Baptism and babies

[East of Eden]

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.

Children came to Jesus voluntarily, infants did not.

 

[Albion]

It is a problem here, and throughout the West, but the point is you can't assume 'household' = infants when not specified.

Then why would it be all right to assume that there were none??

In NT times, people usually did have children as family members, and childless couples still in the childbearing years who did NOT have children were not typical.

 

[East of Eden]

Then why would it be all right to assume that there were none??

As right as assuming there were some.

In NT times, people usually did have children as family members, and childless couples still in the childbearing years who did NOT have children were not typical.

Children yes, but they had infants for a very short time.

 

[Lukaris]

Infants were brought to the Lord ( Luke 18:15-17).

 

[ArmyMatt]

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.

to your first point, there is something similar: circumcision.

I dunno what your second point is about.

and it doesn't always say that to your third. sometimes it just mentions baptism.

 

[East of Eden]

Infants were brought to the Lord ( Luke 18:15-17).

That had nothing to do with baptism, it would probably have been some kind of dedication or healing.

 

[East of Eden]

to your first point, there is something similar: circumcision.

Which was part of the OT covenant, in which male infants were made a part of due to their Jewish parentage and that ceremony. It did not mean they were redeemed. The OT covenant was replaced by 'a better covenant', Heb. 7:22, which was predicted in the OT. In one of his final addresses to the nation of Israel, Moses looks forward to a time when Israel would be given “a heart to understand” (Deuteronomy 29:4, ESV). Infants have no such understanding. The prophet Jeremiah also predicted the New Covenant. “‘The day will come,’ says the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. . . . But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day,’ says the Lord. ‘I will put my law in their minds, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people’” (Jeremiah 31:31, 33). Entering the New Covenant is made possible only by faith in Christ, who shed His blood to take away the sins of the world (John 1:29). The New Covenant is also mentioned in Ezekiel 36:26–27, “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.”

I dunno what your second point is about.

I was referring to the fact that very few US households have a person younger than 3, let alone an infant of a few weeks.

and it doesn't always say that to your third. sometimes it just mentions baptism.

Wouldn't you sort of have to be an adult to understand and obey that command?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Which was part of the OT covenant, in which male infants were made a part of due to their Jewish parentage and that ceremony. It did not mean they were redeemed. The OT covenant was replaced by 'a better covenant', Heb. 7:22, which was predicted in the OT. In one of his final addresses to the nation of Israel, Moses looks forward to a time when Israel would be given “a heart to understand” (Deuteronomy 29:4, ESV). Infants have no such understanding. The prophet Jeremiah also predicted the New Covenant. “‘The day will come,’ says the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. . . . But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day,’ says the Lord. ‘I will put my law in their minds, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people’” (Jeremiah 31:31, 33). Entering the New Covenant is made possible only by faith in Christ, who shed His blood to take away the sins of the world (John 1:29). The New Covenant is also mentioned in Ezekiel 36:26–27, “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.”



I was referring to the fact that very few US households have a person younger than 3, let alone an infant of a few weeks.



Wouldn't you sort of have to be an adult to understand and obey that command?

again, to your first point, you asked for something similar. circumcision is similar to baptism in that it brings you into the covenant.

to your second point, that's irrelevant.

to your third point, no, and the Scripture never says you have to be an adult or not be an infant.

 

[Albion]

As right as assuming there were some.

Not really.

Children yes, but they had infants for a very short time.

So? Your church doesn't baptize 1 year olds, or 2, 3, 4, 5, kindergartners, 7 year olds, etc. either, does it? Most churches that hold to what they call "Believer's Baptism" exclude all pre-teens.

 

[East of Eden]

So? Your church doesn't baptize 1 year olds, or 2, 3, 4, 5, kindergartners, 7 year olds, etc. either, does it? Most churches that hold to what they call "Believer's Baptism" exclude all pre-teens.

They baptized a 10 year old recently, as long as they are old enough to make that decision......."Suffer the little children to come to Me......", right? An infant can make no such decision. "Believer's Baptism" is simply following the NT model of believe and be baptized. There is no clear NT mention of anything else.

 

[Lukaris]

That had nothing to do with baptism, it would probably have been some kind of dedication or healing.

I respectfully disagree in the totality of your statement. I am sure it is true in different aspects not pertaining to baptism but not in pertaining to baptism. I believe we cover our bases in explaining our Orthodox faith & believe you present your views well but we see this differently.

 

[Albion]

They baptized a 10 year old recently, as long as they are old enough to make that decision......."Suffer the little children to come to Me......", right? An infant can make no such decision.

But in the Bible passage that you are referring to, Jesus was telling the adults to let the children come to him, which is what the churches that don't have an artificial age requirement for baptism do when they allow sponsors, usually the parents with other witnesses, to bring the children for baptism and make promises to bring those children up in the faith!

 

[East of Eden]

I respectfully disagree in the totality of your statement. I am sure it is true in different aspects not pertaining to baptism but not in pertaining to baptism. I believe we cover our bases in explaining our Orthodox faith & believe you present your views well but we see this differently.

Understood.

 

[prodromos]

As right as assuming there were some.

Your own statistics for the USA prove you wrong.

 

[East of Eden]

Your own statistics for the USA prove you wrong.

I don't know how you figure that, in the US a household has a 93.5% chance of NOT having a child under three years old.

 

[prodromos]

I don't know how you figure that, in the US a household has a 93.5% chance of NOT having a child under three years old.

That is a non zero number of households with infants. Ergo, "household" includes infants.

 

[East of Eden]

That is a non zero number of households with infants. Ergo, "household" includes infants.

In a small minority of cases.

 

[prodromos]

In a small minority of cases.

So what? Households can and do include infants. I don't even see the relevance of your quoting current USA statistics when they have nothing in common with 1st century Palestine.

 

[Albion]

I don't know how you figure that, in the US a household has a 93.5% chance of NOT having a child under three years old.

That is a non zero number of households with infants. Ergo, "household" includes infants.

In a small minority of cases.

Yes, but let's not be maneuvered into debating the baptism of infants only.

The POV of those Protestant churches that do not permit infants to be baptized also does not permit the baptism of children of older years as well, at least up to Middle School years and, depending on the congregation, even older.

No claim that says most households today do not include infants really addresses the "divide" here. The question actually is "How many do not have small children?" And as you, Prodromos, correctly pointed out, the stats for the USA today are not at all comparable to the peoples of the Eastern Mediterranean in the first or second centuries AD (or at present, for that matter)!

 

[ArmyMatt]

So what? Households can and do include infants. I don't even see the relevance of your quoting current USA statistics when they have nothing in common with 1st century Palestine.

yeah, it was a bizarre thing to bring up (unless I am missing something)