Infant Baptism, why do you reject it?

jckstraw72 said:

youre assuming that not a single household had infants.

Click to expand...

No, I've pinted out twice now that I'm not assuming anything, nor have I said that the households did or did not have small children.

Pointing out that the Bible doesn't say something is not the same as saying that the Bible does say something.

Oblio is saying its highly likely that some did.

Click to expand...

Yes, we understand that, thank you.

Unfortunately, he cannot show why he believes that this is likely or answer my questions that call the likelyhood into question.

Unfortunately, he cannot show why he believes that this is likely or answer my questions that call the likelyhood into question.

Click to expand...

you need him to PROVE that its likely that multiple entire households had infants? You do realize ppl have babies, right?

jckstraw72 said:

you need him to PROVE that its likely that multiple entire households had infants?

Click to expand...

If he's going to claim that the Bible says something, then, yes, it is up to him to show where the Bible says so.

You do realize ppl have babies, right?

Click to expand...

i do. I also realize that babies grow up and that the parents do not contiue to have an endless succession of babies.

i do. I also realize that babies grow up and that the parents do not contiue to have an endless succession of babies.

Click to expand...

You do realize that it was the norm to have many children, as there was a greater chance of having some survive to pass on the family name. Also, this was before birth control, in which case, yes, there pretty much would be a large succession of babies.

Jig said:

You can not possibly be serious...

Click to expand...

I am absolutley 100% percent dead on serious.

Anyhow, you completely jumped over my last scriptural proof in 1 Timothy, where young children and one's household are held seperate from each other...

Click to expand...

It was hardly a proof...in fact your so-called proof involved the fallacy of moving from the particular to the general.

"Household" includes everyone. On those occasions when something more specific is stated, that is done in order to keep the reader from applying the usual definition.

Melethiel said:

You do realize that it was the norm to have many children, as there was a greater chance of having some survive to pass on the family name. Also, this was before birth control, in which case, yes, there pretty much would be a large succession of babies.

Click to expand...

Again, no one is arguing that they did not have children but at some point, nature tells us that women do stop having babies.

Every couple at some point will have their last child and that child will grow up.

You guys can deny that all you like, but it is simply the way the body works.

tall73 said:

What do you all make of this text:

1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

This seems to suggest that it is the faith of the parents, not baptism directly, that makes children holy.

It doesn't preclude the idea that baptism was practiced, but it does provide for another means of holiness.

Click to expand...

This concerns marriage particularly between Christianians and non-Christians. Read the entire bit in context. 1 Cor 7 in no way provides for any form of infant holiness or otherwise.

MikeMcK said:

Again, no one is arguing that they did not have children but at some point, nature tells us that women do stop having babies.

Every couple at some point will have their last child and that child will grow up.

You guys can deny that all you like, but it is simply the way the body works.

Click to expand...

Then we go into the way that people lived in those days. It was common for extended family groups to live together, with the grandparents helping take care of the children. There would also be slaves and servants, who would also have children. Also, you are making the assumption that every household mentioned in Scripture consisted of people with grown children who are over the age of child bearing? There are always exceptions, but we go by the rule, which states that 95% of the time, the household would have very young children.

Act 8:5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.


Act 8:6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.


Act 8:7 For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed [with them]: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed.


Act 8:8 And there was great joy in that city.


Act 8:9 But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one:


Act 8:10 To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.


Act 8:11 And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries.


Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.


how come these people did not have their families baptised?

Act 8:13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.


Act 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:


Act 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:


Act 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)


Act 8:17 Then laid they [their] hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.




also these men and women had not recieved the Holy Ghost at baptism

how come these people did not have their families baptised?

Click to expand...

You are reading that into the text. How do you know they didn't? It doesn't say anything one way or another.

Melethiel said:

Then we go into the way that people lived in those days. It was common for extended family groups to live together, with the grandparents helping take care of the children. There would also be slaves and servants, who would also have children.

Click to expand...

I'm very well aware of this, but that doesn't mean that there are infants in the house that were baptised.

Also, you are making the assumption that every household mentioned in Scripture consisted of people with grown children who are over the age of child bearing?

Click to expand...

This is dishonesty on your part. I've explained to you three times now that I have not made any such assumption.

There are always exceptions, but we go by the rule, which states that 95% of the time, the household would have very young children.

Click to expand...

We're not talking about "very young children". We're talking specifically about infants.

You can twist scripture all you like and feel free to read into it anything you feel seems to support your Unbiblical view, but the bottom line is that there are no examples of infant baptism in scripture. It's always an adult who is being baptised in order to make a public profession of faith, not a baby who is baptised in order to have salvation thrust upon him against his will.

Melethiel said:

You are reading that into the text. How do you know they didn't? It doesn't say anything one way or another.
[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]

Click to expand...

cause it says, both men and women


does not read like these ones either




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neh 8:2 And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eze 9:6 Slay utterly old [and] young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom [is] the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which [were] before the house.

I'm very well aware of this, but that doesn't mean that there are infants in the house that were baptised.

Click to expand...

Again, you are trying to put the exception on instead of the rule. It was more than likely that there were infants.

Infants ARE "very young children". Where is the line between infant and child? What makes it okay for a 2 year old to be baptized but not a 1 year old?

not a baby who is baptised in order to have salvation thrust upon him against his will.

Click to expand...

We ALL have salvation thrust upon us against our will, which is ever in rebellion to God. It is only by the mercy of God that ANY are saved. "There are none righteous, no, not one. There are none who seek God."

Jig said:

If saving faith was not cognitive (a process of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment), then it isn't by our free-will we are saved.

Click to expand...

Yeah, so? That's exactly right, we aren't saved by our "free will" because we don't have any.

The Bible says that we are lost and dead, that no one is righteous, that no one seeks God.

If anyone has faith, it is because God has given it to him, because God has given him a new heart.

Jig said:

It's a free gift for the taking. We must choose to be saved. Those who can't, obviously are exempt and will be saved regardless.

Click to expand...

My Gospel says that no one comes to the Father unless the Son draws him, and that there is no other name under which a man may be saved.

It makes no provision for ignorance.

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

When the Bible says the whole household followed the father, the covenant head in Baptism, it's not admitting of any exceptions.

In order for the Baptist to be right, in every instance where the expression is used in the NT there must necessarily have been no children in the household because there is absolutely no possibility that if there were children that they would have been excluded.

For the Baptist to say that these households had no children is to go beyond what Scripture says and to read into it a theological perspective unknown to the text.

And it is to base a dogmatic principle on silence.

1Cr 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.


1Cr 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?


1Cr 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;


1Cr 1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.


1Cr 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.


1Cr 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.


1Cr 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.


1Cr 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.


1Cr 1:20 Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?


1Cr 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.


1Cr 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:


1Cr 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;


1Cr 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.


1Cr 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.


1Cr 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, [are called]:


1Cr 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;


1Cr 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:


1Cr 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.


1Cr 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:


1Cr 1:31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

this verse still doesn't say babes and young children

Melethiel said:

Again, you are trying to put the exception on instead of the rule. It was more than likely that there were infants.

Click to expand...

And, again, not only have you not shown that this is the rule, you're reading your beliefs into scripture, rather than letting scripture shape your beliefs.

We ALL have salvation thrust upon us against our will, which is ever in rebellion to God.

Click to expand...

Not true. God tells us that we are to choose salvation.

Iollain said:

1Cr 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

Click to expand...

To add, in the 'rig-nal Greek it notes that the home of Stephanas was baptized - household merely clarifies.