A thought or two about Infant Baptism

[bbbbbbb]

Agreed. Actually is it far more worse than an extreme exception. The baptism of the thief is an IMPOSSIBILITY. When was Christian baptism instituted? After the resurrection but before Jesus' accession per Matthew 28:18f. The first Christian baptisms were performed on the Day of Pentecost, some 53 days after the thief was executed. Christian baptism starting point is the day of Pentecost and not before.

Actually, baptism (generically) began long before the birth of Jesus Christ, or John the Baptist. Judaism has a variety of mikvehs, many of which relate to female cleansing following menstruation or childbirth. John the Baptist provided an new aspect to the ancient rite. Jesus Christ then provided yet another layer of meaning to it. Although Jesus Himself did not baptize anyone, his disciples did (John 4:1,2) so there is no doubt that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ occurred prior to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. How closely it aligned with baptism after Pentecost is open to discussion.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Although Jesus Himself did not baptize anyone, his disciples did (John 4:1,2) so there is no doubt that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ occurred prior to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

What? No doubt that John's baptism was TRINATRIAN baptism? Nonsense! Acts 19 disproves this. John's disciples never heard of the Holy Spirit. Still more. No one knows if John's baptism had any or used any baptismal formula. This by far is so wrong. And you say "there is no doubt." Where is your evidence of John's baptismal formula? Such bad theology.

 

[bbbbbbb]

What? No doubt that John's baptism was TRINATRIAN baptism? Nonsense! Acts 19 disproves this. John's disciples never heard of the Holy Spirit. Still more. No one knows if John's baptism had any or used any baptismal formula. This by far is so wrong. And you say "there is no doubt." Where is your evidence of John's baptismal formula? Such bad theology.

If you read my post my point was not that baptisms did not exist prior to Christian baptism, nor that John's baptism was identical to that of the Church (Scriptures make it abundantly clear that it was not) but that the disciples of Jesus were baptizing in His name during His ministry on earth. We do not know anything about this baptism other than the disciples were doing it. Thus, it is problematic, at best, to assert that Christian baptism only appeared after the day of Pentecost.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

but that the disciples of Jesus were baptizing in His name during His ministry on earth.

You don't know this and the text doesn't say in John 3 the disciples Jesus' disciples baptized in "HIS" name. Where do you get this from? Suppositon upon Supposition. Christian baptism per Matthew 28:18 is TRINUNE. Christian baptism is established AFTER Jesus' death and resurrection, or else how can a Christian be united with his death and resurrection in Romans 6? This is so wrong.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You don't know this and the text doesn't say in John 3 the disciples Jesus' disciples baptized in "HIS" name. Where do you get this from? Suppositon upon Supposition. Christian baptism per Matthew 28:18 is TRINUNE. Christian baptism is established AFTER Jesus' death and resurrection, or else how can a Christian be united with his death and resurrection in Romans 6? This is so wrong.

I stated twice already, and will state it once again, other than the passing reference in John 4 to the fact that the disciples of Jesus were practicing baptism and that this baptism was not identical to John's baptism, anything else is speculation. Nevertheless, when Jesus gave his final commandment to baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit the disciples apparently had a very clear understanding of what that meant. Whether or not it meant baptism in the name (singular) of the Triune God, the names (plural) of the Triune God, or the names of the three members of the Godhead, has been hotly debated for centuries.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Whether or not it meant baptism in the name (singular) of the Triune God, the names (plural) of the Triune God, or the names of the three members of the Godhead, has been hotly debated for centuries.

Not hotly debated as if it is unknowable how Christian baptism are to be administrated. Nope your wrong. The Didache clearly spells out baptism with the Triune formula. NOT HOTLY DEBATED.

Matthew 28:18 is PRESCRIPTIVE with the proper formula for baptism. Baptism in the name of Jesus in Acts 19 is DESCRIPTIVE. Prescriptive statements of Scripture always take precedent over descriptive statements. You should know this.

Hermenuetical Rule: Clear passages of Scripture interpret the obscure passages. Matthew 28 interprets Acts 19. However, many here at CF just love to insert an obscure passage of Scripture just for fun...for the sake of argumentation. Happens all the time.

