What is the significance of infant baptism?

[ExTiff]

Could that also be considered a "Statement of Fact" instead of an opinion???

Just asking.

A statement of opinion is a statement of fact concerning the opinion. Unless the person stating the opinion is lying. I dont think God lies.

Just saying.

 

[ExTiff]

I know that you are sincere and I am sure your heart is in the right place, however you must realize that your comment has NO Biblical validity to it whatsoever.

You said...…..
"but I happen to believe it is biblical to see a promise in baptism to the family, that their child belongs to God,"

We can believe anything but proving it is Biblical is another story. There is NO Scriptures which support your thought.

You then said.…………
" It is also a promise that the child will grow into for themselves as they mature, if they are guided by the Christian community."

A Promise???? You can DEDICATE a baby to God just as did Hannah with Samuel but that may or may not come true because it depends on the child's choices when he is grown dosent it?

There is far more to support the view expressed by FireDragon76 than for your view that ALL INFANTS will go to heaven. There is not a scrap of scripture to support your presumption, however true it may be.

We baby baptizers however have a sworn statement from God that our children are specially privileged and "Holy".

". . . when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, saying, “Surely I will bless you and multiply you.” And thus Abraham, having patiently waited, obtained the promise. For people swear by something greater than themselves, and in all their disputes an oath is final for confirmation. So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us. We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.

"For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith."

"Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be."

This promise was to Abraham and his seed. We are the seed of Abraham when we have faith, the children of believers are THEIR seed. The promise of The Covenant becomes OUR promise when we become believing disciples of Jesus Christ, and it includes God's promise that not only are we saved when we believe in His Son Jesus Christ, but our offspring also are held by him to be "Holy", compared to the infants of unbelievers who are, according to scripture, unclean. 1 Cor.7:14. We base our understanding of God's promises on the Word of God He has sworn to Abraham and Isaac and US.

You on the other hand seem unable to produce a single scrap of scriptural evidence whatever for your notion that ALL INFANTS without exception, go to heaven, just wishful thinking, even if they all might. (As I also incidentally believe, but for other reasons than yours apparently).
.

 

[ExTiff]

We also know that the command to believe is directed to individuals and the act of believing is a personal action. Thus, salvation can only come to an individual who personally believes in Christ. Believing in Christ is not something that a father can do for a son or daughter. The fact that one member of a family or household believes does not guarantee that the rest will also believe.

Mark 12:42.

You still do not understand the secret of The Lord.

 

[ExTiff]

Explain how a baby can have faith in Jesus Christ when in fact he/she can not even speak yet?

This is grasping at straws IMO.

Are you so presumptuous as to be telling us that you know at what point in a human life "Faith" is possible?

You are merely assuming that "Faith" is defined by an ability to understand intellectually the message of the Gospel and respond by true repentance. That is a very poor definition though.

Faith is when a human being actually depends entirely upon God for their salvation; is in no fear of condemnation, has no need to placate or appease God, trusts God in Christ, simply receives God's Grace and has no intention of ever departing from God's will for them.

I would say that on those grounds and by the definition I have just offered, ALL INFANTS have much more "Faith" than you or I and are therefore more qualified for baptism than either of us, with all our clever understanding and history of sin.

Unfortunately, according to scripture, they are entitled to receive baptism as an infant, only if at least one of their parents believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. Else, (until they themselves become believing), they remain 'outside the Covenant and the promises'. Eph.2:11-12.

Ironically, it is fortunate for 'Baptists' that the New Covenant is so much better than the old, because were they still under the old, they would be covenant breakers for not circumcising their male infants and would be responsible for them being 'cast out' of the covenant for failing to bear the sign and seal of it. Gen.17:12-14. Notice that this being an everlasting covenant, it must still be in force, or the scripture has been annulled or God has gone back on His word.

They are indeed fortunate that God is Gracious and generously understanding of their ignorance.
.
.

 

[SkyWriting]

Your reply seems to say that I do not have a family and children.

Your response and feelings are coming from your heart because for some reason you think that your babies are not saved.

My dear friend. Please understand that ALL babies and children are under the blood of the Lord Jesus and if they die as an infant they will go to heaven.

