What Scriptures make a positive case for infant baptism?

[Daniel Marsh]

What Scriptures make a positive case for infant baptism?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

What Scriptures make a positive case for infant baptism?

None.

 

[Saint Nod]

Yes, I think you are on a limb here all on your own, if you were to hold infant baptism as a position! All the baptism accounts are adults... even when the jailer and his family when they were all baptised does not mention that there were infants involved... but it kind of does make sense that those who were baptised were adults (or children old enough to understand) since they alone would realise the significance of what baptism is all about...
I have worked within a particular denomination where infant baptism is seen as your entry ticket... that you become a Christian when you are baptised....bit sad...

 

[Albion]

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.

 

[Saint Nod]

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.

Hi Albion,
There are certainly points where I certainly do agree with you.
As I did say in my initial comments, whole household could imply that his children were younger.... but it does not say infants which I am sure you would agree with.
I also agree that the scriptures do not specifically say adults... which is why I said it makes sense that people should be baptised when it both makes sense to them and that there is a conviction of the heart that they should do so.
And yes, it concerns me when people of my denomination baptise so as to "belong to the club."
Dedication, I think is a different issue... of the ones I have attended, the minister always says that this in no way implies that the child is saved, it is more a ceremony of the birth of the child, where the minister says that we, the congregation together with the parent, have an obligation to nurture the child along the Christian pathway so that the child comes to the point of full maturity in the Christian faith.
I am not sure of your perspective, and I do speak from a perspective of having attended Anglican (high) services for the past 12 years, but when children are christened it is seen as a mark that they are now saved... how can this possibly be when the child/infant has no cognitive understanding of what is going on?
Please don't think I am against Anglican wholesale, I love my Episcopalian brothers and sisters.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

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.

As a former teacher of 9 and 10 year olds, I can say that these children are well capable of making informed decisions. My daughter gave her life to Christ at the age of 10, and the decision was hers which she made on her own in her room and then came and told me afterward. So I think your argument about 8-10 year olds is irrelevant to the discussion. What is being discussed is infant baptism that is treated as a sacrament in some churches and it is claimed that the child receives salvation when they are baptised. But there is no New Testament scripture that supports this.

Concerning the assertion that the scripture does not support adult baptism either, it has to be noted that all the instances of baptism by John the Baptist and in the book of Acts involve adults and not children. This comes from eye witness evidence that would stand up in court of law so we can safely conclude that when baptism is mentioned in the New Testament it involves adults who have made a commitment to Christ.

 

[Albion]

Hi Albion,
There are certainly points where I certainly do agree with you.
As I did say in my initial comments, whole household could imply that his children were younger.... but it does not say infants which I am sure you would agree with.

Yes, but what is the difference between infants and, say, five year olds? For purposes of this issue, it's none. If the claim is that only those who are old enough to make a mature commitment for Christ ought to be baptized, none of these individuals are eligible.

I also agree that the scriptures do not specifically say adults... which is why I said it makes sense that people should be baptised when it both makes sense to them and that there is a conviction of the heart that they should do so.
And yes, it concerns me when people of my denomination baptise so as to "belong to the club."
Dedication, I think is a different issue... of the ones I have attended, the minister always says that this in no way implies that the child is saved, it is more a ceremony of the birth of the child, where the minister says that we, the congregation together with the parent, have an obligation to nurture the child along the Christian pathway so that the child comes to the point of full maturity in the Christian faith.

Well, none of the churches that baptize infants think that they are saved as a result, and they do have sponsors for the very young for the very reason you're describing here. My point was that the dedication ceremony--not to make too much out of it--has no basis at all in Scripture or the practices of the first Christians. It's purely an improvisation.

I am not sure of your perspective, and I do speak from a perspective of having attended Anglican (high) services for the past 12 years, but when children are christened it is seen as a mark that they are now saved... how can this possibly be when the child/infant has no cognitive understanding of what is going on?

They're not saved--not guaranteed of salvation. Nor do we teach that it is absolutely necessary to be baptized in order to be saved. There are some churches which teach both of those things, but not us. What you are referring to (I think) is the statement that they are regenerated.

Please don't think I am against Anglican wholesale, I love my Episcopalian brothers and sisters.

Not a problem. I didn't think that.