You still have not proven John's baptism had any formula attached to applying water to the human body. There is no evidence John even knew of a formula attached to baptism. For all you know, John and Jesus' disciples could have said, "You are now baptized" plus nothing. Supposition upon Supposition.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Not hotly debated as if it is unknowable how Christian baptism are to be administrated. Nope your wrong. The Didache clearly spells out baptism with the Triune formula. NOT HOTLY DEBATED.

Matthew 28:18 is PRESCRIPTIVE with the proper formula for baptism. Baptism in the name of Jesus in Acts 19 is DESCRIPTIVE. Prescriptive statements of Scripture always take precedent over descriptive statements. You should know this.

Hermenuetical Rule: Clear passages of Scripture interpret the obscure passages. Matthew 28 interprets Acts 19. However, many here at CF just love to insert an obscure passage of Scripture just for fun...for the sake of argumentation. Happens all the time.

You still have not proven John's baptism had any formula attached to applying water to the human body. There is no evidence John even knew of a formula attached to baptism. For all you know, John and Jesus' disciples could have said, "You are now baptized" plus nothing. Supposition upon Supposition.

The disciples of Jesus baptized followers of Jesus Christ during His ministry on earth. That point remains unchallenged nor can it be challenged given the statement in John 4:1,2. Beyond that statement all is speculation.

 

[eleos1954]

Are you saying baptism is OPTIONAL for a Christian?

I'm saying it is not a requirement for salvation.

The biblical practice of baptism demonstrates a person’s commitment to Jesus Christ. It’s a public ceremony proclaiming that Jesus is their Lord and Savior.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

I'm saying it is not a requirement for salvation.

The biblical practice of baptism demonstrates a person’s commitment to Jesus Christ. It’s a public ceremony proclaiming that Jesus is their Lord and Savior.

Seems to me you are saying baptism is optional for a Christian. Am I correct?

 

[bbbbbbb]

I'm saying it is not a requirement for salvation.

The biblical practice of baptism demonstrates a person’s commitment to Jesus Christ. It’s a public ceremony proclaiming that Jesus is their Lord and Savior.

This is really the only rational position that can be taken concerning baptism. Otherwise, endless problems result such that non-baptized believers are excluded from salvation either through mere circumstances or through theological maneuverings. Curiously, the RCC has developed a range of alternate possibilities which allow non-baptized members the possibility of salvation.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

This is really the only rational position that can be taken concerning baptism.

Rational but not Biblical? Is baptism optional in the NT?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Curiously, the RCC has developed a range of alternate possibilities which allow non-baptized members the possibility of salvation.

NOT a range of alternate possibilities. Rome no longer holds to limbus infantum. Only ONE possibilities for Rome. Baptize. Wrong here.

 

[eleos1954]

This is really the only rational position that can be taken concerning baptism. Otherwise, endless problems result such that non-baptized believers are excluded from salvation either through mere circumstances or through theological maneuverings. Curiously, the RCC has developed a range of alternate possibilities which allow non-baptized members the possibility of salvation.

RCC alternatives???? But are they biblical. Salvation it totally up to Jesus ..... there are no man-made alternatives that can be "developed".

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

RCC alternatives???? But are they biblical. Salvation it totally up to Jesus ..... there are no man-made alternatives that can be "developed".

If you are a member of the RCC, then you are baptized. Rome doesn't hold baptism as optional for a member.

Do YOU believe baptism is optional for a Christian? This is not a complex question.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Infant baptism is the practice of baptizing infants or young children. There are several biblical and theological arguments that can be made in favor of infant baptism.

First, the Bible teaches that baptism is a sacrament that washes away sin and grants the gift of the Holy Spirit. In the New Testament, it is clear that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4, Acts 2:38) and grants the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38, John 3:5). Since infants are born with original sin, they are in need of forgiveness and the gift of the Holy Spirit, just as adults are.

Second, the Bible teaches that baptism is the means by which one enters the covenant community of believers. In the Old Testament, infants were included in the covenant community through circumcision, which was the sign of the covenant (Genesis 17:9-14). In the New Testament, baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant (Colossians 2:11-12). Therefore, it makes sense that infants would be included in the covenant community through baptism.