Please understand that salvation is only "provided by God, through Jesus, to the repentant believing sinner". This statement is true.

However, please note that the Old Testament saints were saved although they did not have a complete knowledge of the salvation act and they did not know the name JESUS CHRIST.(see 1 Peter 1:10-11).

So it is possible to be saved by God through Christ even if you don't understand all the facts of the Gospel which in my opinion more than makes up for the ages of an infant.

I never said it was right. I insist that when scripture says "and the whole family was baptised" that included all the family and did not exclude babies.

God doesn't care if anyone gets wet. Not everyone has extra water for splashing on Christians heads.

 

[ExTiff]

I never said it was right. I insist that when scripture says "and the whole family was baptised" that included all the family and did not exclude babies.

God doesn't care if anyone gets wet. Not everyone has extra water for splashing on Christians heads.

In effect the issue is actually God has no objection to believers baptizing their infants because God has promised and sworn on His own name that they are already in God's Covenant and will be included under the same covenant terms as their believing parents until such time as they are capable of keeping (or breaking), the terms of the Covenant of Grace.

All this "Babies can't believe" nonsense is irrelevant and simply reveals the 'Baptist' ignorance of the terms of The New Covenant concerning the infants of believers. That can be excused however, since there are probably as many 'baby baptizers' who are also as ignorant of the terms of The Covenant they are baptizing them in obedience to.
.

 

[SkyWriting]

In effect the issue is actually God has no objection to believers baptizing their infants because God has promised and sworn on His own name that they are already in God's Covenant and will be included under the same covenant terms as their believing parents until such time as they are capable of keeping (or breaking), the terms of the Covenant of Grace.

All this "Babies can't believe" nonsense is irrelevant and simply reveals the 'Baptist' ignorance of the terms of The New Covenant concerning the infants of believers. That can be excused however, since there are probably as many 'baby baptizers' who are also as ignorant of the terms of The Covenant they are baptizing them in obedience to.
.

God is fond of babies both dry and wetted. Baby baptism is not an issue either way.

 

[SkyWriting]

Explain how a baby can have faith in Jesus Christ when in fact he/she can not even speak yet?

1 Samuel 16:7
But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.”

Jesus has a thorough check list:

- Does this baby hate my Father?



Hate for the Spirit of Love is the only way into Hell.
Having a mouth or breathing is not even on the list.

Matthew 19:14
But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”

 

[Major1]

I never said it was right. I insist that when scripture says "and the whole family was baptised" that included all the family and did not exclude babies.

God doesn't care if anyone gets wet. Not everyone has extra water for splashing on Christians heads.

But that is ADDING to the Word of God by assuming something that is NOT there my dear friend.

We can and should only go by what is stated and not what we want the Scriptures to say.

As a proponents of infant baptism, you are of course assumeing that there were children in Cornelius’ house, Lydia’s family, the jailer’s house, and Stephanas’ house, and that the infants were baptized. However, the Scriptures do not tell us that there is any mention of infants in any of these passages.

Deut. 4:2...….
"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

 

[Major1]

1 Samuel 16:7
But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.”

Jesus has a thorough check list:

- Does this baby hate my Father?



Hate for the Spirit of Love is the only way into Hell.
Having a mouth or breathing is not even on the list.

Matthew 19:14
But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”

Blessing to you my friend. I understand your need to validate your thesis, but the Scriptures you just used do not work for you on this subject of infant baptism's.

As for 1 Samuel 16:7, the correct exegesis has nothing to do with infant baptism's.
There is an old saying “Don’t judge a book by its cover”. Its meaning is simple. A person’s appearance, either their physical attributes or dress, are no indication of their inner being. Humans are incredibly complex. Whilst their physical appearance may well be apparent, their spiritual (inner) dimension is not. As the Lord Jesus Christ states, the outside of the cup may appear clean and whitewashed, however, inside reveals a completely different story.

Then does Matthew 19:14 teach infant baptism and membership in God's kingdom??????????

Certainly, this is the allegation that you would like to believe because you hold those views; but it is significant here that Christ did not say that little children were "in the kingdom," but that "to such belongs the kingdom"! There is a world of difference. The emphasis is upon child-like behavior and character.

