Infant Baptism, why do you reject it?

[Jig]

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

You think it may be a redundancy? Scripture is NOT needlessly wordy!

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

That is not the point. The whole idea here is to see what the meaning of the word 'household' could mean within scripture. I merely brought up the fact that in 1 Timothy, household is used in such a way that excludes young children and apparently infants. An interesting note since your definition of the word 'household' includes young children and infants.

 

[Jig]

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.

What happens if daddy doesn't believe in the correct faith?

I wonder what Jesus meant by this:

34"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
35"For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;
36and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

You think it may be a redundancy? Scripture is NOT needlessly wordy!

Who said redundancies are necessarily needless? Not I.

That is not the point. The whole idea here is to see what the meaning of the word 'household' could mean within scripture. I merely brought up the fact that in 1 Timothy, household is used in such a way that excludes young children and apparently infants. An interesting note since your definition of the word 'household' includes young children and infants.

Right, and I answered you by pointing out that the point of the text is Paul reiterating the importance of a Deacon having proper governance of his family.

The passage is not meant, nor can it be used to illuminate the meaning of the word "household".

The redundancy is there to key the whole instruction to the nature of the father's relationship to his family being correlative to the Deacon's relationship to his church family.

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

What happens if daddy doesn't believe in the correct faith?

Thus the seriousness with which Scripture enjoins proper headship to fathers. A disbelieving father puts the souls of his whole family in danger.

But even so, if the call of the gospel should come to the minor child of a disbelieving parent, that child is right to believe it even if his father does not.

The point is the nature of filial covenant membership. The disbelieving father is not in covenant with God. The believing father is. In the latter case the covenant is explicitly extended to his children.

An absence of covenant membership cannot be extended. An absence of something is incapable of inclusion.

I wonder what Jesus meant by this:

34"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
35"For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;
36and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.

He meant that some people would believe in Him while others would not and that this would create conflict within families.

I think we agree about this.

But nothing I've said should be taken as a disagreement with it for the reason I've given above.

 

[KEPLER]

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

No, really...I'm a grammar Nazi. Somtimes it gets the better of me.

Apologies.

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

While an analogy is indeed not evidence, it IS meaningful and relevant.

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?

It doesn't. I apologize.

Nevertheless, your arguments are still illogical. Just because ONE household comprises only adult believers does not therefore mean ALL households are the same. As I said to tall73, the natural reading of household must include the things one normally expects to find in a (1st century eastern Mediterranean) household.

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.

Well, I spent 10 seconds arguing like a JW; I can't do it anymore. The point however, is that there are a number of inferred doctrines that we find in the Scriptures. The Trinity is an oft cited example as well.

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

Colossians 2 was the one I was thinking of....

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.

Okaaaaaaaay......"big deal" SEE THE NEXT POST.

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

"Are there...?"

Oops, sorry. See above.

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

Ah, the fallacy of hasty generalization.

If I have ten cats in a room, all of which have green eyes, does that prove that all cats have green eyes? No.

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,

There is also no explicit reference which denies Infant baptism.

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.

Interesting. When I lived in Berlin, I had an elderly gentleman "speak to me" once because I had accidentally dropped an empty cup on the floor of the U-Bahn station. Actually he yelled at me. Now just because he "spoke to" me does not imply -- in any way, shape, or form -- that I necessarily understood him. (Yes, I understood his frantic hand gestures, but not his words).

Just BECAUSE they spoke to all of his house, does NOT NECESSARILY mean that ALL were capable of understanding.

Sheesh.

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.

Again, hasty generalization. Paul is speaking to adults converts.

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.

Hasty generalizaiton.

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.

Assuming the consequent; Begging the Question; Petitio principii; Circular reasoning; tautology

You are assuming that infant baptism was not practised and then using that assumption as the reason for it not being mentioned in Acts 15.

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

1) The text does not say "young". The greek is neither paedos (which covers infants through pre-teen) nor brephos (which is spedifically infants). The greek is teknon. Even though I am 37, I am still a teknon (as I relate to my parents). IOW, even though I am not a child, I am still my Father's child.

Wow! ...wood'ja lookit that? SAME word (child) means something completely different, depending on the context.

In the case of 1 Tim 3:12, Paul is ONLY making the distinction between people (in the household) for whom the deacon is repsonsible because they are his offspring (teknon) AND for whom he is responsible simply because they reside in his house (his widowed mother-in-law, orphaned nieces or nephews, servants, slaves, or just a Christian brother who has come to live with him). The distinction is that the deacon is responsible for the whole house, not just his kids.

2) Hasty generalization - Just becasue Paul makes this distinction here does not mean we always apply such a distinction. Just because Timothy's cat had green eyes does not mean that all cats in the NT had green eyes.

K

 

[KEPLER]

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.

Okaaaaaaaay......"big deal" SEE THE NEXT POST.

If I understand your reasoning here, you are suggesting that BECAUSE we have no explicit references in the New Testament to infant baptism, we therefore ought not practice it?

Or, to put it another way, we should practice Baptism (indeed, all of our beliefs) ONLY in the way that we see clearly and unambigously demonstrated in the New Testament...is that what you are saying?

