All About GOD - Growing Relationships with Jesus and Others
Infant baptism
Views: 1058
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Sharon Theresa Theil on
-
Infant Baptism: Please show one verse that clearly shows an infant being baptized in the NT.
LT,
Why not ask "clearly show one verse that clearly shows the Holy Trinity in the NT."
If these issues were clearly shown we would not be having these discussions. The fact is there are many parts of our Christian Faith that are not clearly show in the NT which just goes to show that sola scriptoria is untenable in practice.
Sharon
-
-
-
Amanda,
I likewise see the Trinity as clearly taught through-out Sacred Scripture as is the baptism of even the smallest children.
Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?
Matt 19:14 - Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.
Matt. 28:19-20 - Jesus commands the apostles to baptize all people "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." I assume children of Christians are counted as 'people' by Jesus the Christ.
Mark 10:14 - Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. Jesus says nothing about being too young to come into the kingdom of God.
Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned." This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves that one must be a believer to be baptized.
Luke 18:15 – Jesus says, “Let the children come to me.” The people brought infants to Jesus that He might touch them. This demonstrates that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason.
Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, "Repent and be baptized.." The Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) The babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith. This is confirmed in the next verse.
Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). God's covenant family includes children. The word "children" that Peter used comes from the Greek word "teknon" which also includes infants.
Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults.
Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word "household" comes from the Greek word "oikos" which is a household that includes infants and children.
Acts 16:15 - further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia's faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents' faith, not the children's faith.
Acts 16:30-33 - it was only the adults who were candidates for baptism that had to profess a belief in Jesus. This is consistent with the Church's practice of instructing catechumens before baptism. But this verse does not support a "believer's baptism" requirement for everyone. See Acts 16:15,33. The earlier one comes to baptism, the better. For those who come to baptism as adults, the Church has always required them to profess their belief in Christ. For babies who come to baptism, the Church has always required the parents to profess the belief in Christ on behalf of the baby. But there is nothing in the Scriptures about a requirement for ALL baptism candidates to profess their own belief in Christ (because the Church has baptized babies for 2,000 years).
Acts 16:33 - Paul baptized the jailer (an adult) and his entire household (which had to include children). Baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason. See also Luke 19:9; John 4:53; Acts 11:14; 1 Cor. 1:16; and 1 Tim. 3:12; Gen. 31:41; 36:6; 41:51; Joshua 24:15; 2 Sam. 7:11, 1 Chron. 10:6 which shows “oikos” generally includes children.
Rom. 5:12 - sin came through Adam and death through sin. Babies' souls are affected by Adam's sin and need baptism just like adult souls.
Rom. 5:15 - the grace of Jesus Christ surpasses that of the Old Covenant. So children can also enter the new Covenant in baptism. From a Jewish perspective, it would have been unthinkable to exclude infants and children from God's Covenant kingdom.
1 Cor. 7:14 – Paul says that children are sanctified by God through the belief of only one of their parents.
Exodus 12:24-28 - the Passover was based on the parent's faith. If they did not kill and eat the lamb, their first-born child died.
Joshua 5:2-7 - God punished Israel because the people had not circumcised their children. This was based on the parent's faith. The parents play a critical role in their child's salvation.
-
-
Permalink Reply by ScribeD on
-
You are mistaking the meaning baptism, and what baptism is. You have been proven here, by many witnesses that this is the case. Truly Sharon. Stop and consider.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Leonard T on
-
Sharon,
Let’s look at every one of these verses and seek to find clear and compelling information that says the Bible teaches infant baptism. No one is arguing that Jesus loves infants or children. I will say that a child must come to a point where they repent and receive Christ personally or they will not be saved. The child’s parents, nor the church can acquire salvation for them. Salvation is personal and must be entered into through a personal relationship with Jesus. This cannot be done by surrogate.
Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?
Is Jesus talking about children becoming like children or adults become like children in the attitudes and expression of faith? Note that verse 2 states that He had the child come and “stand” among them. Obviously this child is not an infant.
Matt 19:14 - Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.
How does this prove infants are to be baptized? He blessed them. If baptizing them was imperative for infants and little children, why didn’t He do it right then?
Matt. 28:19-20 - Jesus commands the apostles to baptize all people "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." I assume children of Christians are counted as 'people' by Jesus the Christ.