There are no recorded cases of infant baptism in the New Testament. The "household" baptisms are nowhere said to have contained any infants among the number baptized; and any argument from "household" baptisms must be classified as an argument from the silence of the Scriptures.

A 2 day or 2 week old infant does not think and reason and understand the gospel in order to make a choice for Jesus Christ.

 

[Major1]

Mark 12:42.

You still do not understand the secret of The Lord.

Secret? God has a Secret????

God did have a "mystery" which was the church until Paul let the cat out of the bag.

The Bible teaches, indirectly, that keeping secrets can be either good or bad, but it does not clearly delineate the right and wrong uses of secrets.

 

[Major1]

God is fond of babies both dry and wetted. Baby baptism is not an issue either way.

Well said. Remember, there are NO examples of infant baptisms in the New Test.

 

[Major1]

Are you so presumptuous as to be telling us that you know at what point in a human life "Faith" is possible?

You are merely assuming that "Faith" is defined by an ability to understand intellectually the message of the Gospel and respond by true repentance. That is a very poor definition though.

Faith is when a human being actually depends entirely upon God for their salvation; is in no fear of condemnation, has no need to placate or appease God, trusts God in Christ, simply receives God's Grace and has no intention of ever departing from God's will for them.

I would say that on those grounds and by the definition I have just offered, ALL INFANTS have much more "Faith" than you or I and are therefore more qualified for baptism than either of us, with all our clever understanding and history of sin.

Unfortunately, according to scripture, they are entitled to receive baptism as an infant, only if at least one of their parents believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. Else, (until they themselves become believing), they remain 'outside the Covenant and the promises'. Eph.2:11-12.

Ironically, it is fortunate for 'Baptists' that the New Covenant is so much better than the old, because were they still under the old, they would be covenant breakers for not circumcising their male infants and would be responsible for them being 'cast out' of the covenant for failing to bear the sign and seal of it. Gen.17:12-14. Notice that this being an everlasting covenant, it must still be in force, or the scripture has been annulled or God has gone back on His word.

They are indeed fortunate that God is Gracious and generously understanding of their ignorance.
.
.

First of all. I have no desire to argue with you but you seem to be wanting to do just that.

IF YOU want to baptize your infant then go right ahead and do so. The only point I am making is that you can not baptize and infant on the basis that it is Biblical to do so.
Pouring water over an infant does not make that infant saved anymore that floating on your back down the river makes you a boat. It makes you wet and that is all it does.

The Bible is abundantly clear of what baptism is, who it is for, and what it accomplishes. In the Bible, only believers who had placed their faith in Christ were baptized - as a public testimony of their faith and identification with Him. Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience after faith in Christ. It is a proclamation of faith in Christ, a statement of submission to Him, and an identification with His death, burial, and resurrection.

With this in view as a Bible fact, infant baptism is not a Biblical practice.
An infant cannot place his or her faith in Christ.
An infant cannot make a conscious decision to obey Christ.
An infant cannot understand what water baptism symbolizes.
The Bible does not record any infants being baptized.

Infant baptism is the origin of the sprinkling and pouring methods of baptism - as it is unwise and unsafe to immerse an infant under water. Even the method of infant baptism fails to agree with the Bible. How does pouring or sprinkling illustrate the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ?

But again, I am not going to be adversarial with you and argue something that is completely unbiblical just because you want to do it.

 

[Major1]

A statement of opinion is a statement of fact concerning the opinion. Unless the person stating the opinion is lying. I dont think God lies.

Just saying.

I agree. God can not lie.

We of course as sinners can and do come up with ideas and beliefs which are not able to be validated by the Word of God. There in lies the difference.

It would end the debate on this is you would simply post the Bible Scriptures where an infant baptism is shown and defined and said to be expected in order for that infant to be saved.

That should answer any differences we may have on this subject.

I would add this so as to make sure that we are on the same page.
Baptism does not save a person. It does not matter if you were baptized by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling - if you have not first trusted in Christ for salvation, baptism, no matter the method, is meaningless and useless.

Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience to be done after salvation as a public profession of faith in Christ and identification with Him. Infant baptism does not fit the Biblical definition of baptism or the Biblical method of baptism. If Christian parents wish to dedicate their child to Christ, then a baby dedication service is entirely appropriate. However, even if infants are dedicated to the Lord, when they grow up they will still have to make a personal decision to believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved.

 

[Major1]

Can you please show me the exact scriptures which clearly state this 'fact'? You seem so much to rely upon it for some reason, you surely will be able to give chapter and verse to prove its validity.

Meanwhile can you also please explain the implications which result from this text:

"Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world": Eph.2:11-12.

Does this not describe any reprobate unbeliever, in your opinion?

Given that baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign and seal of The Covenant, from which scripture do you draw the conclusion that ALL INFANTS are sinless and therefore Holy to God?

Scripture in fact clearly refutes your presumptive assertion that all infants are Holy as far as God is concerned. We only have scripture to support the fact that the infants of believers are 'Holy to God'. Not ALL infants.

Though I agree that ALL infants are precious to God, there is no scripture that you or I know of that guarantees that ALL INFANTS will go to heaven if they die.

If you know of any, please enlighten us.
.

2 Kings 4:26 says...………..
'Is it well with the child? And she answered, It is well'.

The Shunammite woman was first asked by Gehazi, whether it was well with herself. She was mourning over a lost child, and yet she said, 'It is well.' She felt that the child was surely be blessed.

Then Gehazi asked, 'Is it well with thy husband?' He was old and stricken in years, and was ripening for death, yet she said, 'Yes, it is well.' Then came the question about her child, which was dead at home, 'Is it well with the child?'

Surely this enquiry would renew her grief. Yet she said, 'It is well,' perhaps so answering because she had faith that soon her INFANT was safe in the keeping of God, happy beneath the shadow of his wings. Therefore, not fearing that it was lost, and having no suspicion whatever that it was cast away from the place of bliss, she said, 'Yes, the child is dead, but it is well.'

2 Samuel 12:22-23 teaches us that babies go to God...…….
"While the child was alive, you fasted and wept; but when the child died, you arose and ate food." And he said, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who knows, the Lord may be gracious to me, that the child may live.' But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again?
I shall go to him, but he will nt return to me."

 

[ExTiff]

2 Kings 4:26 says...………..
'Is it well with the child? And she answered, It is well'.

The Shunammite woman was first asked by Gehazi, whether it was well with herself. She was mourning over a lost child, and yet she said, 'It is well.' She felt that the child was surely be blessed.

Then Gehazi asked, 'Is it well with thy husband?' He was old and stricken in years, and was ripening for death, yet she said, 'Yes, it is well.' Then came the question about her child, which was dead at home, 'Is it well with the child?'

Surely this enquiry would renew her grief. Yet she said, 'It is well,' perhaps so answering because she had faith that soon her INFANT was safe in the keeping of God, happy beneath the shadow of his wings. Therefore, not fearing that it was lost, and having no suspicion whatever that it was cast away from the place of bliss, she said, 'Yes, the child is dead, but it is well.'

2 Samuel 12:22-23 teaches us that babies go to God...…….
"While the child was alive, you fasted and wept; but when the child died, you arose and ate food." And he said, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who knows, the Lord may be gracious to me, that the child may live.' But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again?
I shall go to him, but he will nt return to me."

As I said previously I happen to believe you are right in your presumption, but that is what it is, a presumption. The texts you have quoted are rather clutching at straws, and hopeful opinions, but hardly chapter and verse for an appeal to scripture for the notion that ALL INFANTS go straight to God in heaven if they die before the age of accountability, (which we must agree is barely definable after the age of 18-36 months for most infants). I have met a few right little reprobate's from the age of 3 upwards. LOL.

This still goes nowhere near explaining the meaning of Eph.2:12. Unless "without hope in the world" for unbelievers, (which by your own admission must include infants who, according to you, are incapable of 'believing' anything), means that there might be "hope in heaven for them", they can't be "separate from Christ" in heaven, they won't be able to ignore Him there, but that is not what 'Baptists' preach, is it?

