Baptism and babies

[East of Eden]

Therefore, ArmyMatt's point is correct. It's not a winning argument to say that some word does not appear in Scripture but then change the claim to saying that the idea does (but not the word).

We disagree, I don't think the idea of infant baptism is clearly in the NT.

 

[East of Eden]

I guess when Moses split the Red Sea, the Israelites left the infants on the Egyptian coast.

Which has what do do with Christian infant baptism?

 

[East of Eden]

If it was an innovation then there would be evidence of some controversy, as the Church was very serious about "holding fast to the traditions they had been taught by the Apostles, either by word or epistle".

Apparently not the RCC.

Look, I see no point in continuing this conversation, we've all said our piece. I've enjoyed getting your perspective on this. I still have a hard time seeing how an infant with no idea what is happening, and is possibly kicking and screaming against that ritual, then becomes a born again Christian.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Apparently not the RCC.

Look, I see no point in continuing this conversation, we've all said our piece. I've enjoyed getting your perspective on this. I still have a hard time seeing how an infant with no idea what is happening, and is possibly kicking and screaming against that ritual, then becomes a born again Christian.

ask John the Baptist. he jumped in his mother's womb at the voice of Mary.

 

[East of Eden]

ask John the Baptist. he jumped in his mother's womb at the voice of Mary.

A rather unusual circumstance, that.

 

[ArmyMatt]

A rather unusual circumstance, that.

which shows that infants being aware isn't impossible.

 

[East of Eden]

which shows that infants being aware isn't impossible.

Not impossible to walk on water either but I've never seen it done.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Not impossible to walk on water either but I've never seen it done.

right, so infants might be aware enough even if you aren't aware of their awareness.

 

[East of Eden]

right, so infants might be aware enough even if you aren't aware of their awareness.

They are totally unaware of the significance of the baptism going on. The NT model is conversion, followed by baptism.

 

[Albion]

They are totally unaware of the significance of the baptism going on. The NT model is conversion, followed by baptism.

That's probably the #1 mistaken assumption that's made by people who think children were not baptized, according to the Scriptural record.

The NT model for adults is conversion, followed by baptism.

Every account we have in the New Testament of a conversion followed by baptism refers to an adult who came to Christ. But of course that is how any evangelist would go into the world seeking to make converts of all nations. He'd deal with adults! Neither then nor now would it be normal to approach children in preference to their parents!

 

[Justin-H.S.]

Which has what do do with Christian infant baptism?

Israel crossing the Red Sea is a type of baptism.

Rightly Dividing the Red Sea

Looking back to the events of the first exodus in 1 Corinthians 10, the apostle Paul speaks of “our fathers” being under the cloud and passing through the sea, being “baptized” into Moses in the cloud and in the sea (1 Cor. 10:2). The use of the language of baptism to refer to the crossing is arresting. Paul sees in the crossing something analogous to our baptism: Israel is being united to Moses, who, as we’ve seen, experienced his own deliverance from the water many years before. In a similar manner, we’re baptized into Christ, united with him in his death and buried with him, so that the shape of his resurrection life might become the shape of our lives (Rom. 6:4).

 

[Justin-H.S.]

We disagree, I don't think the idea of infant baptism is clearly in the NT.

That's because you're excluding the OT from our story as Orthodox Christians. Otherwise, you wouldn't be limiting our narrative of baptism to the NT.

The crossing of the Red Sea is a type of baptism. The flood is another type of baptism. Don't know about you, but that's how it's always been taught in the Church.

 

[ArmyMatt]

They are totally unaware of the significance of the baptism going on. The NT model is conversion, followed by baptism.

you don't know what they know or don't know. John the Baptist was aware, while in the womb. that's the only example from Scripture of a baby and an encounter with Christ.

and the NT model only follows your logic if we define things like household the way you do.

plus, nowhere does the Scripture say you must be aware of the significance of a baptism, to be baptized.

 

[East of Eden]

That's probably the #1 mistaken assumption that's made by people who think children were not baptized, according to the Scriptural record.

The NT model for adults is conversion, followed by baptism.

Every account we have in the New Testament of a conversion followed by baptism refers to an adult who came to Christ. But of course that is how any evangelist would go into the world seeking to make converts of all nations. He'd deal with adults! Neither then nor now would it be normal to approach children in preference to their parents!

Why not baptize adults, maybe with a sponsor, and hope they eventually come to faith? The early church had a rigorous process for adults who wanted to be baptized, I see no reason for that to go out the window depending on the age of the person.

 

[East of Eden]

you don't know what they know or don't know. John the Baptist was aware, while in the womb. that's the only example from Scripture of a baby and an encounter with Christ.

If God intended infant baptism, He could have easily arranged a similar happening for an infant being baptized in the NT.

and the NT model only follows your logic if we define things like household the way you do.

Yes, less than 7% of US households have an infant under three years old, let alone a few weeks old.

plus, nowhere does the Scripture say you must be aware of the significance of a baptism, to be baptized.

It says, believe, then be baptized. I understand you have traditions that go against that, but so did the Pharisees.

 

[East of Eden]

That's because you're excluding the OT from our story as Orthodox Christians. Otherwise, you wouldn't be limiting our narrative of baptism to the NT.

The crossing of the Red Sea is a type of baptism. The flood is another type of baptism.

People were not redeemed by involvement in the Red Sea Crossing, look at Dathan and company, who the earth later swallowed up. In the OT, the convenant was by birth to Jewish parents, in the NT, it is by faith in Christ.

 

[Not David]

If God intended infant baptism, He could have easily arranged a similar happening for an infant being baptized in the NT.



Yes, less than 7% of US households have an infant under three years old, let alone a few weeks old.



It says, believe, then be baptized. I understand you have traditions that go against that, but so did the Pharisees.

The reason US households have less children is because of anti-children modern feelings, so no a good argument to identify "households"

 

[Lukaris]

There is no introduced human tradition of infant baptism. When the Lord said to bring the children to Him, He meant just that. Why would baptism be excluded? The fact that several entire households were baptized, seems more to attest than not.

 

[Albion]

Why not baptize adults, maybe with a sponsor, and hope they eventually come to faith?

What sense would that make when a normal adult is free to make a commitment to Christ if he so chooses???

 

[East of Eden]

The reason US households have less children is because of anti-children modern feelings, so no a good argument to identify "households"

It is a problem here, and throughout the West, but the point is you can't assume 'household' = infants when not specified. In NT times people didn't live as long, and Lydia for example was a prosperous lady, I doubt they was an early 20-something of childbearing age.