means of water and giving us the Gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2) when we are baptized. It's all God's doing, we receive.

 

[MennoSota]

God baptizes us and He does so by using the earthly means of water and giving us the Gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2) when we are baptized. It's all God's doing, we receive.

Jesus never baptized anyone with water. You are forcing your dogma onto verses as prooftexts out of context. I have exegeted Acts 2 for you. At some point you should realize you have misunderstood the verse.

In Acts we see the Holy Spirit coming to person's before baptism. In the entire time before the Apostles all chosen person's received the Holy Spirit without water baptism.

Lamm, your assertions are not true.

 

[RichWh1]

Entire households were baptized. Do you think any of the ancients were good enough at birth control to not have babies in the household? Households included servants, slaves and their families as well. Do you think they didn't have any infants?

Acts 16 states that they believed along with the whole household
After they believed they were baptized along with the whole household
It doesn’t indicate whether there were children. Perhaps there were and they heard the good news, believed, and were baptized

 

[Andrew]

None of the verses of Scripture shows infants being baptized. They are symbolic and refer to believers’ baptism.

I agree.
From my experience I recall no memory of a baptism as an infant, it was said that I received it but I don't recall any such thing.
Whatever happened then did not hinder me from repenting my former sins later on and going along with church custom by again being baptised in public. This second time seemed more appropriate and I did walk away dripping wet having a sense of gratitude from God that at that moment could not be plucked away as just some mundane human experience. I felt a special "wink" from God so to speak lol..
The baptism itself was something felt in my heart already before stepping into the water but you can call me old fashioned I suppose, the word "BE" when divinely spoken implies to me "accept" or "agree" with God's covenant.. for example "BE fruitful" and "BE baptised" means to BECOME as God speaks, not so much an option at that point, but a transformation.
Just my 2 cents

 

[Josiah]

It doesn’t indicate whether there were children.

True... so there goes the whole point of this thread, this supposed prohibition on baptism to any under the age of we-won't-tell-you BECAUSE every person baptized in the Bible had proven they had already celebrated their we-don't-know-which birthday.

Of course, it also doesn't say that the people baptized in these households FIRST proved that they had adequately repented of all their sins and FIRST had proven they were among the Elect and FIRST adequately proved they had chosen Jesus as their Savior. Nope. Doesn't say ANY of those things. There goes the "we are dogmatically prohibited to baptize any who hath not FIRST proven they had adequately repented of all their sins and FIRST proven they were among the Elect and FIRST proved they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior BECAUSE every persons baptzed in the Bible had clearly FIRST proven they had adequately repented of all their sins and FIRST proven they were among the Elect and FIRST proved they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior.

Perhaps there were and they heard the good news, believed, and were baptized

... and perhaps not. But I'm not sure I agree that an entire dogma should be founded on a "perhaps." Perhaps all of them were infants, too. Perhaps NONE of them were Americans or Baptists or blond-haired... is that the basis for creating a dogma? I'm sure you see my point.

 

[atpollard]

God baptizes. God gives faith. Baptism is not something we do to ourselves, it is from God.

Does God baptize with water, or do people baptize with water?
Does God baptize with the Holy Spirit or do people baptize with the Holy Spirit?
Is there a difference between being baptized with water by a person and being baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit of God?

 

[atpollard]

Entire households were baptized. Do you think any of the ancients were good enough at birth control to not have babies in the household? Households included servants, slaves and their families as well. Do you think they didn't have any infants?

They had pet cats in their households, too.

 

[RichWh1]

Josiah,

You’re going off the deep end, using process of elimination rather then deal with the text!

 

[Andrew]

They had pet cats in their households, too.

Ever tried baptising a cat?

Seriously though, household means immediate "family", in particular a Christian family based on Christian principles.
Many families are losing their generations to secular mainstream culture which is at full strength today, Godspeed!

Not sure if water is enough, they need God

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

Ever tried baptising a cat?

Seriously though, household means immediate "family", in particular a Christian family based on Christian principles.
Many families are losing their generations to secular mainstream culture which is at full strength today, Godspeed!

Not sure if water is enough, they need God

It's good then that in Baptism people receive both.