Another reason to hope that infants, and even blasphemous adolescents, will stand before God in heaven is that Job's children were not 'replaced twofold' like his servants cattle and sheep etc. He only had the same number of children, (seven sons and three daughters), after the deaths of his previous ones, everything else was doubled. Presumably because his dead children were waiting for him in heaven, thus making up the number to twice what it was before. Remember though that Job prayed to God every day for them when living, because they were not particularly 'righteous'. "It may be that my children have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts.” Job.1:4-5. They were presumably all covenant bound though.

My point about infant baptism however is that it is a sign and seal of The Covenant, not an inoculation against sin or a presumption of regeneration, though it is a 'washing or cleansing' according to more scripture references than even those of a symbolic death.

It confers nothing upon the child though that they do not already have. It places the responsibility to grow up within the blessings of the Covenant of Grace, upon them, their parents and the church. It is the beginning of their obligations to their Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and it is a means of Grace we have no right to withhold from them, according to the terms of The Covenant of which Jesus Christ is the mediator.
.

 

[ExTiff]

Major1 said: It would end the debate on this is you would simply post the Bible Scriptures where an infant baptism is shown and defined and said to be expected in order for that infant to be saved.

Have you been paying attention at the back there?

There are many things that 'Baptists' do without any specific New Testament scriptural instance being described and defined. Women receiving communion being one of them. Services of 'Dedication' of infants, being another.

The fact that there is no specific reference to infants being baptized may be just as indicative of the fact that no Apostle or New Testament writer saw fit to condemn the practice, which took over naturally from 8 day circumcision of males to shortly after birth baptism for both male and female infants of believers.

If whole families were baptized as scripture attests, why would the writers of NT scripture think to specifically make a point of recording that the families contained infants? Most families did and no one would have excluded them, because the families were mostly Jewish at first, and were expected to include their male children, even as infants, in The Covenant. A NEW Covenant would have seemed to them to be less gracious and less beneficial than the Old Covenant, which included their children both spiritually and physically under it. Scripture clearly states though that The New is a 'Better' Covenant, more gracious than the old that it grew out of.

It is a very lazy way to understand the scriptures if all you want is a verse giving you permission to copy a practice or a verse that actually precludes you from doing something. That seems a very 'legalistic' attitude, if I may say so.

We prefer a comprehensive understanding of the whole of Holy Writ, rather than base our praxis on a pointless search for one or two 'proof texts'. In the case of women receiving communion they just don't exist. The fact that women regularly have done so from the beginning in The Church, does not depend upon one single NT Text. That does not cause us any concern whatever. Just the same as no NT texts describe any kind of service of 'Dedication of the infants of Believers' concocted by the Church. That however should be of greater concern, but not much. I don't think you will find any example of a 'Harvest Festival' or a Christmas Carol Service in the New Testament either.

So what?
.
.

 

[ExTiff]

First of all. I have no desire to argue with you but you seem to be wanting to do just that.

IF YOU want to baptize your infant then go right ahead and do so. The only point I am making is that you can not baptize and infant on the basis that it is Biblical to do so.
Pouring water over an infant does not make that infant saved anymore that floating on your back down the river makes you a boat. It makes you wet and that is all it does.

Straw men marching again. When did I ever say anything at all about any infant being 'saved'. Just shows how knee jerk your reactions are and how you read everything I have written through the lenses of your own narrow theological perspective. The infants of believer are not 'saved', (past tense), they are 'being saved', Rom.5:10, just as we adults are 'being saved' by faith in the Atoning power of Christ's blood and the Grace of God. Infants are being saved by God's Grace toward their believing parent(s), because they are integral to the 'family' God made His Covenant with. That is why 'families' were baptized. The Father of a Jewish family is a covenant head, responsible to God for the family. The believing Parent is a Covenant head under the New Covenant, responsible to God for sanctifying the family. 1 Cor.7:14. You don't understand much about how the Covenant works, do you. Has no one explained these verses to you? Plunging an adult doesn't make them 'saved' either. An Olympic swimming pool full of underwater adults may not contain a single 'saved' soul. So what, so much 'whataboutery'.

