Infant baptism

[GingerBeer]

Why exclude so much of the Gospel message?
Without repentance ..no baptism of any kind is effectual .

Why do you make that claim?

 

[Reconciliation and Truth]

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?

Jesus was never baptized. His body baptized the world.

 

[Dave L]

Infants dont have a ministry, so not sure how that connects...so what is the purpose?

And why wasn't Christ baptized as infant if was proper?

nfant="TuxAme, post: 73462509, member: 404930"]Jesus didn't begin His ministry until His baptism- according to your logic, nobody should be baptized or begin their own Christian ministry until they're 29-30 themselves.

[/QUOTE]
You'll notice no direct quotes from scripture for infant baptism. Since faith comes by hearing the word, you cannot have faith in the practice. Only mental assent.

 

[Shawn Stuart]

The early fathers are not scripture.they are fallible men , sometimes lied and often over the centuries murdered those who disagreed with them . So thier word has NO value.

The apostle however preached repentance followed by baptism upon a persons own faith.. 2 things a baby cannot do.
Repent or act in faith.

Wrong. The writings of the ECF have tons of value.

 

[Basil the Great]

I wonder if Infant Baptism became the norm because of the belief that Baptism was normally necessary for salvation and perhaps prior to Augustine there was a belief in Limbo and the fear that unbaptized babies would go to Limbo if they died?

..... I jut checked the Catholic Encyclopedia regarding Limbo. While Augustine was the first to really teach the doctrine in detail, it does appear that there existed prior to him a belief in some form of Intermediate State for the unbaptized babies, as evidenced by the writings of St. Gregory of Nazianzus. Hence, at some point, and we cannot know exactly when, the Early Church apparently came to believe that Baptism was necessary for entrance into Heaven, perhaps with the possible exceptions of an adult who shed his blood for faith in Christ (Baptism by Blood) and an adult in preparation for Baptism who suddenly dies (Baptism by Desire). Personally, I do not believe that there was consensus within the Early Church regarding the two possible exceptions.

 

[Albion]

Much of what Jesus did was not transcribed in Scripture. (see John 20:30-31 and John 21:25)

Don't overlook the fact that John 20:31, which you citied, teaches us that although there is more that is not recorded, everything we need to know IS in Scripture.

 

[notreligus]

Baptism, by immersion or otherwise, was not an invention of the Christian church. It was common for Jews to be baptized to become ritually clean, including by immersion. A Mikveh was in the Temple for ritual baptism. The Essenes had Mikvehs which they filled with rain water. Water flowed in and out of the Temple Mikveh, and the Essenes used rain water as their substitute for flowing water. A typical way that a Jew would practice immersion was to stand in the Mikveh and bend their legs at their knees until the water covered their head. There may or may not have been a witness present. I've seen videos of how some Messianics baptize today. The rabbi will stir the water before the once being baptized is placed into the water.

Jesus came as a Jew to the Jews. He kept the Law to perfection. I doubt that John's baptism was the first time He had been baptized with water. John's baptism was a baptism of repentance to symbolize that the Jews were going to come under the authority of the promised Messiah who had indeed come to them. John prepared the way. Jesus' baptism by John was His identification with the Jews.

 

[mark46]

Don't overlook the fact that John 20:31, which you citied, teaches us that although there is more that is not recorded, everything we need to know IS in Scripture.

I said that

 

[Albion]

Having compared the two statements, I see again that they do not say the same thing. No matter, the point is that there is no reason to think that Scripture is insufficient to give us all that is needed for Man to know Gods will as it relates to our lives.

 

[devin553344]

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?

Honestly, people freak out about baptism of humans. They believe if they're not baptized then they can't be saved. But in all reality, humans perform the baptism ordinance, and human's can't really save humans. Truly only God can save humans.

Catholics sprinkle infants to make sure they will go to heaven, while Mormons perform baptisms for the dead in their temples after they've died to ensure they can go to heaven.

But in all reality, they're all suffering from delusions of grandeur and lost fact that God will save whom he will

 

[ItIsFinished!]

He set the example by getting baptized. Infant or adult is not the point. That's basically the answer to the OP's question. It does not follow from Jesus being baptized as an adult that infant baptism is somehow invalid.



You're the one arguing that the validity of baptism is dependent on age, so the burden of Scriptural proof is on you. Nobody here is challenging the validity of adult baptism - you are challenging the validity of infant baptism, and hence the baptism of the vast majority of Christians throughout church history. If you're going to do that, your Scriptural case needs to be very solid; an argument from silence isn't going to cut it.

I'm not arguing anything.
I just pointed out that Jesus wasn't baptized as an infant.
I also pointed out that there is no Scripture to back up infant baptism.
Therefore it isn't me who has to prove anything.
Baptism follows one accepting Christ as Saviour.
Infants are not capable of making the decision to accept or reject Christ.
Therefore one can conclude that infant baptism wouldn't be legit.

 

[fhansen]

Don't overlook the fact that John 20:31, which you citied, teaches us that although there is more that is not recorded, everything we need to know IS in Scripture.

So, do we know by Scripture that God desires infants to be baptized, or otherwise?

 

[Shawn Stuart]

I also pointed out that there is no Scripture to back up infant baptism.

You have been given scriptures but you ignored them.

Do you have any scriptures that refute infant baptism?

 

[Albion]

So, do we know by Scripture that God desires infants to be baptized, or otherwise?

Certainly we do. That was referred to in post 3, as I recall.

 

[mark46]

Infant Baptism | Catholic Answers

There are lots of scriptural examples of infant baptism

 

[mark46]

Having compared the two statements, I see again that they do not say the same thing. No matter, the point is that there is no reason to think that Scripture is insufficient to give us all that is needed for Man to know Gods will as it relates to our lives.

I don't think that we differ on this subject, but I do wish to expand some. Also see below for a discussion and the Methodist/Anglican position that I believe we both hold.

Your statement here goes beyond the doctrine of the sufficiency of scripture to give us all we need to understand salvation.

There are many sources, in addition to Scripture, that help us know "God's will as it relates to our lives". The most obvious is prayer.

Wesleyan/Anglican: Wesleyans and the Sufficiency of Scripture

 

[mark46]

This may be a bit off-topic, but I feel that I should note that the idea of individual salvation and individual decisions is a rather new idea. IMHO, the Scriptural idea is the saving of families, clans, communities, and peoples.

 

[fhansen]

Certainly we do. That was referred to in post 3, as I recall.

Yes, you're right, post #3. Not exactly a slam-dunk but that's certainly one commonly used passage in support, as it should be.

I think that passage and Acts 16:31 especially also portray a corporate or communal aspect of salvation, that believers are the Body of Christ and as such can play a role in each other's salvation, helping others get to the door, after which we're expected to continue to believe and act increasingly on our own.

 

[YeshuaFan]

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?

I hold to beleivers water Baptism, but understand that the reason its done is those doing it see the Bible teaching Covenant theology, and that the new Covenant brings over now the sign of the Covenant between God and Man as water baptism, just as circumcision was done to babes under the Old Covenant.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Dare i ask ....why three ?

After the infant baptism, my mother changed denominations to SDA. I was baptized by immersion to join that denomination. Then when I was 23 and left the denomination after learning of grace, I was re-baptized again by immersion, basically because of being mad at the legalism of SDA. (A wrong reason for sure.) But then when I was 30 and baptized with the Spirit, I was lead by the Spirit to finally be baptized for the right reasons.