Infant Baptism

[tulipbee]

Hi Family,

Can you please explain to me the logic and reasoning behind infant baptism?

~Natsumi Lam~

if the baby is a regenerate, then baptism works. not not, the baby got wet

 

[JacksBratt]

Acts 8:36-37?
How many eunuchs do you suggest Phillip encountered? OR are you saying the eunuch had women and children with him?

Not sure what you are insinuating here.. This scripture is talking about an individual.

My point was that, in the biblical times.... when you referred to a group... it was based on men...
So..................feeding the 5000 was feeding 5000 men... not counting women and children.

 

[tulipbee]

Infants are able to respond to grace. Every human needs saving. From death, seperation from God, and sin, whether they themselves have sinned individually, or not. Thus, infants are candidates for baptism, too.

if God knew you before you were born then you must knew him too. we just don't remember being converted before being conceived

 

[JacksBratt]

if the baby is a regenerate, then baptism works. not not, the baby got wet

What is a "regenerate".

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

Not sure what you are insinuating here.. This scripture is talking about an individual.

My point was that, in the biblical times.... when you referred to a group... it was based on men...
So..................feeding the 5000 was feeding 5000 men... not counting women and children.

When the group that included the 5,000 men were fed were the women and children in the group not also fed? Do you imagine Christ fed only the male adults while leaving all others to go hungry?

 

[JacksBratt]

if God knew you before you were born then you must knew him too. we just don't remember being converted before being conceived

Not sure what you are getting at here.

 

[JacksBratt]

When the group that included the 5,000 men were fed were the women and children in the group not also fed? Do you imagine Christ fed only the male adults while leaving all others to go hungry?

Oh.........My..........Gosh.....

What are you talking about?


What I am saying is that in recording records of numbers of people.... like the feeding of the 5000... it is recorded as feeding the 5000.

However, the total number fed would have been... 5000 men... plus the women and children that are not counted in the recording of the number present... as was common method then...

Therefore... Women and children are not considered in common records of events..even though they were there.

So, when they say.. a household was baptized... it does not necessarily mean that the children were as well....Because old records are not specific... as they are today.....

It would have been common knowledge, at the time, to understand that children would not have been baptized... so it would not be necessary to say so.

Therefore.... all said and done...My question was... given the method of record keeping... can we say for sure that the children were baptized..... just because it states that all in the house were?

It becomes a point of assumptions and speculations.

 

[Gregory95]

In biblical standards, do they not only refer to men of age when they talk of "households" and such?

If my teachers were correct, when Christ fed the 5000, that was 5000 men of age. The numbers were higher when you figure in the women and children under a certain age.

Would this not hold true to this scripture?

Forgot about that!

 

[Gregory95]

Acts 8:36-37?
How many eunuchs do you suggest Phillip encountered? OR are you saying the eunuch had women and children with him?

Just read it it litteraly speaks for itself and those who don't see it i truly worry for

 

[FenderTL5]

Just read it it litteraly speaks for itself and those who don't see it i truly worry for

The passage is about one eunuch. I was asking how the counting of the 5000 applies to that passage.

 

[tulipbee]

Not sure what you are getting at here.

total depravity means we don't do the choosing . we can do baptism at any age

 

[tulipbee]

What is a "regenerate".

all those in the book of life written in before earth was born

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

Oh.........My..........Gosh.....

What are you talking about?


What I am saying is that in recording records of numbers of people.... like the feeding of the 5000... it is recorded as feeding the 5000.

However, the total number fed would have been... 5000 men... plus the women and children that are not counted in the recording of the number present... as was common method then...

Therefore... Women and children are not considered in common records of events..even though they were there.

They were most likely there... being baptized.

So, when they say.. a household was baptized... it does not necessarily mean that the children were as well....Because old records are not specific... as they are today.....

Really. You imagine that the men discovered this great new thing of Christian baptism and then chose to keep women and children out of it? Why would they do that?

It would have been common knowledge, at the time, to understand that children would not have been baptized... so it would not be necessary to say so.

Actually, no. Most common was that everyone was baptized. It goes without saying that when the Bible says that households were baptized, households were baptized.

 

[FenderTL5]

Oh.........My..........Gosh.....

What are you talking about?


