Responding to Credobaptist Proof Texts: Infants can't repent, therefore should not be baptized.

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Do you actually HAVE any children?

We make a distinction between an infant and a child on one hand and another distinction between original sin and actual sin.

The very first sin a child will commit is coveting….by saying “Mine, Mine, Mine.” It is an internal desire of selfishness made manifest for all to observe. This is called actual sin. Over time, they will lie, tease, start fights, act up in class, rebel against parental authority, throw tantrums, etc. More actual sin to be observed empirically.

So where does actual sin come from? Original sin. All of Adam descendants are born with original sin. It is a deep inborn disease that always leads to sinning. It always leads to rebellion against God. All infants are born with original sin, but do not commit actual sin.

The mere fact that any person sins regardless of age indicates the presence of original sin. As reasoning and mental progresses within the child, the child will become more and more hostile to God.

For paedobaptists, baptism is a remedy for original sin. Baptism is seen as a vehicle where God’s grace comes to the infant, to deal with Adam’s guilt passed through his descendants.

For credobaptists, the Age of Accountability is the remedy for original sin.

So for Credobaptists, only individuals past the age of accountability, need the forgiveness of sins,. This shows infants & children are in a different moral relationship to God than the rest of humanity.

Paedobaptists believe all of humanity needs the forgiveness of sins. This shows both infants & children and the rest of humanity are in a same moral relationship to God.

 

[BobRyan]

For paedobaptists, baptism is a remedy for original sin. Baptism is seen as a vehicle where God’s grace comes to the infant, to deal with Adam’s guilt passed through his descendants.

Still it would be nice to have an actual Bible text making that argument for baptism. Because as it is - even R.C. Sproul in his debate with John MacArthur on this topic admits - there is no such Bible text.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Water is optional (Luke 23:42-43).

Oh no! Not another "but what about the thief on the cross" statement!

When was Christian baptism first instituted? After Jesus' resurrection but before his ascension. And when were the first Christian baptisms administered? On the day of Pentecost.

Of course the thief on the cross was not baptized! Baptism been instituted yet. The death of the thief has NOTHING TO DO WITH BAPTISM. Baptism was first administered 53 days after the death of thief. So say that the thief wasn't baptized is akin to say....King David wasn't baptized, or Abraham wasn't baptized.

You should know this.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Still it would be nice to have an actual Bible text making that argument for baptism.

It would be nice to have a text from Scripture, children are saved from original sin because of the Age of Accountability.

Credobaptists believe children are save by YOUTH ALONE.

Where does the Bible talk about the Age of Accountability? There is a strange silence among the credos on this matter.

 

[John Owen]

Still it would be nice to have an actual Bible text making that argument for baptism. Because as it is - even R.C. Sproul in his debate with John MacArthur on this topic admits - there is no such Bible text.

Right, because there is not a verse. Just a theological construct based on the theological construct of Covenant Theology.

 

[atpollard]

Oh no! Not another "but what about the thief on the cross" statement!

If you want to avoid challenges to water baptism as a Sacrament (essential means of salvation), then you will need to ban all Baptists (like this Particular Baptist). It is a Baptist distinctive. It would be like me expecting Catholics to stop venerating Mary.

When was Christian baptism first instituted? After Jesus' resurrection but before his ascension. And when were the first Christian baptisms administered? On the day of Pentecost.

Was this a baptism?
Matthew 3:1-12 [NASB95]

1 Now in those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, 2 "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." 3 For this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet when he said, "THE VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS, 'MAKE READY THE WAY OF THE LORD, MAKE HIS PATHS STRAIGHT!'" 4 Now John himself had a garment of camel's hair and a leather belt around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey. 5 Then Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea and all the district around the Jordan; 6 and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins.

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 "Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance; 9 and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham for our father'; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham. 10 "The axe is already laid at the root of the trees; therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

11 "As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 "His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."
​

Were these Christians?

 

[ViaCrucis]

If you want to avoid challenges to water baptism as a Sacrament (essential means of salvation), then you will need to ban all Baptists (like this Particular Baptist). It is a Baptist distinctive. It would be like me expecting Catholics to stop venerating Mary.


Was this a baptism?
Matthew 3:1-12 [NASB95]

1 Now in those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, 2 "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." 3 For this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet when he said, "THE VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS, 'MAKE READY THE WAY OF THE LORD, MAKE HIS PATHS STRAIGHT!'" 4 Now John himself had a garment of camel's hair and a leather belt around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey. 5 Then Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea and all the district around the Jordan; 6 and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins.