The order is word perfect. They are told to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name …” It does not say baptize them and then make them disciples. There is a qualifier. An infant cannot be a disciple.
Mark 10:14 - Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. Jesus says nothing about being too young to come into the kingdom of God.
Repeat of Matthew 19:14, thus the response is the same as above.
Mark 16:16 – Jesus says to the crowd, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with “He who does not believe will be condemned.” This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves that one must be a believer to be baptized.
What it proves is that belief precedes baptism. Thus, a person who is baptized, but not really saved, is wasting their time going through a form of baptism that has no value. It only has value for the one who is born-again.
Luke 18:15 – Jesus says, “Let the children come to me.” The people brought infants to Jesus that He might touch them. This demonstrates that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason.
This is the same as Matthew 19:14 and Mark 10:14, but I will add the following. It proves that Jesus blessed little children. PTL!!! Those of us who do not baptize infants dedicate the child to God and lay hands on them and pray for them. This is a time where the parents commit to raising the child in the knowledge of the Lord. The church stands with them. Both trusting that the child will come to salvation some day and then be baptized.
Acts 2:38 – Peter says to the multitude, “Repent and be baptized..” The Greek translation literally says, “If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) The babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith. This is confirmed in the next verse.
That is a stretch. You are teaching that my repentance is good enough to save my children and grandchildren. You are stating that I can repent for them. How I wish that were true, but that is not biblical at all. Job probably wished it were true too. Each one will come before God individually to be saved. Each one will have to repent personally or be lost.
Acts 2:39 – Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). God’s covenant family includes children. The word “children” that Peter used comes from the Greek word “teknon” which also includes infants.
You are missing the primer for all this to happen. It requires personal repentance. The promise is for all who will repent and be baptized.
Acts 10:47-48 – Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults.
Prove there is an infant present.
Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word "household" comes from the Greek word "oikos" which is a household that includes infants and children.
Prove that there is an infant present. Oikos does not necessitate infants in the home. Here are some verses where the word is used in Scripture:
MT 9:6 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins. . . ." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home."
MT 11:8 If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear fine clothes are in kings' palaces.
MT 12:4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread--which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests.
MK 2:1 A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home.
LK 11:51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.
This word is driven by context and in this verse you have chosen one cannot know that infants were present. It just cannot be proven. The doctrine you present is without one verse that clearly substantiates it.
Acts 16:15 – further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia’s faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents’ faith, not the children’s faith.
Sharon, the verse does not say that they believed through her faith. You are reading that into the verse. Do you believe adults are baptized because of a family members faith or their own?
Acts 16:30-33 – it was only the adults who were candidates for baptism that had to profess a belief in Jesus. This is consistent with the Church’s practice of instructing catechumens before baptism. But this verse does not support a “believer’s baptism” requirement for everyone. See Acts 16:15,33. The earlier one comes to baptism, the better. For those who come to baptism as adults, the Church has always required them to profess their belief in Christ. For babies who come to baptism, the Church has always required the parents to profess the belief in Christ on behalf of the baby. But there is nothing in the Scriptures about a requirement for ALL baptism candidates to profess their own belief in Christ (because the Church has baptized babies for 2,000 years).
Just because segments of the church has baptized babies does not mean those segments are right. From your perspective, when does a child become too old for them to be covered under their parents faith and be baptized? What Scripture text do we learn this from?
Where do you see taught in Scripture that the New Testament says a person can profess the belief in Christ on behalf of the baby?
Acts 16:33 – Paul baptized the jailer (an adult) and his entire household (which had to include children). Baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason. See also Luke 19:9; John 4:53; Acts 11:14; 1 Cor. 1:16; and 1 Tim. 3:12; Gen. 31:41; 36:6; 41:51; Joshua 24:15; 2 Sam. 7:11, 1 Chron. 10:6 which shows “oikos” generally includes children.
I do not argue the age of reason, but simply personal faith in Christ as the prerequisite for baptism regardless of the age.
Prove that there are infants present in any of the NT text you have posted. You are assuming there are infants present, but that cannot be substantiated.
Rom. 5:12 – sin came through Adam and death through sin. Babies’ souls are affected by Adam’s sin and need baptism just like adult souls.
If one accepts Jesus and is born-again, but dies in an accident before they are baptized … where will they go?