What I am saying is that in recording records of numbers of people.... like the feeding of the 5000... it is recorded as feeding the 5000.

However, the total number fed would have been... 5000 men... plus the women and children that are not counted in the recording of the number present... as was common method then...

Therefore... Women and children are not considered in common records of events..even though they were there.

So, when they say.. a household was baptized... it does not necessarily mean that the children were as well....Because old records are not specific... as they are today.....

It would have been common knowledge, at the time, to understand that children would not have been baptized... so it would not be necessary to say so.

Therefore.... all said and done...My question was... given the method of record keeping... can we say for sure that the children were baptized..... just because it states that all in the house were?

It becomes a point of assumptions and speculations.

This is an example of the willful suspension of disbelief.

To agree with your suggestion; we'd need to suppose that the Phillipian jailer's (being an example) household consisted of several adult males who were NOT being counted. Which is completely the reverse of the 5000 fed example. The consistent reading is the jailer (1) and his household, which would be all of those living in the household, still counted as 1 - just like in the feeding of the 5000 example.

 

[Albion]

In biblical standards, do they not only refer to men of age when they talk of "households" and such?

If my teachers were correct, when Christ fed the 5000, that was 5000 men of age. The numbers were higher when you figure in the women and children under a certain age.

Would this not hold true to this scripture?

According to the New Testament, Lydia was converted by Paul and “She was baptized, with her household” (Acts 16:15).

How does that describe the baptism of men of age only?

The Philippian jailer converted by Paul and Silas was baptized along with his household. In “the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family” (Acts 16:33).

The Philippian jailer we assume to be male, so what about the baptisms of the rest of his family members referred to in the verse?

In addressing the Corinthians, Paul said, “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas” (1 Cor. 1:16).

 

[JacksBratt]

all those in the book of life written in before earth was born

That, then, would mean every human ever conceived.


I arrive at that conclusion because, at the great white throne judgment... names are blotted out... not written down.

 

[JacksBratt]

total depravity means we don't do the choosing . we can do baptism at any age

I don't agree with this.... That thinking would mean that no matter what a person does.... they are either saved or condemned before they even live......

Secondly... baptism is a choice that follows the choice of accepting or rejecting Christ.

Infants, young children and mentally incapable people cannot make this choice and are not held accountable for things that they are not capable of being aware of.

You don't discipline a baby for filling it's diaper.... Nor do you discipline a child for holding a cat too tight... or flushing your wallet down the toilet.... They are totally innocent of wrong doing.. they are oblivious to what the reality of it is....

 

[JacksBratt]

They were most likely there

"most likely" hmmm sounds confident.

Really. You imagine that the men discovered this great new thing of Christian baptism and then chose to keep women and children out of it? Why would they do that?

Again.... wow. What you must glean from newspapers these days.

OK......That's not what I mean.. You keep missing the point...
My point:

It says household...this does not mean children. Records of this time disregard children and women in most cases... There is confidence that men and women were.. but people in the day would understand that children were not.

It is not explicit....

Actually, no. Most common was that everyone was baptized. It goes without saying that when the Bible says that households were baptized, households were baptized.

Again..... ugh... households does not mean infants, children, women and children...

We have no reason to believe that women would not be.. but.. it does not mean children... You cannot claim that.. based on methods of recording of that day..

It is only you..............assuming.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

I don't agree with this.... That thinking would mean that no matter what a person does.... they are either saved or condemned before they even live......

Secondly... baptism is a choice that follows the choice of accepting or rejecting Christ.

Infants, young children and mentally incapable people cannot make this choice and are not held accountable for things that they are not capable of being aware of.

You don't discipline a baby for filling it's diaper.... Nor do you discipline a child for holding a cat too tight... or flushing your wallet down the toilet.... They are totally innocent of wrong doing.. they are oblivious to what the reality of it is....

The problem is, even if they haven't done anything wrong, they're still born in bondage to sin - a condition passed on to them by our first ancestors. That must be dealt with if they are to be free in the Lord.

 

[Albion]

Again..... ugh... households does not mean infants, children, women and children...
It is only you..............assuming.

Except that the Bible itself refutes that theory.

The Philippian jailer converted by Paul and Silas was baptized along with his household. In “the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family” (Acts 16:33).