What Scriptures make a positive case for infant baptism?

[anna ~ grace]

Don, thanks for writing back. It is likely that for the first couple hundred years of Christian history, believers' and infant baptism would have existed side by side. Some Church Fathers do seem to reference infant baptism.


Early Teachings on Infant Baptism | Catholic Answers

You were the first and only one to mention scripture. I do appreciate that. However, then you seem to turn to tradition in your last paragraph. But we could discuss Church History. Did you ever really look at a survey of the ante-nicean Church Fathers? Some of the early ones did practice something like believers baptism, but by the time of Nicea, it was nearly universally infant baptism.

 

[Don Maurer]

Don, thanks for writing back. It is likely that for the first couple hundred years of Christian history, believers' and infant baptism would have existed side by side. Some Church Fathers do seem to reference infant baptism.


Early Teachings on Infant Baptism | Catholic Answers

I notice you quote "Catholic Answers." They of course use scriptural references and assert that their practice is in accord with the bible. IT would be a much better discussion to pick just one of the references in the article you quoted and we could look at the context and work through it exegetically. If you wish to pursue that, feel free to pick the first reference you please and post it.

With Roman Catholicism, or many other forms of Catholicism, the greater issue is the meaning behind baptism. In RCC doctrine, they would teach and believe in Baptismal justification. Of course protestants, even many protestants who baptize infants, deny that Baptism either regenerates, or justifies. Many Protestants would look upon that as inserting works of merit into salvation and herein lies the real theological issue.

You suggest that they existed side by side the first few hundred years. I am certainly not well read in Church history, but I would question if they existed side by side for the whole time. Is there anything written in the first century (either scriptural or from the fathers) that reflects infant baptism? A first century non-cannonical writing called the didache (~The Didache~) ( see chapter VII) also reflects believers baptism. Can another document from the first century be shown that reflects infant baptism? I would suggest that rather than seeing the history of baptism as a "side by side" I would see it as a transition where the two forms may have some overlap, and that it began with believers baptism, and moved to infant baptism.

I am not trying to introduce a new subject, but coming from my perspective, the issue is not the Church Fathers. The issue is the scriptures alone. But that is an issue for a different thread.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Jumping in briefly, I will insert my own observation. Having been sprinkled as a baby in a Presbyterian church and coming to saving faith in Jesus Christ as a young adult apart from the church, I encountered Christians who rejected infant baptism.

Interestingly, it was a conservation (PCA) Presbyterian pastor who provided great clarity for me on the issue. He gave me a list of every use of the Greek words related to baptism in scripture. What nailed it for me was Mark 7:4 (and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.)) The word for washing is the same as baptizing in Greek. I don't wash my tableware by sprinkling water on it and calling it good lest I drown the things. I immerse them.

Hence, I have concluded that baptism and washing are one and the same in Greek. How do I was myself? I get all wet, preferably in a good bathtub, which is the only means available other than outdoor bodies of water. What would happen if I immersed a baby? If I was not careful the baby would drown. Therefore, I rejected the baptism of infants and the sprinkling of people as a normative form of biblical baptism.

 

[anna ~ grace]

I hear you. But in retrospect, much of the New Testament deals with the baptism of recent (adult) converts, not with what should be done baptismally with their future children.

The thing is, though, I'm moving more and more towards early Christian writings being a part of the Tradition / Religion that includes the texts of the Scripture itself. Instead of, say, Scripture standing by itself, it is possible to link things like the Scriptures, liturgies, prayers, hymns, sacred art, and theology as equal parts of a mosaic or patchwork quilt that acts as a whole. I think this is kind of how the Catholics and Orthodox understand the whole thing, and this is how I'm leaning towards understanding Christian Truth, too.

I get your point of view, and once geld it myself. But the more I study pre-Reformation Christianity and contemporary Catholic / Orthodox theology and idealogy, the less I lean towards a theology based mainly or solely on Scripture.

