Infant Baptism, why do you reject it?

[Melethiel]

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.

So you're suggesting that it's the rule that all the households that were baptized consisted of people past the age of child bearing? And FYI, it was when I started letting Scripture shape my beliefs that I left the Baptist church.

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

That doesn't mean we are able to, as Scripture elsewhere testifies. "You have no chosen me, I have chosen you." "There are none who seek God."
Luther's "Bondage of the Will" is an excellent treatise on this matter.

 

[Iollain]

if you look through all the Bible at household, sometimes it is whole households, with the very young, sometimes they are not included. The verse still says both men and women

 

[KEPLER]

Second, you're assuming that the children who may be in the household are small children and not twelve or thirteen years old or older, which is typically when baptism-appropriate age begins. You don't know that this is true, either.

Ahh! The mythical "age of accountability" displays its gruesome visage yet again.

Oh, and by way, re: "age of accountability" --- P P R

 

[MikeMcK]

So you're suggesting that it's the rule that all the households that were baptized consisted of people past the age of child bearing?

I'm sorry, but I've explained this to you four times now. I don't know how I can dumb it down any more for you.

And FYI, it was when I started letting Scripture shape my beliefs that I left the Baptist church.

OK. Name one Baptist teaching that isn't supported by scripture.

If scripture does shape your beliefs, then why are you reading your beliefs into scripture?

That doesn't mean we are able to, as Scripture elsewhere testifies.

"You have no chosen me, I have chosen you."

Actually, you've taken this verse (and not even the whole verse, at that) out of context. It isn't referring to salvation, but to Jesus' calling of the Disciples.

"There are none who seek God."

This is referring to our sinfulness, not to our inability to seek God.

Luther's "Bondage of the Will" is an excellent treatise on this matter.

The Bible is better.

 

[MikeMcK]

Ahh! The mythical "age of accountability" displays its gruesome visage yet again.

No, actually, I didn't say anything about the age of accountability.

What is it with you people and not being able to read other people's posts?

 

[Iollain]

I've seen 5 and 6 year old baptised.

 

[KEPLER]

Look at what "evidence" is givien to support infant baptism.

Analogies (which is not true evidence), questionable comparisons (again, not true evidence), and loose scriptural definitions of the single word "household" (which has been proven to hold little water, if that).

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.

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

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).

Funny how there is absolutely no clear cut scriptural evidence for infant baptism. This belief evolves around considerably large assumptions and fallable tradition. There is not one proof positive example of a infant or young child getting baptized in scripture. There is no verse or passage that clearly (beyond any doubt) mentions infants or young children being baptized.

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).

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.

There is mulitple verses that strongly suggest all that were baptized, first believed, and all of which just happen to be adults.

"There is multiple verses..." Good grief. "all of which..." double-dog good grief.

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

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.

Sadly, there is a few denominations out there, that teach and preach infant baptism, and if one of their members disagrees, they are no longer a true member.

"...there is a few denominations..."

A few? You once argued, Jig, in another baptism thread several months ago, that numbers didn't matter. That, just becasue 80% of Christians world-wide baptise their infants, that didn't make it right...? And now you're going to argue just a "few" denominations believe in infant baptism?

So, since there are roughly 30,000 variants on methodist, baptist, and pentecostal (who are realy just methodists themselves) denominations, you now think that somehow having the "numbers" on your side makes it right?

?

BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

How droll.

and if one of their members disagrees, they are no longer a true member.

Ah! And if a member of a Baptist church was found to be a crypto-paedobaptist? Would not he also "no longer be a true member?" What a silly argument.

K

 

[KEPLER]

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.

Hey ! Now we're getting somewhere!

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.

On this last thing, that thing in red there...see it?

PPR (provide proof or retract)

 

[KEPLER]

It expresses the view well. A few critiques:

a. You said that there was a strong BIBLICAL basis. But the household evidence and arguments from circumcision are the only ones I see so far that are biblical arguments. Analogies are helpful for undersatanding, but not for evidence.

Sorry, my analogy wasn't specifically a reply to your request for a biblical basis;it was simply offered for what it is.

I kind of feel like the biblical basis has been described by multiple people here... To be sure, no one has systematically gone through and made the entire case in a single post, but the arguments for it have been presented fairly clearly.

b. The government makes citizens. But this is a legal right that is granted in the constitution. We see no such indication in print in the Bible. Now you could say in later Christian writings we do. That is of course not authoritative to some, and it is to others. The point is that the goverment says it will do the one, but we have no direct word from God that he will do the latter.

God said of Christ, (when Jesus was baptized): "This is my Son, with whom I am well pleased." When we are baptized...and clothed with Christ (literally, "covered"), God sees His Son, with whom He is well pleased. We are declared His Sons, by Grace, because of Christ.

c. Circumcision too is spelled out and specific regulations are given for children. This is again, not the case for baptism.