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 "Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance; 9 and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham for our father'; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham. 10 "The axe is already laid at the root of the trees; therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

11 "As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 "His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."
​

Were these Christians?

That's John's baptism of repentance, which was done in the anticipation of Israel's redemption through the coming of the Messiah. Part of John's prophetic ministry to prepare the way for Jesus.

Christian Baptism, i.e. the baptism which Christ Himself personally institutes for His Church ("Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit...") could not exist until Christ instituted it, and the first recorded instance of anyone receiving Christian Baptism is in Acts 2, on Pentecost, when we read that three thousand were baptized and added to the Church.

John's baptism couldn't make one a Christian. This is again affirmed in Acts ch. 19 when Paul meets a group of disciples near Ephesus who knew only of John's baptism. Paul then administers Christian Baptism, followed by the laying on of hands (i.e. Chrismation).

"And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. And he said to them, 'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?' And they said, 'No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.' And he said, 'Into what then were you baptized?' They said, 'Into John's baptism.' And Paul said, 'John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.' On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. There were about twelve men in all." - Acts of the Apostles 19:1-7

The passage is pretty clear and straight forward: These seem to have been followers of John the Baptist, and so they were only familiar with John's baptism of repentance looking forward to the coming of Jesus. So Paul tells them this fact. When they heard this, they then received Christian Baptism, afterward Paul laid hands on them.

Christian Baptism, "in the name of the Lord Jesus", that is by His authority as the One who instituted it (not as a formula to be used contrary to Christ's words to be baptized in the three-fold name of the Trinity) is something entirely different from John's baptism of repentance; and neither is it "the baptism with the Holy Spirit" which is recorded as occurring only twice in the Acts of the Apostles: the outpouring of the Spirit on the 120 Jewish believers on Pentecost, and then on the Gentile household of Cornelius when Peter went to preach to them. So we cannot claim that Christian Baptism is something invisible and internal. It is instead an external, visible thing; which is why the Ethiopian eunuch says, "Look, water! What stops me from being baptized?".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Still it would be nice to have an actual Bible text making that argument for baptism. Because as it is - even R.C. Sproul in his debate with John MacArthur on this topic admits - there is no such Bible text.

Acts 22:16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’

Acts 2:38 Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.

These, among others paedos believe there are the PROMISES attached to baptism. Therefore, they baptize infants because they are born with original sin.

But of course, Credos don't believe this. Credos believe that baptism is just an empty sign, signifying nothing. Credos believe there are no promises attached to baptism.

But you asked for a bible passage and I gave, fully believing you will dismiss it.

Infant salvation for contemporary credobaptists is solely based an innovative doctrine not more than 300 years old called the "Age of Accountabilitly." 99.44% of all credobaptist believe in the doctrine of AOA is not found in Scripture but still believe it anyway. Some actually believe that infants and children are guiltless before God, and therefore are admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven on the basis of there own moral righteousness.

And if some credos do believe maybe some children are guilty before God, they have the Divine "wink" theory...God over looks those sins....and they enter into the Kingdom of heaven anyway.

So much for Sola Scriptura....Credos are big proponents of this....except when it comes to the doctrine of baptism.

It is amazing how many credos place 100% trust into a doctrine such as AoA, knowing full well it isn't found in Scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

Acts 22:16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’

Acts 2:38 Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.

These, among others paedos believe there are the PROMISES attached to baptism. Therefore, they baptize infants because they are born with original sin.

Are they thinking that Acts 22 and Acts 2 statements above were commands given to infants telling the infants to "get up and be baptized" or to "repent"??

But you asked for a bible passage and I gave, fully believing you will dismiss it.

If you are claiming those two commands above were given to infants and then the infants understood and got up repented and were baptized -- then I think we found very different things when we looked at those texts.

Some actually believe that infants and children are guiltless before God, and therefore are admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven on the basis of there own moral righteousness.

Are you thinking that those who engage in the believers baptism we find in scripture -- are claiming that infants do not need the benefits of the gospel??

R.C. Sproul in his debate with John MacArthur on this topic admits - there is no such Bible text claiming that infants were baptized - but possibly you think that Sproul missed your two texts above supposedly commanding infants to repent, rise up and be baptized.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Are they thinking that Acts 22 and Acts 2 statements above were commands given to infants telling the infants to "get up and be baptized" or to "repent"??



If you are claiming those two commands above were given to infants and then the infants understood and got up repented and were baptized -- then I think we found very different things when we looked at those texts.



