Infant Baptism, why do you reject it?

[tall73]

Not quite. The natural reading of "household" must include all that a household normally includes. It only doesn't include them when the text excplicitly exlcudes them.

This applies to any word, in any text. Not just Scripture.

If a line from some other text said, "The Gauls destroyed the village," the natural reading is that there were people in the village who were killed.

Indeed, and there were people in the houshold that was baptized. You just haven't shown that any were children who were baptized.

Again, you can make statistical probabilities, but there is no evidence that directly shows it.

 

[Catholic Dude]

Think of it this way: in Egypt, just prior to the passover, what if a believing Hebrew had been married to an unbeliever? (and yes, it happened). If even ONE of the parents believed (and painted the blood on the lintel (and blood on the lintel was a foreshadowing of baptism, by the way!)) their household was sanctified (set aside) and protected from the angel of death.

One passage St Augustine talks about is this:

7 and the LORD said to Moses, 8 "Take the rod, and assemble the congregation, you and Aaron your brother, and tell the rock before their eyes to yield its water; so you shall bring water out of the rock for them; so you shall give drink to the congregation and their cattle."
9 And Moses took the rod from before the LORD, as he commanded him. 10 And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said to them, "Hear now, you rebels; shall we bring forth water for you out of this rock?"

11 And Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock with his rod twice; and water came forth abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their cattle.-Nm20
​

From this passage St Augustine talks about how it prefigured Baptism. The rod represents the wood of the cross, the two strikes represent the two beams of the cross, the rock is Christ, the water is the water from the side of Christ.

Amazing old St Aug!

 

[MikeMcK]

You've explained it, yes, but you keep contradicting yourself.

No, I've been very consistent that I have not said that there were children or that there were not children. I've simply pointed out that the text does not say.

Obviously, if many children is not the rule, which you claim I haven't proven it is, that no children is the rule. Logic.

And again, I haven't said that there were many children, some children, or no children. I've said nothing about the number of children, only that the text does not say.

Altar calls. Age of accountability. "Accepting Jesus into your heart." Lack of Sacraments in favors of "ordinances".

None of these are Unbiblical. If you believe that they are, then please feel free to show us what teachings in scripture they contradict.

Now who's reading their beliefs into Scripture?

Still you.

As for not including the whole verse, it's because I was quoting from memory. I believe it's quite applicable here; are we not all disciples of Christ?

In this case, no. Even if it does apply to us, it still does not refer to our inability to choose Christ.

Bondage of the Will is based fully on Scripture.

But nothing you've said has been based on the Bible and the two verses you've cited, you've quoted out of context and read a meaning into them that isn't there.

Why would I want to read the book you say inspired you to do this?

 

[KEPLER]

One passage St Augustine talks about is this:

7 and the LORD said to Moses, 8 "Take the rod, and assemble the congregation, you and Aaron your brother, and tell the rock before their eyes to yield its water; so you shall bring water out of the rock for them; so you shall give drink to the congregation and their cattle."
9 And Moses took the rod from before the LORD, as he commanded him. 10 And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said to them, "Hear now, you rebels; shall we bring forth water for you out of this rock?"

11 And Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock with his rod twice; and water came forth abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their cattle.-Nm20
​

From this passage St Augustine talks about how it prefigured Baptism. The rod represents the wood of the cross, the two strikes represent the two beams of the cross, the rock is Christ, the water is the water from the side of Christ.

Amazing old St Aug!

Yes, Auggie was right on!

The waters of Creation, The water at Horeb, the blood on the lintel, the waters of Noah's flood, the ashes of the heiffer mixed with water, circumcision, and the waters of the Red Sea are all things which are either explicitly or implicitly cited by the NT as prefigures of baptism.

Cheers,

Kepler

 

[Melethiel]

Why would I want to read the book you say inspired you to do this?

I did not say it inspired me to do anything. I said that it better explains my position. If you do not even want to know my position, then I am finished here.

But nothing you've said has been based on the Bible and the two verses you've cited, you've quoted out of context and read a meaning into them that isn't there.