 

[Oblio]

What happens if daddy doesn't believe in the correct faith?

Then it is not a Christian Baptism and the candidate either (in the case of non-Trinitarian heretics) needs to be Baptised, or in the case of heterodox, Chrismated.

 

[winsome]

If I understand your reasoning here, you are suggesting that BECAUSE we have no explicit references in the New Testament to infant baptism, we therefore ought not practice it?

Or, to put it another way, we should practice Baptism (indeed, all of our beliefs) ONLY in the way that we see clearly and unambigously demonstrated in the New Testament...is that what you are saying?

The Scene – Church of Sola Scriptura, somewhere in Asia Minor, circa 400 AD…

In rushes a dishevelled Salvinus, “Tychus, that Baptism you are doing this morning, you are not to baptise the baby.”
Tychus, “Why ever not”
Salvinus, Elder Marcus has just had the official list of what books are in scripture. He’s been up all night checking them out and apparently infant baptism isn’t explicitly mentioned in them.”
Tychus “But we’ve always baptised infants”
Salvinus “Not any more apparently”
Tychus “Where did this official list come from”
Salvinus “Rome”
Tychus “Rome! But do we take any notice of Rome?”
Salvinus, “Well not normally, but apparently this list is final, everyone’s accepting it, and Elder Marcus says we ought to go along with it, although he personally would dump the letter of James.”
Tychus “But we’ve always baptised infants, everyone baptises infants, Paul did when he baptised the jailer’s family, and Peter baptised Cornelius’ family – it’s here in Acts”, takes down scroll and winds through it.
Salvinus “But it doesn’t explicitly mention infants being baptised”.
Tychus “Wait, wait, there’s that letter from Paul to the Laodicians. I remember Paul mentions baptising a baby. Let me find it.” Rummages at the back of the scroll cupboard. “Here it is”. Reads, “And I baptised the whole family from Erebus to baby Gallius”
Salvinus “No good, that letter is not on the official list. The Laodicians didn’t pass it around. We only got a copy because Quintus happened to be there.”
Tychus “Not pass it around! Why not?”
Salvinus “Well you know what the Laodicians were like, lazy, lukewarm.”
Tychus “Can’t we send it to Rome? Get it put in the list?”
Salvinus “Too late, Marcus says it’s all sealed and finalised. Others may carry on baptising infants but not us. We are strictly Sola Scriptura.”
Tychus “So no more infant baptisms then for us! And this letter is useless”.

Throws scroll in bin.

 

[tall73]

The Scene – Church of Sola Scriptura, somewhere in Asia Minor, circa 400 AD…

In rushes a dishevelled Salvinus, “Tychus, that Baptism you are doing this morning, you are not to baptise the baby.”
Tychus, “Why ever not”
Salvinus, Elder Marcus has just had the official list of what books are in scripture. He’s been up all night checking them out and apparently infant baptism isn’t explicitly mentioned in them.”
Tychus “But we’ve always baptised infants”
Salvinus “Not any more apparently”
Tychus “Where did this official list come from”
Salvinus “Rome”
Tychus “Rome! But do we take any notice of Rome?”
Salvinus, “Well not normally, but apparently this list is final, everyone’s accepting it, and Elder Marcus says we ought to go along with it, although he personally would dump the letter of James.”
Tychus “But we’ve always baptised infants, everyone baptises infants, Paul did when he baptised the jailer’s family, and Peter baptised Cornelius’ family – it’s here in Acts”, takes down scroll and winds through it.
Salvinus “But it doesn’t explicitly mention infants being baptised”.
Tychus “Wait, wait, there’s that letter from Paul to the Laodicians. I remember Paul mentions baptising a baby. Let me find it.” Rummages at the back of the scroll cupboard. “Here it is”. Reads, “And I baptised the whole family from Erebus to baby Gallius”
Salvinus “No good, that letter is not on the official list. The Laodicians didn’t pass it around. We only got a copy because Quintus happened to be there.”
Tychus “Not pass it around! Why not?”
Salvinus “Well you know what the Laodicians were like, lazy, lukewarm.”
Tychus “Can’t we send it to Rome? Get it put in the list?”
Salvinus “Too late, Marcus says it’s all sealed and finalised. Others may carry on baptising infants but not us. We are strictly Sola Scriptura.”
Tychus “So no more infant baptisms then for us! And this letter is useless”.

Throws scroll in bin.

I found this pretty humerous

However, I have read two copies in English of Paul's letter to the Laodiceans and don't see anything like what you mentioned. What part is it found in? (the whole thing seems rather short, and nearly a copy of other of his statements. Unlike his other letters there is no theological section, only the salutation and the imperatives).

 

[winsome]

I found this pretty humerous

However, I have read two copies in English of Paul's letter to the Laodiceans and don't see anything like what you mentioned. What part is it found in? (the whole thing seems rather short, and nearly a copy of other of his statements. Unlike his other letters there is no theological section, only the salutation and the imperatives).