 

[Lamb]

Acts 16 states that they believed along with the whole household
After they believed they were baptized along with the whole household
It doesn’t indicate whether there were children. Perhaps there were and they heard the good news, believed, and were baptized

In the case of Lydia the scriptures don't state that the entire household believed before being baptized. I pointed this out a few times in another thread. That's important to note because baptism and teaching go hand in hand. The head of household was in charge of everyone and if he/she changed beliefs then the entire household went with it. That's historical knowledge. To not have infants part of a household was most likely unheard of and scripture doesn't state to forbid infants, does it?

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=509]RichWh1[/MENTION]

Josiah, You’re going off the deep end, using process of elimination rather then deal with the text!

Friend,


I agree. Let's deal with the texts AND with the premise....


The claim (based on the premise that we can only do what is exampled in the Bible) is that everyone baptized in the Bible FIRST (in chronological time) had attained an unknown age, adequately repented of all their sins, proved they were among the Elect and had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior (although the point HERE is that they had attained a certain age). Is that factual, is it true?


I question the premise of your apologetic (I think you do too after all you are posting on the internet and NO ONE EVER did that in the Bible) the principle that we can't do what was not always done in the Bible - you are basing this on a false and wrong principle. I question that premise.


Lets look at some of the Baptisms that happen to be recorded in the Bible...


1 Corinthians 1:16 "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else." Now, where does this verse state that everyone in the household of Stephanas were over the age of we-won't-tell-you, had adequately repented of all their sins, and had proven they were among the Elect and had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior? Where does the verse state that? Now, I admit, that COULD have been the case... then again it is EQUALLY possible that NONE of those things were the case. Is the claim true: Every Baptism in the Bible was to people who had adequately proven they were over the age of X, were among the elect and had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. There were baptisms in this household... they are baptisms in the Bible.... where is the evidence that the claim is true?


Acts 16:15, "And after she was baptized, and her household as well." Now, where does this verse state that everyone in the household of Lydia were over the age of we-won't-tell-you, had adequately repented of all their sins, and had proven they were among the Elect and had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior? Where does the verse state that? Now, I admit, that COULD have been the case... then again it is EQUALLY possible that NONE of those things were the case. Is the claim true: Every Baptism in the Bible was to people who had adequately proven they were over the age of X, were among the elect and had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. There were baptisms in this household... they are baptisms in the Bible.... where is the evidence that the claim is true?


It is simply not true that "everyone baptized in the Bible was over the age of we-won't-tell-you, had previously proven they had adquately repented of all their sins, had adequately proven they were among the Elect and had chosen Jesus as their personal Ssvior. We can show some of those things in some of the examples, but not all (and not all of them in any example). But the premise of the entire apologetic is wrong. It is NOT true that we must DO everything just as done in examples that happen to be recorded in the Bible and cannot do otherwise. You agree. Which is why you are posting on the Internet. If I visited your church on Sunday, I suspect there would be LITTLE that would be done exactly as we see exampled in the Bible. Not even with Baptism (after all, there's no evidence that a Gentile ever administered Baptism - they seem to all have been Hebrews, that any were baptized in a plastic tank behind a curtain, that any took place outside what was the Roman Empire, etc., etc., etc).


So the claim is false.... and the premise is absurd. So a wrong claim based on a false premise does not make for a correct dogma.



Thank you.


- Josiah




.

 

[Albion]

To not have infants part of a household was most likely unheard of and scripture doesn't state to forbid infants, does it?

In addition, your point covers all young children. We usually face the "believers baptism" argument framed by them as being about infants, but those folks are just as opposed to baptizing 1 year olds or 3 year olds or 5 year olds.

To think that NONE OF THESE would be found in the typical household of that time and place, especially when the verse refers to "entire household" (which would make no sense if it were referring to only a husband and wife), is extremely unrealistic.

AND, if the argument were to be that any one household could easily be atypical, we have at least three or four different cases in the NT in which the same description--entire household or along with the family, etc.--is found.