Third, the Bible teaches that the whole household can be baptized (Acts 16:15, 33; 1 Corinthians 1:16). This implies that the infants in the household were included in the baptism.

Fourth, the early Church practice of baptizing infants is attested in the writings of the early Church fathers, such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Augustine of Hippo.

In conclusion, infant baptism is biblically and theologically sound, as it is in line with the biblical teaching on the nature of baptism and its relationship to the forgiveness of sins and entrance into the covenant community of believers, and it was also the practice of early Church.

Well baptism doesn’t always result in receiving the Holy Spirit.

“But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike. Even Simon himself believed; and after being baptized, he continued on with Philip, and as he observed signs and great miracles taking place, he was constantly amazed. Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭8‬:‭12‬-‭17‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[BNR32FAN]

Infant baptism is the practice of baptizing infants or young children. There are several biblical and theological arguments that can be made in favor of infant baptism.

First, the Bible teaches that baptism is a sacrament that washes away sin and grants the gift of the Holy Spirit. In the New Testament, it is clear that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4, Acts 2:38) and grants the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38, John 3:5). Since infants are born with original sin, they are in need of forgiveness and the gift of the Holy Spirit, just as adults are.

Second, the Bible teaches that baptism is the means by which one enters the covenant community of believers. In the Old Testament, infants were included in the covenant community through circumcision, which was the sign of the covenant (Genesis 17:9-14). In the New Testament, baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant (Colossians 2:11-12). Therefore, it makes sense that infants would be included in the covenant community through baptism.

Third, the Bible teaches that the whole household can be baptized (Acts 16:15, 33; 1 Corinthians 1:16). This implies that the infants in the household were included in the baptism.

Fourth, the early Church practice of baptizing infants is attested in the writings of the early Church fathers, such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Augustine of Hippo.

In conclusion, infant baptism is biblically and theologically sound, as it is in line with the biblical teaching on the nature of baptism and its relationship to the forgiveness of sins and entrance into the covenant community of believers, and it was also the practice of early Church.

I’ll say this, it certainly isn’t forbidden in the scriptures and the only possible thing I can see resulting from it is a positive outcome not a negative one. So in my opinion it certainly can’t hurt to baptize infants.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Is a baby able to do the following:

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them ... teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19, 20).

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16).

“Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).

“Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19).

There is no example of infant baptism in scripture this is a doctrine of man. Jesus as our example, did not get baptized until the beginning of His ministry, not at birth. Baptism is a decision one makes, when they understand right from wrong and want to choose right and live a new life in Christ.

It’s not forbidden in the scriptures.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

This is a simple question. Is baptism optional for the Christian?

I will be the first to answer. Baptism is NOT optional.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Well baptism doesn’t always result in receiving the Holy Spirit.

“But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike. Even Simon himself believed; and after being baptized, he continued on with Philip, and as he observed signs and great miracles taking place, he was constantly amazed. Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭8‬:‭12‬-‭17‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

There is no normative way the Book of Acts links the Holy Spirit and Baptism. The gift of the HS may come immediately before baptism (Cornelius, Acts 10) immediately after baptism (Acts 8 & 19) or during (Acts 2, 9:17).

 

[BNR32FAN]

Which a baby can't do. A baby can't believe, which is a decision one must make when they understand.

A baby cannot repent- repent from what? Sin- repent means a change of heart- another decision a baby cannot make.

True- which is why we want to make sure our baptisms are valid.

If you keep reading....

Romans 6:6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin

This again is another decision that babies simply can't comprehend or make.

Romans 6:16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?


Yes, baptism is transformative, and babies are not developed to make any conscious decision on anything yet alone their own decision to dedicated themselves to a life lived by the example of Jesus. Which is why there is no example of infant baptism in the Word of God. We are not saved by our parent's decisions; we each must stand before Jesus based on our own decisions.

Actually you don’t know that there is no example of infant baptism in the scriptures. You’re just assuming that the households that were recorded being baptized excluded babies.