 

[Albion]

As a former teacher of 9 and 10 year olds, I can say that these children are well capable of making informed decisions. My daughter gave her life to Christ at the age of 10, and the decision was hers which she made on her own in her room and then came and told me afterward. So I think your argument about 8-10 year olds is irrelevant to the discussion..

I disagree. If the Baptistic view of Baptism is to have any meaning at all, it has to mean a mature understanding of the commitment and of the Gospel. It cannot just be on the level of "Jesus loves me, this I know."

There may be an 8 year old somewhere who actually can make a commitment of the sort that's expected, but that would be very rare and, in any case, the churches baptize those who don't have that level of understanding even though the members of these churches talk all the time to us about how important it is to baptize only those who are able to make a personal commitment to Christ with a full view of the meaning of the faith and what they are committing to.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I disagree. If the Baptistic view of Baptism is to have any meaning at all, it has to mean a mature understanding of the commitment and of the Gospel. It cannot just be on the level of "Jesus loves me, this I know."

There may be an 8 year old somewhere who actually can make a commitment of the sort that's expected, but that would be very rare and, in any case, the churches baptize those who don't have that level of understanding even though the members of these churches talk all the time to us about how important it is to baptize only those who are able to make a personal commitment to Christ with a full view of the meaning of the faith and what they are committing to.

I think that an 8 year old can make the decision to be baptised on the basis of his or her decision for Christ, although they may not understand the full implications of it. They will be doing it in obedience to what they see or are shown in the scripture. But when they get older, then they will understand what it is all about and they will then acknowledge that they were genuinely baptised and will not need to be re-baptised as an adult.

But at the same time, I don't agree with infant baptism in the same sense, because the infant has not made a personal decision for Christ, nor have they made their decision to be baptised. That was a decision made by their parents on the basis of their faith and not that of the infant. So, at best, it is more of a dedication than a true baptism according to scripture. That infant has to grow to an age where he or she comes to an understanding of the gospel and to be able to make their own decision for Christ and when they need to be baptised.

 

[Albion]

I think that an 8 year old can make the decision to be baptised on the basis of his or her decision for Christ, although they may not understand the full implications of it.

Apparently you do, since such a thing is not uncommon among the churches that insist upon "Believer's Baptism;" but what you describe makes a mockery of the point IMHO.

But when they get older, then they will understand what it is all about and they will then acknowledge that they were genuinely baptised and will not need to be re-baptised as an adult.

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

But the most notable item in what you wrote here is, in my view, that you're using the same argument that those who baptize infants use, i.e. that these will have to make a follow-up commitment at a later time when they are intellectually capable, either by way of a conversion experience or, more formally, by Confirmation...and that's roundly rejected by the "Believer's Baptism" churches.

I see the distinction you are drawing, but IMHO it's not much when we get right down to it.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Apparently you do, since such a thing is not uncommon among the churches that insist upon "Believer's Baptism;" but what you describe makes a mockery of the point IMHO.

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

But the most notable item in what you wrote here is, in my view, that you're using the same argument that those who baptize infants use, i.e. that these will have to make a follow-up commitment at a later time when they are intellectually capable, either by way of a conversion experience or, more formally, by Confirmation...and that's roundly rejected by the "Believer's Baptism" churches.

I see the distinction you are drawing, but IMHO it's not much when we get right down to it.

There is quite a difference between an infant having no conception at all over what is happening, and an 8 year old who has enough understanding to see that the act of baptism is important and should be done, but having a limited understanding to appreciate the full implications of it at his age. I would think that a responsible pastor would have given some teaching to the 8 year old before the event so that the child would have a workable understanding of what it means. I think that 8 years olds are somewhat more intelligent and knowledgable that you give them credit for.

 

[Big Drew]

Yes, but what is the difference between infants and, say, five year olds? For purposes of this issue, it's none. If the claim is that only those who are old enough to make a mature commitment for Christ ought to be baptized, none of these individuals are eligible.


Well, none of the churches that baptize infants think that they are saved as a result, and they do have sponsors for the very young for the very reason you're describing here. My point was that the dedication ceremony--not to make too much out of it--has no basis at all in Scripture or the practices of the first Christians. It's purely an improvisation.