I notice you quote "Catholic Answers." They of course use scriptural references and assert that their practice is in accord with the bible. IT would be a much better discussion to pick just one of the references in the article you quoted and we could look at the context and work through it exegetically. If you wish to pursue that, feel free to pick the first reference you please and post it.

With Roman Catholicism, or many other forms of Catholicism, the greater issue is the meaning behind baptism. In RCC doctrine, they would teach and believe in Baptismal justification. Of course protestants, even many protestants who baptize infants, deny that Baptism either regenerates, or justifies. Many Protestants would look upon that as inserting works of merit into salvation and herein lies the real theological issue.

You suggest that they existed side by side the first few hundred years. I am certainly not well read in Church history, but I would question if they existed side by side for the whole time. Is there anything written in the first century (either scriptural or from the fathers) that reflects infant baptism? A first century non-cannonical writing called the didache (~The Didache~) ( see chapter VII) also reflects believers baptism. Can another document from the first century be shown that reflects infant baptism? I would suggest that rather than seeing the history of baptism as a "side by side" I would see it as a transition where the two forms may have some overlap, and that it began with believers baptism, and moved to infant baptism.

I am not trying to introduce a new subject, but coming from my perspective, the issue is not the Church Fathers. The issue is the scriptures alone. But that is an issue for a different thread.

 

[Tangible]

I'm on the fence about this whole issue, but there is a Biblical basis for baby dedication...Jesus and Samuel being the two that come to mind...though there may be more that I'm not recalling at the moment. Now, the argument could be made that this was a Jewish custom that doesn't apply to New Covenant believers...but I'm pretty sure this is where the concept comes from, at least partly.

Especially when you consider how St Paul directly links circumcision under the OT with baptism under the NT. Under the Law, circumcision was a requirement for all males in order for them not to be cut off from the people of God. Under the Gospel, baptism is now the means through which God has promised to work in order to unite us with the benefits of the works and merits of Christ for us.

 

[Tangible]

What Scriptures make a positive case for infant baptism?

Matthew 28
And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Mark 16
Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen.And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Galatians 3
Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

Romans 6
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

Colossians 2
See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

Philippians 1
And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

Matthew 18
At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

Matthew 19
Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” And he laid his hands on them and went away.

Acts 2
Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Etc., etc., etc., etc.

 

[Greg Merrill]

It's not that clear. For one thing, which verse says that Baptism is only for adults??

The answer would have to be "none." Just as was said about infant baptism.

Those who argue that only adults are eligible are using the same thinking that they criticize in Christians who baptize young children. That is to say, they interpret and make a reasoned assumption. That's hardly any different from what advocates of infant baptism do by pointing to the scriptural reference to "whole households" being baptized.

While it's true that there are verses that clearly show us adults being baptized, that's not the issue here. No one on these forums has said that adults should not be baptized. The question is whether the ordinance/sacrament should be restricted to adults.

There is nothing in scripture which says so.

In addition, the supporters of "believer's baptism" do not practice what they preach. That damages their argument IMO. They not only have invented--purely invented--a ceremony that amounts to a mock sacrament with the ritual called "dedication" of a newborn. And they also baptize (under the cover of "adults only") 8 and 9 and 10 year olds who are by no stretch of the actually "adults" capable of making an informed and adult commitment to Christ.

Good points. Instead of setting an age (Infant, teen, adult) just go by what the Bible says. "...If thou believest (trust Jesus to save you) with all thine heart, thou mayest." Ac 8:37. Age isn't the issue, but faith in Christ having died for your sins, and offers to save you if invite Him to be your Savior (Ro 10:9,10,13).

 

[Tangible]

Good points. Instead of setting an age (Infant, teen, adult) just go by what the Bible says. "...If thou believest (trust Jesus to save you) with all thine heart, thou mayest." Ac 8:37. Age isn't the issue, but faith in Christ having died for your sins, and offers to save you if invite Him to be your Savior (Ro 10:9,10,13).

