Best Evidence for Believer's Baptism?

[jinc1019]

I have been on the fence about this for a long time now. I've studied the early church fathers and have no found no direct evidence of infant baptism until the 3rd century. I've studied the scriptures from every angle and read many of the popular works on this subject, and I feel like both sides make some pretty compelling arguments.

Lately, I've been leaning more toward infant baptism as a valid practice on the basis that infants are eligible because they are in HOUSEHOLDS of faith and are thus "in Christ" because their parents are "in Christ." Infants may not be able to have faith themselves, but they enter the covenant community through their parents until they are old enough to make decisions for themselves. This seems to fit with the whole idea that individuals can represent large groups of people, something that is evident throughout the scriptures.

Anyway...Really what I'd love is see some of the "best" arguments for believer's baptism. I'm not here to debate or argue, just listen and ask questions. I really am totally open to both sides of the debate.

Thanks in advance for your time and God bless!

 

[JM]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VzUOiNtgio

 

[jinc1019]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VzUOiNtgio

Thanks for this! I have heard it before, but I will listen again.

-J

 

[mikedsjr]

If you want to discuss via pm, I would be glad to. I have agreements with you but it is a crime in here to discuss it

 

[classicalhero]

The best evidence is the thief on the cross, because Jesus said he would see him in paradise and there is no way he was ever baptised. This shows that salvation is through Christ alone and thus baptism has nothing to with being worthy before God, which is what infant baptism is meant to be all about.

 

[jinc1019]

The best evidence is the thief on the cross, because Jesus said he would see him in paradise and there is no way he was ever baptised. This shows that salvation is through Christ alone and thus baptism has nothing to with being worthy before God, which is what infant baptism is meant to be all about.

I think the obvious response to this is that there are exceptions.

 

[jinc1019]

If you want to discuss via pm, I would be glad to. I have agreements with you but it is a crime in here to discuss it

I'll PM you.

 

[Bluelion]

Baptism is and outward sign of faith in Christ. It comes after being saved. It is being nailed to the cross with Christ, buried in the grave with Christ, and resurrected with Christ from the grave. The person being baptized must understand all this. Infant baptism does nothing and is strictly for the parents and unnecessary, as there is an age of accountability. If there is no transgression against the law there is no judgement. This is why all babies go to heaven. a child is not accountable. Would you force a baby to take communion? same thing as baptizing a baby. A Person can not be forced saved, it does not work that way, they must use their free will. Make the choice between Good and evil as cain and Abel did.

 

[JM]

The strongest argument, IMO, is made from a covenantal perspective.

FAQ on the Reformed Baptist View of Baptism

JM

 

[JLR1300]

Although there isn't a single clear example in the entire new testament of infant baptism... and although there is example after example of believers being baptised... and although Jesus clearly said Go into all the world and make disciples, baptizing THEM (disciples) I say let's just go with the traditions of men and baptize infants.

In fact, I think we should have a rule that always applies in scripture... the rule is this... Every time we find an instance where there are no examples in scripture to do a thing but many examples in scripture to do the opposite and where we have a direct commandment from Christ to do the opposite of the thing... we should always ignore all of that and listen to the traditions of the Presbyterians especially if they got the idea from the Catholics in the first place.

Besides, who does Jesus think he is...God?

 

[98cwitr]

new fruit, new mind, new spirit. Old self is dead, new self is alive in Christ.

 

[jinc1019]

The strongest argument, IMO, is made from a covenantal perspective.

FAQ on the Reformed Baptist View of Baptism

JM

That's interesting because I think the strongest argument in favor of infant baptism is also from that view.

 

[jinc1019]

Although there isn't a single clear example in the entire new testament of infant baptism... and although there is example after example of believers being baptised... and although Jesus clearly said Go into all the world and make disciples, baptizing THEM (disciples) I say let's just go with the traditions of men and baptize infants.

In fact, I think we should have a rule that always applies in scripture... the rule is this... Every time we find an instance where there are no examples in scripture to do a thing but many examples in scripture to do the opposite and where we have a direct commandment from Christ to do the opposite of the thing... we should always ignore all of that and listen to the traditions of the Presbyterians especially if they got the idea from the Catholics in the first place.

Besides, who does Jesus think he is...God?

Well I understand where you are coming from here. There is no explicit evidence of infants of believers being baptized. Why don't you show me the explicit evidence of a child of a believer being baptized as an adult? As far as I can tell, the Bible doesn't say how or when children of believers should be baptized (explicitly). We have to make inferences, right?

 

[jinc1019]

new fruit, new mind, new spirit. Old self is dead, new self is alive in Christ.

Not sure I understand your point.

 

[JLR1300]

Well I understand where you are coming from here. There is no explicit evidence of infants of believers being baptized. Why don't you show me the explicit evidence of a child of a believer being baptized as an adult? As far as I can tell, the Bible doesn't say how or when children of believers should be baptized (explicitly). We have to make inferences, right?

It would seem to me that if Jesus doesn't tell us about a thing then we should just do the things that He did tell us. For instance, Jesus did not tell us what to do when it comes to baptizing midgets. So what should we do? I have an idea. Let's just do what He told us to do. He said to go into the world and make disciples and baptise them. So if while we are making disciples, we discover that one of them is a midget, let's just baptize him or her.

In the same way Jesus didn't explicitly tell us about baptizing Eskimos. So should we just assume that they should only be baptized when they are elderly? Again, why make assumptions?

Instead, let's just go into the world and make disciples and baptize them... and if we discover that one of them is an Eskimo, then let's just Baptize him or her.

Problem solved. In the same way, the Bible doesn't explicitly tell us what to do about infants and baptism. So again, why worry about it. Let's just go into the world and make disciples and baptise them... and if we discover that a couple of these new disciples are quite young, then let's baptise them. Problem Solved.