 

[hobie]

In the case of Lydia the scriptures don't state that the entire household believed before being baptized. I pointed this out a few times in another thread. That's important to note because baptism and teaching go hand in hand. The head of household was in charge of everyone and if he/she changed beliefs then the entire household went with it. That's historical knowledge. To not have infants part of a household was most likely unheard of and scripture doesn't state to forbid infants, does it?

It is not scriptural, you cant shoehorn what is basically a pagan belief into the Bible... Babies cannot understand the truths of redemption and salvation, that is clear..

"“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.”https://bible.org/question/what-are-historical-origins-infant-baptism

 

[Lamb]

It is not scriptural, you cant shoehorn what is basically a pagan belief into the Bible... Babies cannot understand the truths of redemption and salvation, that is clear..

"“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.”https://bible.org/question/what-are-historical-origins-infant-baptism

Infants can't believe? Of course they can. It's here in this thread the place in scripture where even Jesus says they can.

Infants were baptized in the early church and the catacombs from the early 200s are proof.

Polycarp, who was the disciple of the apostle John was baptized as an infant.

 

[hobie]

Infants can't believe? Of course they can. It's here in this thread the place in scripture where even Jesus says they can.

Infants were baptized in the early church and the catacombs from the early 200s are proof.

Polycarp, who was the disciple of the apostle John was baptized as an infant.

Infants cannot make a conscious decision. Therefore, to baptize them defeats the whole purpose of the ceremony. Also, infant baptism is never taught in the Scriptures. The doctrine of infant baptism is of pagan origin and was brought into the Church by Roman Catholicism. As with most Catholic doctrines, infant baptism has its origins in paganism. In Babylon, new birth was conferred by baptism of infants. The pagans sprinkled their newborns or immersed them, and to this day the "holy water" used for baptism in some circles is still prepared according to the pagan custom of plunging a torch from the altar into the water. Having introduced infant baptism, the Roman Catholic Church was opposed to adults being baptized and even issued the following decree:

"Let him be accursed who says adults must be baptized."(History of Romanism: page 510.)

Some of the modern Bible translations are based on a suspect revision which written in such a way as to leave leeway for subversive doctrines. The reliable King James Version of the Bible was translated from the Greek Textus Receptus, but these modern Bibles make use of other texts of which the context may be dubious, but that's a whole other issue.

 

[pinacled]

Infants cannot make a conscious decision. Therefore, to baptize them defeats the whole purpose of the ceremony. Also, infant baptism is never taught in the Scriptures. The doctrine of infant baptism is of pagan origin and was brought into the Church by Roman Catholicism. As with most Catholic doctrines, infant baptism has its origins in paganism. In Babylon, new birth was conferred by baptism of infants. The pagans sprinkled their newborns or immersed them, and to this day the "holy water" used for baptism in some circles is still prepared according to the pagan custom of plunging a torch from the altar into the water. Having introduced infant baptism, the Roman Catholic Church was opposed to adults being baptized and even issued the following decree:

"Let him be accursed who says adults must be baptized."(History of Romanism: page 510.)

Some of the modern Bible translations are based on a suspect revision which written in such a way as to leave leeway for subversive doctrines. The reliable King James Version of the Bible was translated from the Greek Textus Receptus, but these modern Bibles make use of other texts of which the context may be dubious, but that's a whole other issue.

Are you perhaps being presumpteuos in an applicable manner of baptism

True,
A child simply washed with ritual water may not affect their soul.

But if a son or daughter were to be immersed in Torah and instructed in the way toward salvation freely offered.

Perhaps A Spirit of Wisdom would come to fruition on a certain Yom(day).

Blessings Always

 

[hobie]

Well, lets see what the Bible says on baptism....

Ephesians 4:5 "One Lord, one faith, one baptism."

Mark 16:15, 16 "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

Baptism is for those who hear the gospel, believe, and repent....

Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Matthew 28:19, 20 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

Romans 10:9, 10 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

According to these texts one must believe and repent before being baptized. This automatically excludes babies and children.

Colossians 2:12 "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."

Acts 22:16 "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

Romans 6:3, 4 "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

Now lets see how baptism takes place. In baptism, both the candidate and performer go down into the water.

Acts 8:38, 39 "And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing."

Mark 1:9 - 11
"And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."