Rom. 5:15 - the grace of Jesus Christ surpasses that of the Old Covenant. So children can also enter the new Covenant in baptism. From a Jewish perspective, it would have been unthinkable to exclude infants and children from God's Covenant kingdom.
This may be true if the person still lived under the Old Covenant. Do Jews still circumcise their children today, even Messianic Jews?
1 Cor. 7:14 – Paul says that children are sanctified by God through the belief of only one of their parents.
EPH 5:25-27 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
The Greek word in 1 Cor 7:14 translated as sanctified is “hagiazo.” This is the same Greek word found in Eph. 5:26 and is translated as holy. It is the parents responsibility to train and instruct the child in the truths of the Word. For faith comes by hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ (Rom. 10:17).
Exodus 12:24-28 - the Passover was based on the parent's faith. If they did not kill and eat the lamb, their first-born child died.
Do you not believe that there are differences between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant?
Joshua 5:2-7 - God punished Israel because the people had not circumcised their children. This was based on the parent's faith. The parents play a critical role in their child's salvation.
Do you not believe that there are differences between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant?
Lord Bless,
LT
-
-
Permalink Reply by Yael Levi-Bénédict on
-
Amanda, please!!!
If I say: Go out there and do this in my name, my husband's name and our son's!
Does it CLEARLY say that the three are one!?If I say to my son that I am well pleased with him does it clearly say that I am ONE with him?
Please read my reply to Scribe, I presented a good amount of evidence there re. the troubles the early Church was put through ( just to mention two heresies Binarism & Unitarism) until the Holy Trinity doctrine was finally revealed by the Holy Spirit and elaborated by the church!God bless!
-
-
-
Yael, either the Nicene council came (by the Holy Spirit) to agreement with Scripture, or they did not. In which case, they would not have been led by the Spirit.
Scripture is the rule. Not the council, not the church, not the fathers.
For me, Scripture is clear on Trinity revelation. The council simply concluded that other points of view were error. They did not create the doctrine. They simply concluded what was error against the truth of Scripture.
But, I have spent enough time in Scripture to make that conclusion.
-
-
-
Sharon, Allow me to speak to you, in love, with a rebuke. These matters are very clear for those who simply allow the word to speak to them. It is only unclear because you are elevating the teachings of your mentors above the Word of God.
You have only made this comment because you are unfamiliar with the Word of God. If you knew the power of God's Word and whom it is you have just called insufficient, you would be on your face repenting with tears.
The Word itself has said in 2 Timothy, Chapter 3, that scripture is absolutely sufficient to perfect any disciple's walk of faith.
God has elevated his Word above his own name (“...thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. -Psalm 138:2) . If scripture is insufficient, then scripture itself is broken.
The Apostles had a common saying “Do not go beyond what is written” (meaning, written in scripture) recorded in 1 Corinthians 4:6 and similarly in Acts 26:22. This is a standard which the Apostles kept and it is a standard which is explicitly required of us as Christians.
Since you are a Roman Catholic apologist, I will quote to you from the most widely accepted Roman Catholic translation of scripture, the Douay-Rheims version: (please read it, in full)
2 Timothy 3
“ 1Know also this, that, in the last days, shall come dangerous times. 2Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked, 3Without affection, without peace, slanderers, incontinent, unmerciful, without kindness, 4Traitors, stubborn, puffed up, and lovers of pleasures more than of God: 5Having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid. 6For of these sort are they who creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, who are led away with divers desires:
7Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth. 8Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith. 9But they shall proceed no farther; for their folly shall be manifest to all men, as theirs also was. 10But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, patience,
11Persecutions, afflictions: such as came upon me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra: what persecutions I endured, and out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12And all that will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution. 13But evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse: erring, and driving into error. 14But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.”
Sharon, since John chapter 1 clearly claims that Jesus is the incarnation of the Word of God, is it not blasphemy to say that relying on the Word of God is “untenable”?? You have, in my understanding, just denied Christ. That is, the Christ of the Bible. You have just proven what I have been trying to say to you here for a couple of years: your faith is not in Christ, but rather in an institution's teachings about Christ. You put more faith in your institution than in Christ himself, according to His Word. You have consistently leaned on the teachings of your church leadership over and above the teachings of the Bible itself, to the point now that you have said that the Word of God is “untenable”.