The real reason this has become an issue is because Catholics thought that if you weren't baptised you couldn't be saved. So naturally the Parents were scared to death that their child would die before being baptised. So then Calvin and Luther broke off from the Catholic Church and so they were under that influence. Even though it didn't go along very well with the doctrine of Justification by faith, they didn't make a clean break with the Catholic position. So theologians had to develop a theology to justify it.

If a Presbyterian pastor started preaching against it, he woud be kicked out of the denomination. He would lose his career and his money and his family would be on the streets. So he cannot be open-minded. No preacher can. Every time a Chruch of Christ preacher does a study on Baptism he ends up being more convinced than ever that the Church of Christ is right. Same with Baptist Preachers etc. etc. All denominations just continue their traditions. It's unfortunate but true.

 

[jinc1019]

It would seem to me that if Jesus doesn't tell us about a thing then we should just do the things that He did tell us. For instance, Jesus did not tell us what to do when it comes to baptizing midgets. So what should we do? I have an idea. Let's just do what He told us to do. He said to go into the world and make disciples and baptise them. So if while we are making disciples, we discover that one of them is a midget, let's just baptize him or her.

In the same way Jesus didn't explicitly tell us about baptizing Eskimos. So should we just assume that they should only be baptized when they are elderly? Again, why make assumptions?

Instead, let's just go into the world and make disciples and baptize them... and if we discover that one of them is an Eskimo, then let's just Baptize him or her.

Problem solved. In the same way, the Bible doesn't explicitly tell us what to do about infants and baptism. So again, why worry about it. Let's just go into the world and make disciples and baptise them... and if we discover that a couple of these new disciples are quite young, then let's baptise them. Problem Solved.

The real reason this has become an issue is because Catholics thought that if you weren't baptised you couldn't be saved. So naturally the Parents were scared to death that their child would die before being baptised. So then Calvin and Luther broke off from the Catholic Church and so they were under that influence. Even though it didn't go along very well with the doctrine of Justification by faith, they didn't make a clean break with the Catholic position. So theologians had to develop a theology to justify it.

If a Presbyterian pastor started preaching against it, he woud be kicked out of the denomination. He would lose his career and his money and his family would be on the streets. So he cannot be open-minded. No preacher can. Every time a Chruch of Christ preacher does a study on Baptism he ends up being more convinced than ever that the Church of Christ is right. Same with Baptist Preachers etc. etc. All denominations just continue their traditions. It's unfortunate but true.

I don't disagree with your last comment at all. I won't argue, because that's against forum rules, but I will say this: If scripture doesn't prohibit baptizing infants, shouldn't we just baptize them using the logic you are using? You keep saying that we are told to make disciples and then baptize, but the scriptures never say "make disciples and THEN baptize," they say, "make disciples, baptizing them." Doesn't that mean "baptizing" could be part of the discipling process?

 

[JLR1300]

It seems to me that whenever Jesus gives us the requirements for becoming a disciple he lays down requirements that call for decisions made by persons older than babies. He says if anyone would be his disciple he must give up all that he has and follow Him. If he doesn't do that then he cannot be his disciple. So if he cannot be his disciple... is he ready to be baptized, since we are to make disciples baptizing them? I mean, there is always a way to twist things around and make them say what we want them to say but just look at it open mindedly and you will probably see...

1. we are to make disciples baptizing THEM.
2. you cannot be a disciple if you don't agree to follow Christ (Jesus said that)
3. We don't have any examples of Babies getting Baptised.
4. We do have lots of examples of believers getting Baptised.
5. In the case of the Ethiopian eunich who asked, "Here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptised?" The answer was "you may if you believe with all your heart." and He said "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" So they baptized him.

So both being a disciple and believing are the norm for Baptism. I'm sure God won't send you to hell for baptizing a baby but one thing is for certain.... On judgement day he isn't going to hold us responsible for not doing something that Jesus never told us to do and something that we never read about in the new testament and something that the opposite was done all the time by Jesus and the Apostles. So there is no danger whatsoever in not doing it.

 

[jinc1019]

It seems to me that whenever Jesus gives us the requirements for becoming a disciple he lays down requirements that call for decisions made by persons older than babies. He says if anyone would be his disciple he must give up all that he has and follow Him. If he doesn't do that then he cannot be his disciple. So if he cannot be his disciple... is he ready to be baptized, since we are to make disciples baptizing them? I mean, there is always a way to twist things around and make them say what we want them to say but just look at it open mindedly and you will probably see...

1. we are to make disciples baptizing THEM.
2. you cannot be a disciple if you don't agree to follow Christ (Jesus said that)
3. We don't have any examples of Babies getting Baptised.
4. We do have lots of examples of believers getting Baptised.
5. In the case of the Ethiopian eunich who asked, "Here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptised?" The answer was "you may if you believe with all your heart." and He said "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" So they baptized him.

So both being a disciple and believing are the norm for Baptism. I'm sure God won't send you to hell for baptizing a baby but one thing is for certain.... On judgement day he isn't going to hold us responsible for not doing something that Jesus never told us to do and something that we never read about in the new testament and something that the opposite was done all the time by Jesus and the Apostles. So there is no danger whatsoever in not doing it.

All fair points and I'll consider each one carefully!

 

[JLR1300]

All fair points and I'll consider each one carefully!

Thanks, have a nice day.

 

[JM]

That's interesting because I think the strongest argument in favor of infant baptism is also from that view.

Check out Baptist history, they were credo because of covenant theology. The greatest English Puritan theologian, John Owen, even laid a foundational exegesis of Hebrews 8 that essentially prove credo...even though he remained a paedo.