They're not saved--not guaranteed of salvation. Nor do we teach that it is absolutely necessary to be baptized in order to be saved. There are some churches which teach both of those things, but not us. What you are referring to (I think) is the statement that they are regenerated.


Not a problem. I didn't think that.

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.

 

[Albion]

There is quite a difference between an infant having no conception at all over what is happening, and an 8 year old who has enough understanding to see that the act of baptism is important and should be done, but having a limited understanding to appreciate the full implications of it at his age.

The question is, "Is that difference sufficiently significant to justify altering the baptismal consensus and practices of the church since antiquity?" I'd say "no."

The more we exchange ideas about the differences between the two views, the less the differences become. Ultimately, the basis for the 'Believer's Baptism' argument appears as more of an abstraction than a critical theological difference.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The question is, "Is that difference sufficiently significant to justify altering the baptismal consensus and practices of the church since antiquity?" I'd say "no."

The more we exchange ideas about the differences between the two views, the less the differences become. Ultimately, the basis for the 'Believer's Baptism' argument appears as more of an abstraction than a critical theological difference.

The bottom line for me is that whether or not to get baptised is the decision of the individual. No person should be compelled just to satisfy some religious principle. Baptism is the public declaration of an individual's commitment to Christ and it is voluntary act. For that reason alone I don't support infant baptism.

 

[ripple the car]

What Scriptures make a positive case for infant baptism?

This is a really neat topic. To be perfectly frank, if you're *only* looking at the Scriptures, there seems to be a much stronger case for believers' baptism.

But passages like Mark 10:14 do seem to point to a spiritual reality that would include the possibility of infant baptism.

That, and the fact that it can be safely stated that the Apostolic Catholic, Orthodox, and Assyrian Churches have practiced and continue to practice infant baptism give one pause.

 

[Albion]

The bottom line for me is that whether or not to get baptised is the decision of the individual. No person should be compelled just to satisfy some religious principle. Baptism is the public declaration of an individual's commitment to Christ and it is voluntary act. For that reason alone I don't support infant baptism.

The bottom line for me concerns what baptism is thought to accomplish. After answering that, the next question would address the matter of who it is who needs that.

Being that all humans are sinners, even newborns, a sorting out process in which the little ones alone are not allowed to "come unto me" would be wrong.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The bottom line for me concerns what baptism is thought to accomplish. After answering that, the next question would address the matter of who it is who needs that.

Being that all humans are sinners, even newborns, a sorting out process in which the little ones alone are not allowed to "come unto me" would be wrong.

I am not sure what the Anglican position is on baptism, whether it is a dedication ceremony, or whether the "christening" suggests that baptism brings salvation to an infant. If it is a ceremony dedicating the child to the Lord and the godparents fulfill their responsibility to bring that child up in the ways of the Lord, leading to eventual conversion to Christ, then I don't have a problem with it at all. But if it implies that the child receives salvation at baptism, then I don't agree. Baptism is a declaration about something that has already taken place - that is, only converted Christians are baptised. That is why it is called a believer's baptism not an unbeliever's baptism.

 

[Albion]

I am not sure what the Anglican position is on baptism, whether it is a dedication ceremony

Nope. It's a sacrament.

or whether the "christening" suggests that baptism brings salvation to an infant.

None of the historic churches teach that it confers any such guarantee.

 

[Don Maurer]

This is a really neat topic. To be perfectly frank, if you're *only* looking at the Scriptures, there seems to be a much stronger case for believers' baptism.

But passages like Mark 10:14 do seem to point to a spiritual reality that would include the possibility of infant baptism.

That, and the fact that it can be safely stated that the Apostolic Catholic, Orthodox, and Assyrian Churches have practiced and continue to practice infant baptism give one pause.

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]

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.

If I can add, there is a lot of theology even behind how we look at Baptism. Do we look at the practice through the "scriptures alone?" Those who believe "sola scriptura" are generally united in a lot of their theology, but concerning baptism there is some disagreement. Also, one would have to ask questions concerning the purpose of baptism. Evangelicals are united in their denial of justification at baptism, but they have different explanations of the reason for baptism. Some associate it with being inaugurated into the New Covenant, but then some Baptists view the New Covenant differently from Presbyterians.

Finally, again, thanks to Mr. Singh for at least giving the bible honorable mention as having some influence in some small way on the teachings concerning baptism.