"There are none righteous, there are none who seek God." Looks pretty straightforward to me.

But at any rate, we're just going around in circles now, and I feel like I'm not explaining my position properly. I'm off to do my biology homework.

Kepler, care to take over?

 

[MikeMcK]

I did not say it inspired me to do anything. I said that it better explains my position. If you do not even want to know my position, then I am finished here.

"There are none righteous, there are none who seek God." Looks pretty straightforward to me.

But at any rate, we're just going around in circles now, and I feel like I'm not explaining my position properly. I'm off to do my biology homework.

Kepler, care to take over?

I apologize. I didn't notice that you were 16. I'm not going to have a theological debate with a sixteen year old.

 

[KEPLER]

Kepler, care to take over?

Oh, my sister, Mel, I was sooooooo enjoying the show.

I apologize. I didn't notice that you were 16. I'm not going to have a theological debate with a child.

Well, Mike...you just got bested, and methinks you don't even realize it.

And BTW, you'd do well not to excuse her as a "child"...she's smarter, better educated and more biblically literate than you and I put together, pal.

Cheers,

Kepler

 

[Melethiel]

I apologize. I didn't notice that you were 16. I'm not going to have a theological debate with a sixteen year old.

Here we go again. Someone remind me to take my age off my profile. Listen closely: I am perfectly able to engage in theology. My age has nothing to do with this. If I can handle a full university course load, I can handle this.

*now really is going off to study organic chemistry*

 

[Oblio]

I'm not going to have a theological debate with a sixteen year old.

Going or able ?

 

[Oblio]

:spssssssssst:

 

[KEPLER]

:spssssssssst:

I just love the smell of napalm on my computer screen....

 

[Oblio]

I just love the smell of napalm on my computer screen....

Check my avatar, it's Holy Myrrh from the reliquary of St. Johnson of Waxessa

 

[Jig]

"Household" means everyone who lives under the roof, mom, dad, children, slaves, everyone.

Then why is there a clear cut seperation between young children (which undoubtably includes infants and babies) and ones household in 1 Timothy 3:12?

12Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households.

 

[Jig]

1) Grammar please: verbs and their subjects must agree in number (even in parenthetical phrases). I can tolerate a spelling mistake now and then, but stupid grammar mistakes rankle me.

This has nothing to do with the debate at hand. You are simply trying to say something negative about my post.

2) Jesus taught by analogy. (Parables are, by their very nature, analogical.) Thpppppp! (that's a raspberry, BTW)

And this is supposed to prove analogies are evidence? I'm sure any court of law would strongly disagree with you.

3) You haven't proven anything about the word "household". Please, Jig, go take a college level logic class (and a grammar class while you're at it).

In that case, you haven't been paying much attention. Also, nice unnessacary negative remark at the end there. How does insulting me prove anything about the topic we are discussing?

You sound like a Jehovah's Witness who once knocked on my door. He said, "There is not a single Scripture which explicitly says, 'Jesus is God.'" And, of course, he was 100% correct. But we may infer that Jesus is God from many other Scriptures (the ones where He goes around forgiving people being among the strongest).

Well, it does say..."and the Word (God) became flesh" That's pretty darn close, but that's not the point. There is strong evidence for the deity of Jesus, this is not so for infant baptism.

Old Covenant infants were circumcised; New Covenant infants are baptized. We are in the New Covenant ("This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.") Paul explicitly states that baptism is our circumcision.

It would be great if you could provide some verses/passages.

Yes, Jig, there are examples of adults who converted, all of whom were baptized after they believed. SO. WHAT??

Don't down play it, there are ONLY examples of such...that is a big deal.

Any proselytes who converted to Judaism were taught first, and then circumcised. But children born into the covenant were circumcised first, and then taught. Christians follow the exact same model.

Is there any verses that back this up as being the model after Jesus death?