So we have to earn our salvation by inviting Jesus to be our savior? God requires us to do something before he will save us?

Scripture plainly states that we are spiritually dead before God acts to save us. How do dead people do anything so that God will then save them?

 

[Greg Merrill]

So we have to earn our salvation by inviting Jesus to be our savior? God requires us to do something before he will save us?

Scripture plainly states that we are spiritually dead before God acts to save us. How do dead people do anything so that God will then save them?[/QUOTE
We don't earn our salvation in any way. Salvation is by grace (unmerited), Eph 2:8. Yes, God requires we put faith in Him, and obey Him to call upon Him to save us, Ro 10:13. Physically dead people do nothing, Heb 9:27; "And it is appointed unto men once to die and after this the judgment." Spiritually dead people that are still physically alive are spiritually separated from God, but still conscious of God, and can call on Him to save them from their sins, thus making them spiritually alive, and united with God, Eph 2:1,2. "And you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he made alive together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;" Col 2:13, speaking to Christians.

 

[Tangible]

Spiritually dead people that are still physically alive are spiritually separated from God, but still conscious of God, and can call on Him to save them from their sins, thus making them spiritually alive, and united with God, Eph 2:1,2. "And you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he made alive together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;" Col 2:13, speaking to Christians.

Please explain the underlined portion in light of the verse quoted below.

1 Corinthians 2
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[Greg Merrill]

Please explain the underlined portion in light of the verse quoted below.

1 Corinthians 2
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

1Co 2:14 is a very familiar verse to me. First of all, we all start out as a "natural" person. This verse is speaking in general terms that the natural man usually doesn't accept the basic things of God, let alone the deeper things of God. But if it was all inclusive of everything (rather than general with some exceptions) NO ONE COULD BE SAVED. But those that are saved, were Natural Persons first (spiritually dead but with the ability to at least be aware of God when he called them, and did sense the wooing (pre-salvation work) of the H.S. The natural man usually fulfills Jn 1:11 and does not accept the things of God or accept Christ as Savior. "He came unto his own, and his own received him not." But those that are saved are the exception, as found in v. 12 "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the Sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." If 1Co
2:14 had no exceptions, then Jn 1:11,12 would contradict each other.

 

[Tangible]

Not if God acts first to justify. God is both just and the justifier. Man contributes nothing to his own salvation but his sinfulness.

After a sinner is justified, all kinds of righteous responses become possible. Who can be saved? With man it is impossible but with God all things are possible.

 

[buzuxi02]

Jumping in briefly, I will insert my own observation. Having been sprinkled as a baby in a Presbyterian church and coming to saving faith in Jesus Christ as a young adult apart from the church, I encountered Christians who rejected infant baptism.

Interestingly, it was a conservation (PCA) Presbyterian pastor who provided great clarity for me on the issue. He gave me a list of every use of the Greek words related to baptism in scripture. What nailed it for me was Mark 7:4 (and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.)) The word for washing is the same as baptizing in Greek. I don't wash my tableware by sprinkling water on it and calling it good lest I drown the things. I immerse them.

Hence, I have concluded that baptism and washing are one and the same in Greek. How do I was myself? I get all wet, preferably in a good bathtub, which is the only means available other than outdoor bodies of water. What would happen if I immersed a baby? If I was not careful the baby would drown. Therefore, I rejected the baptism of infants and the sprinkling of people as a normative form of biblical baptism.

You do realize the Eastern churches immerse infants three times? And the Latin church did the same till the 10th century.

 

[buzuxi02]

Is there anything written in the first century (either scriptural or from the fathers) that reflects infant baptism? A first century non-cannonical writing called the didache (~The Didache~) ( see chapter VII) also reflects believers baptism. Can another document from the first century be shown that reflects infant baptism? I would suggest that rather than seeing the history of baptism as a "side by side" I would see it as a transition where the two forms may have some overlap, and that it began with believers baptism, and moved to infant baptism.
.

