Infant baptism

[Hank77]

There are examples in scripture of children being baptized

Jolt my memory please, I can't think of any at a young age.

Act 2:38 - Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Act 2:39 - “For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

I understand verse 39 is listing generations, you, your children, your grandchildren, your great.....
The gift of the Holy Spirit is promised to each generation to those who repent and receive Christ as their Redeemer.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

You’re completely missing the point.

Which is?

 

[HTacianas]

Jolt my memory please, I can't think of any at a young age.

I understand verse 39 is listing generations, you, your children, your grandchildren, your great.....
The gift of the Holy Spirit is promised to each generation to those who repent and receive Christ as their Redeemer.

The writers of the new testament didn't think there were going to be any future generations.

Infant baptism has been practiced by the Church since before the new testament was written. It need not be spelled out.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

No. No infant baptisms were brought up in this thread , but rather assumptions were brought up.
Big difference.

Why do you suppose Jesus wasn't baptized as an infant?
Seriously, why wasn't He?

Seems Jesus' baptism had more to do with ministry and righteousness than salvation...it was an element of John the Baptists' ministry. However the New Covenant began with Christ which He is the head of. Overall I think there is greater emphasis of baptism in the Spirit, than baptism with water.

 

[PaulCyp1]

Jesus was raised Jewish, and Jews do not practice baptism. But the one Church Jesus Christ founded, which He said was to remain one, to which He promised the fullness of God's truth, has baptized babies for 2,000 years. Not baptizing them is a modern tradition only a few hundred years old, and is found only in unauthorized manmade churches which have come into existence by defecting from the Church Jesus founded.
In the Bible there are repeated instances where "whole families" were baptized together. This obviously included the children, regardless of age. Also, Jesus taught that we cannot enter the kingdom without being reborn through water and the Spirit, an obvious reference to Baptism. Yet, when looking upon a group of small children and babes in arms, He said "To such as these belongs the kingdom of God". The baptism of babies is mentioned several times in the writings of 2nd Century leaders of the Church Jesus founded, who described it as a tradition passed down from the Apostles.

 

[TuxAme]

Number one you are putting the cart before the horse.

Number two, we are NOT UNDER THE LAW.
Please stop using OT comparisons when we are dealing with NT realities .

There is a reason for the New Testament.
If Jesus wanted to set the example of infant baptism (not circumcision) He would of been baptized as an infant.
He wasn't

We are not under the Law, but the Law isn't something you're free to ignore. We know a lot about God due to the Law, and these things tell us how God interacts with His creation.

God's Covenant with humanity began with a couple (Adam and Eve) It extended to a large family (Noah) and grew to encompass an entire nation (Israel). Now, Jesus has invited the entire world to become members. You shouldn't ignore the fact that He has never shrunk the number of people in Covenant with Him- rather, He has only increased it in size. He has never changed His mind on any group of people- single or married, old or young- being numbered among His faithful, and you need to realize this.

During His time with Israel, the Nation-Covenant, God called for parents to have their sons circumcised so that they could enter into this Covenant. He was willing then to admit the youngest among us into His Covenant- what exactly do you think has happened that made God turn back on this? And why did it take over a millenium for people to "get it"? Though the circumcision made by hands is no longer to be observed, the circumcision made without hands, which is baptism- is. Baptism is how all of us can enter into that Covenant, and it is modeled after its Old Covenant precursor, circumcision.

There is a reason for the New Testament, but it's not to contain every single teaching we must adhere to. Were that the case, perhaps Jesus would have taken your example.

You believe that Jesus would have had to be baptised as an infant in order for it to be a valid teaching. According to your logic, if Jesus wanted the elderly to be baptized, He would have been baptised as an old man. He wasn't baptized as an elder, therefore (according to your own logic), one cannot be baptized if they're older than Jesus was at the time of His baptism.

If Jesus wanted the New Testament to contain all of His teachings, He would have told His disciples to write as much in even one of their letters. He would have told John, "Don't conclude your gospel the way you did- it suggests that a book alone cannot contain all that I have taught". If He desired for Scripture Alone to be a satisfactory rule of faith, He wouldn't have allowed Paul to refer to the Church (which He founded on a visible leadership, as He had done for Israel) as the pillar of truth rather than Scripture. And lastly (for now), He wouldn't have allowed Christians to hold to a false belief of Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium for 1500+ years until the Baptists arrived on the scene.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

We are not under the Law, but the Law isn't something you're free to ignore. We know a lot about God due to the Law, and these things tell us how God interacts with His creation.

God's Covenant with humanity began with a couple (Adam and Eve) It extended to a large family (Noah) and grew to encompass an entire nation (Israel). Now, Jesus has invited the entire world to become members. You shouldn't ignore the fact that He has never shrunk the number of people in Covenant with Him- rather, He has only increased it in size. He has never changed His mind on any group of people- single or married, old or young- being numbered among His faithful, and you need to realize this.

During His time with Israel, the Nation-Covenant, God called for parents to have their sons circumcised so that they could enter into this Covenant. He was willing then to admit the youngest among us into His Covenant- what exactly do you think has happened that made God turn back on this? And why did it take over a millenium for people to "get it"? Though the circumcision made by hands is no longer to be observed, the circumcision made without hands, which is baptism- is. Baptism is how all of us can enter into that Covenant, and it is modeled after its Old Covenant precursor, circumcision.

There is a reason for the New Testament, but it's not to contain every single teaching we must adhere to. Were that the case, perhaps Jesus would have taken your example.

You believe that Jesus would have had to be baptised as an infant in order for it to be a valid teaching. According to your logic, if Jesus wanted the elderly to be baptized, He would have been baptised as an old man. He wasn't baptized as an elder, therefore (according to your own logic), one cannot be baptized if they're older than Jesus was at the time of His baptism.

