aiki
Regular Member
Well, if the absence of explicit reference to infants being baptized was the only reason for rejecting such a practice, your reasoning here would carry some weight. But the absence of such references is just one of the reasons I've given for rejecting such a practice. Taken in concert with these other reasons, the complete absence of any instance of a baby being baptized is significant.
If you make the positive claim that infants were baptized in the Early Church, you're obliged to demonstrate that claim. You can't do that from the record of Scripture.
Really? And you're complaining about my logic? Was Jesus' main point in commanding his disciples to baptize and teach all nations (Matthew 28:19) that they should do so with every sort of individual in each nation? Or was he meaning that they should leave no nation out in their sharing of the Gospel and baptizing? It seems very obvious to me that he meant the latter rather than the former.
It is also evident that Jesus meant for baptizing and teaching to happen together. But what teaching can an infant receive? How could an infant be capable of taking in the things, say, that the apostle Paul taught in Romans 6 concerning baptism? Obviously, they couldn't. And so it seems to me that infants are naturally and necessarily excluded as objects of the "all nations" command of Matthew 28:19.
This is not my whole argument. See my earlier posts.
"The vehicle of countless wonderful gifts and blessings"? Do tell. It seems to me that Scripture indicates that it is in the Person of the Holy Spirit, not a symbolic water ritual, through whom we are "baptized" into Christ and obtain all the spiritual blessings of the second birth. (Titus 3:5; Romans 8:10-13; John 5:5; Acts 2:1-3, etc.). Baptism merely symbolizes what the Spirit accomplishes in one who has by faith received Christ as their Saviour and Lord - something a baby is incapable of doing.
Only if you've anchored your argument for infant baptism to it. From my perspective, this is a grasping at straws.
I have merely contended that "household" does not necessarily mean "including infants." This is an obvious fact, as I illustrated in my last post. You are the one positively contending for the idea that these households did include infants and so you are obliged, by rules of proper argument, to show that this was actually the case. You can't do so, except by way of eisegesis. Consequently, your argument from silence is rather weak.
Well, simply ask yourself, "To whom was Paul writing"? Was he addressing infants in his letter? Was he explaining to babies the spiritual union of born-again believers with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection? Obviously not. Was it to newborns he commanded, "Reckon yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin but alive unto God through Jesus Christ"? (Romans 6:11) Did he expect infants to not "let sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies that you should obey it in its lusts" or to "present yourselves unto God as those who are alive from the dead"? (Romans 6:12-13) How do babies "obey from the heart that form of doctrine that was delivered unto you"? (Romans 6:17) There are a series of actions/responses the born-again believer is to make to what Paul explains in the chapter that would be impossible for a baby. It seems to me that the entire chapter, then, naturally excludes a young child/infant who, by reason of undeveloped intellect, cannot yet comprehend and act on what Paul wrote.
It doesn't fit. I am more Traditionalist/Molinist in my views on soteriology than Catholic.
It is not speaking of David in regards to the verses you cited. In context, those verses are plainly referring to Christ.
I disagree. As I said, Christ was a unique case and so one cannot necessarily broadly apply what was true of him to everyone else.
I posted several verses from the Psalm to illustrate that there is no way one could mistake that the verses spoke particularly of Christ, not David. Shall I post them again?
Paul wrote that God has given to every man a measure of faith. (Romans 12:3) And it is evident that every person - saved or not - exercises faith in a multitude of things every day. So, I don't quite understand the distinction you're making between the ability to exercise toward God this universal capacity for faith (which God enables) and "the actual, real deal."
Except that we hear, believe and receive what God has done for us through Christ (Romans 10:9-17) - which an infant cannot do.
Upvote
0