Are you thinking that those who engage in the believers baptism we find in scripture -- are claiming that infants do not need the benefits of the gospel??

R.C. Sproul in his debate with John MacArthur on this topic admits - there is no such Bible text claiming that infants were baptized - but possibly you think that Sproul missed your two texts above supposedly commanding infants to repent, rise up and be baptized.

Your reply I subjectively believe shows a contempt for the doctrine of baptism but a DEEP LOVE of the doctrine of the "AGE OF ACCOUNTABILITY." Credos intuitively know the AOA is not found in Scripture, but affirm it anyway.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Are they thinking that Acts 22 and Acts 2 statements above were commands given to infants telling the infants to "get up and be baptized" or to "repent"??
.

Oh, now I understand.

AoA'ers like yourself are embarrassed for believing in this man made doctrine.

I won't mention it anymore.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Out of curiosity, do you think that household members such as slaves and servants were also baptized despite the fact that they might have been firm adherents of other belief systems?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Out of curiosity, do you think that household members such as slaves and servants were also baptized despite the fact that they might have been firm adherents of other belief systems?

The plain reading of the text would indicate that, yes, they were. Everyone is an adherent to another belief system before converting to Christianity. We do not need to assume that they were forced into baptism against their will. The entire household was baptized, men, women, children, servants.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BobRyan]

Acts 22:16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’

Acts 2:38 Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.

These, among others paedos believe there are the PROMISES attached to baptism. Therefore, they baptize infants because they are born with original sin.

Are they thinking that Acts 22 and Acts 2 statements above were commands given to infants telling the infants to "get up and be baptized" or to "repent"??

But you asked for a bible passage and I gave, fully believing you will dismiss it.

If you are claiming those two commands above were given to infants and then the infants understood and got up repented and were baptized -- then I think we found very different things when we looked at those texts.

Some actually believe that infants and children are guiltless before God, and therefore are admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven on the basis of there own moral righteousness.

Are you thinking that those who engage in the believers baptism we find in scripture -- are claiming that infants do not need the benefits of the gospel??

R.C. Sproul in his debate with John MacArthur on this topic admits - there is no such Bible text claiming that infants were baptized - but possibly you think that Sproul missed your two texts above supposedly commanding infants to repent, rise up and be baptized.

===================================

Your reply I subjectively believe shows a contempt for the doctrine of baptism

On the contrary - my post above shows a willingness to ask the "hard questions" the point to the inconvenient fact in scripture - that even paedobaptism proponenants like R.C Sproul admitted to -- there is no scripture showing it.

false accusation as in the case above -- does not solve the inconvenient details I am pointing out in scripture. You need something more than condemning rhetoric to address the topic.

 

[BobRyan]

Oh, now I understand.

AoA'ers like yourself are embarrassed for believing in this man made doctrine.

I won't mention it anymore.

You seem to be searching for an answer.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The plain reading of the text would indicate that, yes, they were. Everyone is an adherent to another belief system before converting to Christianity. We do not need to assume that they were forced into baptism against their will. The entire household was baptized, men, women, children, servants.

-CryptoLutheran

And what, precisely, does baptism accomplish for someone who is a committed non-believer?

 

[ViaCrucis]

And what, precisely, does baptism accomplish for someone who is a committed non-believer?

Why would a committed non-believer get baptized? This isn't the Reconquista, there are no Spanish Inquisitors around telling them to convert or die.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bbbbbbb]

Why would a committed non-believer get baptized? This isn't the Reconquista, there are no Spanish Inquisitors around telling them to convert or die.

-CryptoLutheran

Very simply because their owner decides to have his whole household baptized, including every person regardless of age, faith, or legal relationship. You did say, in response to my earlier question, that slaves and servants, being part and parcel of households in the first century, were naturally baptized when the head of the household decided to be baptized, or am I misunderstanding you?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Very simply because their owner decides to have his whole household baptized, including every person regardless of age, faith, or legal relationship. You did say, in response to my earlier question, that slaves and servants, being part and parcel of households in the first century, were naturally baptized when the head of the household decided to be baptized, or am I misunderstanding you?

It would appear so, as I said this:

"We do not need to assume that they were forced into baptism against their will."

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bbbbbbb]

It would appear so, as I said this:

"We do not need to assume that they were forced into baptism against their will."

-CryptoLutheran

Thus, would you agree that not every person in a household was necessarily baptized even though the text might say that everyone in the household was baptized?