We are prefectly safe in transferring the benefits of circumcision onto New Testament infants. The curses of the law associated with circumcision were, as we all know, taken by Christ on the Cross.

See the next post, as well. It's a question directed everyone, not just you.

 

[KEPLER]

It helps to define the terms...

A. Is Baptism God's action, done by Him, through the Holy Spirit, to adopt us into His family?

or

B. Is Baptism our action, an act of obedience to publicly profess our belief?


A or B ???

 

[Oblio]

A

 

[tall73]

You (and other anabaptistish types) attempt to discredit paedobaptism by assuming there are no infants/children in the household because they are not explicitly mentioned in the Baptism passages. The fact is, it is the norm for households to have children, especially in the family units in the Eastern culture in question where families were not the post-modern, hedonistic 'families' we see today in the west. There was no need to mention that children were there, because it would be abberant for them to be missing. If a couple or family were without children, we see it mentioned explicitly elsewhere in Scripture, yet WRT Baptism, we do not.

There were othere reasons besides lack of hedonism. Agricultural society and more to take care of them in their old age spring to mind.

 

[tall73]

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.

I seem to recall evidence that there was birth control at that time, but simply less incentive.

 

[tall73]

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.

I think you need to look again at all the implications of the text. It specifically references the holiness of the CHILDREN. He related the status of the child to the faith of at least one parent. Obviously the issue of households was also in question, because it was the unbelieving spouse that in some people's minds made the child unclean. This would especially be the case where it was an unbelieving husband, because of the houshold notions. This household concept obviously went both ways. If a pagan husband was in charge of his houshold, it would create problems for the believer. But Paul says that they don't have to leave just for that reason. And he specifically points out that despite the unbelief of the husband (and in the context of Corinth, likely the belief in pagan religions, etc.), the children were still holy by the faith of the believer.

So Paul discounts the idea that an unbelieving husband (or wife) makes of no effect the faith of the beliving spouse. And he seems to indicate that the benefits of such are extended to the children.

 

[KEPLER]

any takers yet on 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.

Weird...I was trying to repsond to the above...but when I pressed "quote" I got the text below:

There were othere reasons besides lack of hedonism. Agricultural society and more to take care of them in their old age spring to mind.

Anyways...I have to ask tall...what is that passage for? It seems that Paul is comforting those that have unbelieving spouses and are worried about their children...and worried that the unbelief of the spouse will be held against the child?

Here's why. The ancient rite of Baptism includes an exorcism. It usually goes something like this: "Do you renounce the devil and all of his ways?", to which either the Baptisand or the parent responds, "Yes."

Paul could be saying, "go ahead and baptise your child" beause the faith of even a one of the parents "sanctifies" the household (i.e., sets it apart from the ravenous exploits of the devil).

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.

K

 

[tall73]

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.

And to say that there were is the same.

 

[KEPLER]

I seem to recall evidence that there was birth control at that time, but simply less incentive.

Indeed...condoms were made from sheeps intestines. Abortion was also well known, as was the practice of exposure, which is far more heinous than abortion.

 

[Melethiel]

I'm sorry, but I've explained this to you four times now. I don't know how I can dumb it down any more for you.

You've explained it, yes, but you keep contradicting yourself. Obviously, if many children is not the rule, which you claim I haven't proven it is, that no children is the rule. Logic.

OK. Name one Baptist teaching that isn't supported by scripture.

If scripture does shape your beliefs, then why are you reading your beliefs into scripture?

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

I am not reading my beliefs into Scripture.

This is referring to our sinfulness, not to our inability to seek God.

Now who's reading their beliefs into Scripture?

Actually, you've taken this verse (and not even the whole verse, at that) out of context. It isn't referring to salvation, but to Jesus' calling of the Disciples.

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?

The Bible is better.

Bondage of the Will is based fully on Scripture. Read it and get back to me.

 

[KEPLER]

And to say that there were is the same.

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.

 

[tall73]

Weird...I was trying to repsond to the above...but when I pressed "quote" I got the text below:



Anyways...I have to ask tall...what is that passage for? It seems that Paul is comforting those that have unbelieving spouses and are worried about their children...and worried that the unbelief of the spouse will be held against the child?

Here's why. The ancient rite of Baptism includes an exorcism. It usually goes something like this: "Do you renounce the devil and all of his ways?", to which either the Baptisand or the parent responds, "Yes."

Paul could be saying, "go ahead and baptise your child" beause the faith of even a one of the parents "sanctifies" the household (i.e., sets it apart from the ravenous exploits of the devil).

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.

K

I just explained my take above. But the point is as you said, the faith of one sanctified the child.....if baptism did they wouldn't be discussing it because the children would be baptized. But the household issue goes both ways. So yes, they were worried about their children.