In order to get both views probably best to post this question in sub forums where they practise infant baptism and those who do not practise it.

The Didache does not actually disprove infant baptism. The fact that others are to fast along with the baptismal candidate leaves the door open for infant baptism. Most catecumens in the early church were baptised in specific times, this is why there is a universal fast in eastern Christianity during the Theophany. It was a day of mass baptisms of both adults and children and servants and infant's so the entire congregation fasted on this day in the early church. Also in the previous chapter (iv) it speaks of the parents of children and to their slaves, that the master should treat his servants with respect as they are both under the same God and the believing servant to view his Christian master as a representative of God. Meaning households were of the same faith as the rulers of the house. One hint; in scripture their is a verse paraphrasing if the above with mention of servants and infants and their baptisms.

 

[Tangible]

The Didache does not actually disprove infant baptism.

Neither do the Holy Scriptures.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Neither do the Holy Scriptures.

Actually, there are loads of things that the Holy Scriptures do not directly disapprove of. For example, there is not a verse in scripture about Purgatory, Limbo, Nirvana, the Pink Paradise of Green Elephants, etc. That, of course, provides no basis for believing in them, does it?

 

[buzuxi02]

The scripture clearly teaches infant baptism. That's not even up for debate (I won't say which verse, but plenty of bible experts with knowledge of greek here may know which one) The problem arises because we confuse the 'οικος' of Acts 16:31 to how a modern family is ordered. The oikos included all dependants under the 'Kyrios' (master or head) of his household. This included slaves, adopted members, children etc. In Acts 16:31 the apostles don't say you and all your oikos, EXCEPT if there be kids under 8 years of age or to your servants children etc. They said your entire household fullstop, before they ever knew who constituted that household.

 

[mmksparbud]

For one thing, no one can be re-baptized. Baptism is indelible.

I'll have to disagree with that. I was baptized around 13, it meant absolutely nothing to me. I had a reason for doing so, but it had nothing to do with a personal decision to follow Christ. I was rebaptized when came back to Christ.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You do realize the Eastern churches immerse infants three times? And the Latin church did the same till the 10th century.

Yes, I do realize this. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church in my area is drifting back toward that practice and has installed baptisteries in some church which can accomodate the immersion of infants. I think if adults were baptized in them then the priest would probably sprinkle them or pour water over them as there is not enough room to immerse them.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The scripture clearly teaches infant baptism. That's not even up for debate (I won't say which verse, but plenty of bible experts with knowledge of greek here may know which one) The problem arises because we confuse the 'οικος' of Acts 16:31 to how a modern family is ordered. The oikos included all dependants under the 'Kyrios' (master or head) of his household. This included slaves, adopted members, children etc. In Acts 16:31 the apostles don't say you and all your oikos, EXCEPT if there be kids under 8 years of age or to your servants children etc. They said your entire household fullstop, before they ever knew who constituted that household.

My goodness! Your assertion is bizarre in the extreme. It is like the prevalent thought that the Bible clearly teaches that "God helps those who help themselves." If you are so unfamiliar with the Bible that you don't even know your proof texts, you are best off not making assertions you cannot defend.

You might be thinking of Acts 16. Breaking into the narrative we have the following:

22 The crowd rose up together against them, and the chief magistrates tore their robes off them and proceeded to order them to be beaten with rods. 23 When they had struck them with many blows, they threw them into prison, commanding the jailer to guard them securely; 24 and he, having received such a command, threw them into the inner prison and fastened their feet in the stocks.

25 But about midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns of praise to God, and the prisoners were listening to them; 26 and suddenly there came a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison house were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone’s chains were unfastened. 27 When the jailer awoke and saw the prison doors opened, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped. 28 But Paul cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here!” 29 And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas, 30 and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

We see here that the jailer in Phillipi was baptized along with his whole household. We see also that his whole household also believed. How many infants would there be in any household that are capable of believing?