You are in no better position than the Pharisees were! Jesus warned repeatedly against putting the traditions and teachings of men above the Word of God. There are Woes pronounced on them for doing so!
As 2 Timothy has said, you are “Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth”.
-
-
-
Scribe,
These matters are very clear for those who simply allow the word to speak to them. It is only unclear because you are elevating the teachings of your mentors above the Word of God.
You have no idea who my mentors are and therefore please stick to the topic.
You have only made this comment because you are unfamiliar with the Word of God.
You have no idea what I am familiar with and therefore please stick to the topic.
Since you are a Roman Catholic apologist,
You have idea who I am and therefore please stick to the topic.
Sharon, since John chapter 1 clearly claims that Jesus is the incarnation of the Word of God, is it not blasphemy to say that relying on the Word of God is “untenable”?? You have, in my understanding, just denied Christ. That is, the Christ of the Bible. You have just proven what I have been trying to say to you here for a couple of years: your faith is not in Christ, but rather in an institution's teachings about Christ. You put more faith in your institution than in Christ himself, according to His Word. You have consistently leaned on the teachings of your church leadership over and above the teachings of the Bible itself, to the point now that you have said that the Word of God is “untenable”.
I never said 'relying on the Word of God is "untenable". I stated that (the doctrine of) Sola Scriptoria is untenable in practice.
Also, you seem to have some confusion between the Bible as the ‘word’ of God i.e.; Divinely inspired and Jesus Christ as the WORD of God i.e.; the Second person of the Holy Trinity.
-
-
-
Sharon, you said: "I never said 'relying on the Word of God is "untenable". I stated that (the doctrine of) Sola Scriptoria is untenable in practice."
Please clarify the difference. If scripture alone (sola scriptura) is not sufficient to be our guide, because and we must rely on the teachings of Rome, is that not the same as saying that relying on the Word of God is untenable?
And yes, Sharon, I do not know you, but you are a defacto apologist for the Vatican, even if you are not so by profession. You should be proud of that, if defending Roman Catholicism is your goal.
-
-
-
Sharon,
This argument does not hold up. If we want to debate the Trinity as a doctrine we can, but the doctrine of the Trinity has no bearing on the doctrine of baptism, to the exception of that we are to be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and The Holy Spirit.
There are various verses that clearly show all three as God without using the term Trinity.
In the Scripture there are no verses that I am aware of that show infant baptism. The verses that are presented by many require us reading into the Scripture something that it does not actually say.
I would whole heartedly disagree that 'Sola Scriptoria" is an untenable practice. Some of these discussions are because many attempt to add to Scripture what is not there.
Lord Bless,
LT
-
-
-
LT,
Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
Infant baptism. — There is no historical account in the NT of an infant being baptized; but the
indirect evidence of the practice is strong. In view of the analogy of circumcision, it would be strange,
supposing that infants had been excluded from baptism, that such exclusion should not have been
mentioned. If infants needed to be brought into the inferior covenant by the outward sign of
circumcision, still more would they need to be brought into the higher covenant by the outward sign
of baptism.
The Talmud says that infant children of proselytes are to be baptized with their parents (John Lightfoot,
Hor. Hebr. on Mt 38 in Works, xi. [London, 1823] 53 ff.), and this was probably the custom in the 1st
cent, (see above, 2). Our Lord by blessing little children with an imposition of hands (Mk lO18*-
tratSlo.; Lk 1818 ftpiipq, 'babes') shows that they are capable of receiving grace.
In Mt 1048, Jesus speaks of giving 'one of these little ones' a cup of cold water 'in the name of a
disciple,' i.e. as a disciple (above, 8), showing that infants can be disciples. No limit is placed on the
baptismal command of Mt 28" (' all the nations,' not 'all the adults'). The households of Lydia, the
Pbilippian jailer, Crispus, and Stephanas, not improbably included some infants, but all were baptized
(cf. Ac 1688, 'all his').
It is disputed whether 1 Co 714 refers to infant baptism (Robertson-Plummer, Com. in loc, think that it does not), but at least it seems to point to the right of children to baptism, for otherwise could they be called 'holy' or ' consecrated' (iyui) J Cf. Goudge and Alford, Comm. in loc.
-
Welcome to
All About GOD
The Good News
Meet Face-to-Face & Collaborate
© 2024 Created by AllAboutGOD.com.
Powered by