It's in the lost appendix, that some say was added later by a copyist

 

[tall73]

It's in the lost appendix, that some say was added later by a copyist

ah...that a joke then? Sorry, not trying to be dense, but it kind of kills your whole argument if you don't in fact have a nice obvious early reference

 

[Dragons87]

God told Abraham to circumcise his kids when they were 8 days old. How it works from there, you can work it out yourselves.

 

[KEPLER]

The Scene – Church of Sola Scriptura, somewhere in Asia Minor, circa 400 AD…

In rushes a dishevelled Salvinus, “Tychus, that Baptism you are doing this morning, you are not to baptise the baby.”
Tychus, “Why ever not”
Salvinus, Elder Marcus has just had the official list of what books are in scripture. He’s been up all night checking them out and apparently infant baptism isn’t explicitly mentioned in them.”
Tychus “But we’ve always baptised infants”
Salvinus “Not any more apparently”
Tychus “Where did this official list come from”
Salvinus “Rome”
Tychus “Rome! But do we take any notice of Rome?”
Salvinus, “Well not normally, but apparently this list is final, everyone’s accepting it, and Elder Marcus says we ought to go along with it, although he personally would dump the letter of James.”
Tychus “But we’ve always baptised infants, everyone baptises infants, Paul did when he baptised the jailer’s family, and Peter baptised Cornelius’ family – it’s here in Acts”, takes down scroll and winds through it.
Salvinus “But it doesn’t explicitly mention infants being baptised”.
Tychus “Wait, wait, there’s that letter from Paul to the Laodicians. I remember Paul mentions baptising a baby. Let me find it.” Rummages at the back of the scroll cupboard. “Here it is”. Reads, “And I baptised the whole family from Erebus to baby Gallius”
Salvinus “No good, that letter is not on the official list. The Laodicians didn’t pass it around. We only got a copy because Quintus happened to be there.”
Tychus “Not pass it around! Why not?”
Salvinus “Well you know what the Laodicians were like, lazy, lukewarm.”
Tychus “Can’t we send it to Rome? Get it put in the list?”
Salvinus “Too late, Marcus says it’s all sealed and finalised. Others may carry on baptising infants but not us. We are strictly Sola Scriptura.”
Tychus “So no more infant baptisms then for us! And this letter is useless”.

Throws scroll in bin.

Nice.

 

[nephilimiyr]

God told Abraham to circumcise his kids when they were 8 days old. How it works from there, you can work it out yourselves.

They were under the law, we are not.

 

[Dragons87]

They were under the law, we are not.

My point is: it is clear that even 8-day circumcisions does not mean automatic devotion to God, but they still count as a reminder as a promise to God. A child baptism can only also be purely ceremonial, with the parents committing to devote their children to God. The free devotion to God can be made later in life.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Why do I reject infant Baptism? For one, nowhere in the New Testament does it command us to do so. Secondly, infant baptism is favoritism at it's worst. If infant baptism was what Jesus wanted then what we have is Jesus wanting only infants who happen to be lucky enough to have believing parents enter salvation if they die as infants but for those infants who have non-believing parents, well they simply have no chance.

This is punishing children for something they have no control over as well as rewarding children for something they have no control over. Now, whether it's favoritism or not, it sure the heck isn't fair or just.

 

[Melethiel]

Why do I reject infant Baptism? For one, nowhere in the New Testament does it command us to do so. Secondly, infant baptism is favoritism at it's worst. If infant baptism was what Jesus wanted then what we have is Jesus wanting only infants who happen to be lucky enough to have believing parents enter salvation if they die as infants but for those infants who have non-believing parents, well they simply have no chance.

This is punishing children for something they have no control over as well as rewarding children for something they have no control over. Now, whether it's favoritism or not, it sure the heck isn't fair or just.

Strawman...I don't recall any proponents of infant baptism state that unbaptized infants automatically go to hell.

 

[nephilimiyr]

My point is: it is clear that even 8-day circumcisions does not mean automatic devotion to God, but they still count as a reminder as a promise to God. A child baptism can only also be purely ceremonial, with the parents committing to devote their children to God. The free devotion to God can be made later in life.

Thank you for clarifying

 

[nephilimiyr]

Strawman...I don't recall any proponents of infant baptism state that unbaptized infants automatically go to hell.

Strawman, schmawman. I was asked to give reason for rejecting infant baptism....I gave my anwser

LOL, actually I counter your strawman accusation. I never said or accused proponents of saying that non-baptised infants will go to hell. I'm refering to the Bible and what it says and what it doesn't say.

When you understand what baptism is and what it is for....you have to conclude that infants cannot be baptised. Baptism constitutes a decision being made, infants cannot do so with such a commplex decision, a decision most adults can't even make for themselves.

 

[TruthMiner]

Why do I reject infant Baptism? For one, nowhere in the New Testament does it command us to do so. Secondly, infant baptism is favoritism at it's worst. If infant baptism was what Jesus wanted then what we have is Jesus wanting only infants who happen to be lucky enough to have believing parents enter salvation if they die as infants but for those infants who have non-believing parents, well they simply have no chance.

So we can presume that you totally reject the idea of getting married in a church by a pastor?