The Bible is abundantly clear of what baptism is, who it is for, and what it accomplishes. In the Bible, only believers who had placed their faith in Christ were baptized - as a public testimony of their faith and identification with Him. Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience after faith in Christ. It is a proclamation of faith in Christ, a statement of submission to Him, and an identification with His death, burial, and resurrection.

There are more references in the New Testament to the fact that baptism 'cleanses' than for the symbolism of 'death and resurrection', count them all if you must. Baptism symbolizes BOTH equally and the baptism of infants is predicated on entirely different scriptural principles than the baptism of adults. A fact that you seem to be unable to comprehend. NT scripture is an account of a period in which the majority of baptisms were obviously of adults. There were no Christian families, only Jewish and Gentile adult converts, some with families, and some of them having infants in the family. It is not surprising then that the Church at that time recorded mostly adult baptisms. This by no means indicates that no infants were baptized though, only that the fact was not recorded. Infant baptism was well established in the church by the year 200 and there is no prohibition of it in scripture. In view of the fact that it replaced infant circumcision, one would not expect there to be any Apostolic objection to the practice, which of course there is not.

With this in view as a Bible fact, infant baptism is not a Biblical practice.
An infant cannot place his or her faith in Christ.
An infant cannot make a conscious decision to obey Christ.
An infant cannot understand what water baptism symbolizes.
The Bible does not record any infants being baptized

Its like talking to a brick wall. We lack a suitable head banging emoticon. Shame! You have not listened to a single word of explanation.

Infant baptism is the origin of the sprinkling and pouring methods of baptism - as it is unwise and unsafe to immerse an infant under water. Even the method of infant baptism fails to agree with the Bible. How does pouring or sprinkling illustrate the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ?

You probably have access to a Bible search, go find all references to baptism as 'cleansing' and count them. Then compare that number to the references to baptism as 'death and resurrection'. You will find 'cleansing' are more numerous. Not that that means 'Death and Resurrection' is invalidated, just that baptism is not exclusively symbolic of 'Death and Resurrection'.

You will also find it is a historical fact that as the Gospel spread northwards into colder regions baptism by immersion was less common than effusion for both adults and children, though BOTH have been valid forms of baptism since the day of Pentecost. Where do you think they found enough deep water to baptize 3000 people by total immersion, in the middle of Jerusalem, (some of whom were children, some maybe even infants), all were 'souls', so not necessarily exclusively male adults. Pouring or sprinkling are valid forms of baptism. Heb.10:22. Nothing there about death, just washing and a pure conscience.

But again, I am not going to be adversarial with you and argue something that is completely unbiblical just because you want to do it.

I am also fed up with the futility of trying to enlighten you. Clearly it will take one greater than I to open the scriptures for you to understand them on this issue, at anything deeper than a superficial skimming. Luke 24:32.
.
.

 

[SkyWriting]

Well said. Remember, there are NO examples of infant baptisms in the New Test.

Except for all the "entire families" documented.
Acts 18:8
Acts 16:33
1 Corinthians 1:16
Acts 16:15
Matthew 28:19

 

[ExTiff]

Except for all the "entire families" documented.
Acts 18:8
Acts 16:33
1 Corinthians 1:16
Acts 16:15
Matthew 28:19

In addition to the mention of whole families being baptized, (which 'Baptists' try to explain away by insisting that there were no infants in these 'families', and that everyone had a 'Baptist style' conversion followed by a 'full immersion' dunking, even though no mention is specifically made of any of these extra-biblical events), there is the fact that there is neither a single mention throughout the entire New Testament of any Adult member of any previously believing parent being baptized at a so called 'age of reason'. It simply is not recorded or never actually happened. Jewish parents who had become Christians would never had tolerated being told they were now forbidden to consider their children Covenant Covered from birth. The only 'sign' of the covenant is circumcision or as it later became under the New Covenant, baptism. There was obviously a time period of some years in the Christian community when baptism slowly replaced circumcision at 8 days old. The Epistle to the Galatians may even be alluding to the difficulties this change over posed for some believers. Gal.2:1-21.
.