If Jesus wanted the New Testament to contain all of His teachings, He would have told His disciples to write as much in even one of their letters. He would have told John, "Don't conclude your gospel the way you did- it suggests that a book alone cannot contain all that I have taught". If He desired for Scripture Alone to be a satisfactory rule of faith, He wouldn't have allowed Paul to refer to the Church (which He founded on a visible leadership, as He had done for Israel) as the pillar of truth rather than Scripture. And lastly (for now), He wouldn't have allowed Christians to hold to a false belief of Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium for 1500+ years until the Baptists arrived on the scene.

You do a whole lot of speaking for me in this quoted post of yours.
Please refrain from doing so.
I am able and do speak for myself.
And nothing in this quoted post of yours proves that infant baptism occurred or is acceptable.

 

[Hank77]

Regarding our previous discussion from verses from 1 Corinthians 7:14 and 16, I believe Paul is still speaking in a futuristic manner of the possibilities not only regarding the husband and wife within the marriage, but also any children that may be involved regarding salvation.
He chose to use the word holy regarding the child , but used the word saved regarding the parents.
It was a hypothetical scenario that he presented which obviously existed then and now.
But, none of this has anything to do with infant baptism.
They are good questions that you bring up however.

I'm agreeing with you so please hear me out.

1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

The Greek word here translated as sanctified is
1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified [G37] by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy [G40].

Mat 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be [G37] thy name.

G37 is the verb form of G40

Both the unbelieving parent and the child are in the same state. We wouldn't think of baptizing the unbelieving parent so this verse does not prove that children were baptized.

I know why Paul was teaching this but it goes into Jewish beliefs and why Paul was saying that the New Covenant changed somethings.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

Jesus was raised Jewish, and Jews do not practice baptism. But the one Church Jesus Christ founded, which He said was to remain one, to which He promised the fullness of God's truth, has baptized babies for 2,000 years. Not baptizing them is a modern tradition only a few hundred years old, and is found only in unauthorized manmade churches which have come into existence by defecting from the Church Jesus founded.
In the Bible there are repeated instances where "whole families" were baptized together. This obviously included the children, regardless of age. Also, Jesus taught that we cannot enter the kingdom without being reborn through water and the Spirit, an obvious reference to Baptism. Yet, when looking upon a group of small children and babes in arms, He said "To such as these belongs the kingdom of God". The baptism of babies is mentioned several times in the writings of 2nd Century leaders of the Church Jesus founded, who described it as a tradition passed down from the Apostles.

You cannot say regardless of age.
There is not one Scripture that teaches infants got baptized.
We are not talking about children, but rather infants.

 

[Shawn Stuart]

nothing in this quoted post of yours proves that infant baptism occurred or is acceptable.

But the writings of the ECF that I quoted does.

 

[LaSorcia]

Titus 3:9But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, arguments, and quarrels about the Law, because these things are pointless and worthless. 10Reject a divisive man after a first and second admonition...

And also-
Romans 14:4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5One man regards a certain day above the others, while someone else considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

While this is talking specifically about one issue, it can be applied to many, like infant baptism.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

But the writings of the ECF that I quoted does.

Their words are not the inspired Word of God.
No where in the Scriptures does it teach infant baptism.
They don't even know what it means or represents.

 

[Hank77]

The writers of the new testament didn't think there were going to be any future generations.

Well God obviously knew and it was His Holy Spirit that inspired their writings.
I'm not sure why you think that the Apostle didn't think that there would be future generations, I never got that impression.

 

[Hank77]

Titus 3:9But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, arguments, and quarrels about the Law, because these things are pointless and worthless. 10Reject a divisive man after a first and second admonition...

And also-
Romans 14:4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5One man regards a certain day above the others, while someone else considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

While this is talking specifically about one issue, it can be applied to many, like infant baptism.

I don't think anyone in this discussion is foolish or divisive, not anyone. Christians are allowed to discuss these things.

I agree that the Romans verse is very applicable here. I'm not going to judge anyone's Christian state by whether they believe in infant baptism or not.

 

[Shawn Stuart]

Their words are not the inspired Word of God.
No where in the Scriptures does it teach infant baptism.
They don't even know what it means or represents.

Nonsensical.

 

[Not David]

Infant baptism was mostly practiced by the entire Church until the Anabaptists arrived.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

Nonsensical.

Actually it isn't.
That is why there is no Scripture that teaches infant baptism.
If there were surely you or others would have provided it.
Therefore not nonsensical, but rather quite reasonable.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

Infant baptism was mostly practiced by the entire Church until the Anabaptists arrived.

Maybe , maybe not.
Regardless it isn't Scriptural.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Just curious for those that believe in infant baptism, sprinkling, etc where did this idea come from since Jesus himself was not baptized until he was around 29-30?

Baptism is entry into the family of God - the Church. Infants would have been baptized along with their families as entire households were brought into the Body of Christ.

Sprinkling would not have been done unless out of necessity (and I can't think of any valid necessity). Sometimes pouring was done, such as if there was not enough water for immersion. If no water at all was available they could have poured sand even. But sprinkling makes no sense unless there's a reason the person couldn't get wet, and there is no such reason.

It has nothing to do with Jesus not having been baptized as an infant. People were not being baptized at all when Jesus was an infant. The means of entry into that covenant was circumcision, and Jesus was circumcised at the proper time, as an infant.

 

[Shawn Stuart]

Actually it isn't.
That is why there is no Scripture that teaches infant baptism.
If there were surely you or others would have provided it.
Therefore not nonsensical, but rather quite reasonable.

You have already been given examples of entire households being baptized.