Anyhow...
1. In every New Testament command and instance of baptism the requirement of faith precedes baptism. So infants incapable of faith are not to be baptized

2. There are no explicit instances of infant baptism in all the Bible. The three "household baptisms" mentioned (household of Lydia, Acts 16:15; household of the Philippian jailer, Acts 16:30-33; household of Stephanus, 1 Corinthians 1:16) no mention is made of infants, and in the case of the Philippian jailer, Luke says explicitly, "they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house" (Acts 16:32), implying that the household who were baptized could understand the word of the Lord.

3. Paul (in Colossians 2:12) explicitly defined baptism as an act done through faith: ". . . having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God." In baptism you were raised up with Christ through faith - your own faith, not your parents' faith. If it is not "through faith" - if it is not an outward expression of inward faith - it is not baptism.

4. The apostle Peter, in his first letter, defined baptism this way, ". . . not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 3:21). Baptism is "an appeal to God for a good conscience." It is an outward act and expression of inner confession and prayer to God for cleansing, that the one being baptized does, not his parents.

5. When the New Testament church debated in Acts 15 whether circumcision should still be required of believers as part of becoming a Christian, it is astonishing that not once in that entire debate did anyone say anything about baptism standing in the place of circumcision. If baptism is the simple replacement of circumcision as a sign of the new covenant, and thus valid for children as well as for adults, as circumcision was, surely this would have been the time to develop the argument and so show that circumcision was no longer necessary. But it is not even mentioned.

6. In 1 Timothy 3:12 there is a clear seperation between young children and ones household.

 

[Oblio]

Then why is there a clear cut seperation between young children (which undoubtably includes infants and babies) and ones household in 1 Timothy 3:12?

Because the author wanted to express it that way

You are basing an entire modern doctrine on a fragment of a sentence that has nothing to do with the specific issue at hand and dismissing the rest of Holy Scripture and 2000 years of Christian praxis.

In 1 Timothy 3:12 there is a clear seperation between young children and ones household.

And there are more that do not have such a separation.

No one has yet produced any evidence that children are not part of families or housholds.

 

[tall73]

Because the author wanted to express it that way

You are basing an entire modern doctrine on a fragment of a sentence that has nothing to do with the specific issue at hand and dismissing the rest of Holy Scripture and 2000 years of Christian praxis.



And there are more that do not have such a separation.

No one has yet produced any evidence that children are not part of families or housholds.

Well since we are looking at culture the household could very well refer to servants, etc. A large percentage of people were servants who had benefactors.

In that case it would make sense to have a distinction.

 

[Oblio]

Well since we are looking at culture the household could very well refer to servants, etc.

Precisely. A houshold included servants, mothers, fathers, grandmothers, grandfathers, slaves, children and grandchildren and others under the roof of the patriarch. It is only here in the modern West where we see 'nuclear' families, and even those often (enough to require explicit exclusion if the Gospel were written today in the West) include children below the post-Reformational Age of Accountability

 

[jckstraw72]

Don't down play it, there are ONLY examples of such...that is a big deal.

that would be bc the faith was still new, and the purposes of the book of Acts is to show the growth of the church to both Jews and Gentiles. This would obviously be about converts. You have to get those first couple of generations before youre going to get too many infants born into the faith...but of course that ol' Philippian jailer had his whole family baptized and it says nothing about them believing first if i recall correctly.

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

Then why is there a clear cut seperation between young children (which undoubtably includes infants and babies) and ones household in 1 Timothy 3:12?

12Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households.

Because the description is intended to detail a Deacons aptitude for governing real people subordinate to him rather than just a subsuming entity.

Other than that I'd suggest it's just a redundancy.

But, above all, the context has nothing to do with baptism.

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

that would be bc the faith was still new, and the purposes of the book of Acts is to show the growth of the church to both Jews and Gentiles. This would obviously be about converts. You have to get those first couple of generations before youre going to get too many infants born into the faith...but of course that ol' Philippian jailer had his whole family baptized and it says nothing about them believing first if i recall correctly.

Well said.

And a note on your last point, the Philippian Jailer's family believed what Daddy believed. That's how it was back then, the head of household set the vision for the whole family.

That the world today demands something different is irrelevant.

My children still believe as I do because of what God has made me in my family.

Neither the church nor the family is an outcome-based democratic society.