Baptism of babies & infants

[kcmekim]

This makes good sense. You see, when Jesus gave baptism to the church, there was no Bible.

2/3 of the books that make up the Bible did exist. Jesus quotes from them frequently.

“Biblical Requirements” for baptism were derived in America in the 1900’s with the anti catholic anti sacramentalism movement. They are a modern innovation, and do not reflect what the Apostles believed and taught.

So then how did they get into the Bible?

The denial that the majority of Protestants baptize infants makes it clear that the writer thinks his own experience of Protestantism reflects the norm around the world.

Two problems with this.

The first is that credo-baptism is the norm, simply because of the sheer numbers of Baptists, charismatics, non-denom, etc, who practice credo-baptism.

The second is that I’ve never tried to make an argument that we should do it because it’s the norm. Like I said, I don’t care how many people do it or don’t do it, our first obligation is to be obedient to the word of God, not do what everybody else is doing.

This may be the most serious part of the problem. The modern American fundamentalist does not care what the Apostles beleived and taught.

If that’s true, then why do we spend so much time studying what they taught? If that’s true, why do we look to their creeds and confessions as authoritative and to their writings as instructive?

He does not really care why the Reformers separated, or why they retained certain belief instead of others. All he cares about is his own understanding of what the scripture means. It is an idiosycratic form of Christianity.

I find that for you to say that I don’t care is blatantly dishonest. If I didn’t care, I wouldn’t have spent all of the time and energy studying it, nor the time and energy developing classes and teaching them at no cost to students (and, often times paying for it out of my own pocket).

No, it is not an assumption. It is the teaching that we received from the Apostles, who were the ones baptizing infants.

Could you please give me any examples from scripture of the Apostles baptising infants or of any infant in scripture meeting the Biblical requirements to be baptised?

Since you are separated from the Apostolic Succession, it is understandible that you believe it does not exist.

We believe it does not exist because scripture does’t support such an idea.

The Apostolic Faith is not dependent upon the Bible.

And there is your problem. Anytime you put anything above the authority of the word of God, you’re going to run into trouble.

The Apostles were baptizing infants before a word of the NT was written. I understand, though, that the Bible is all you have left, and therefore you must cling to it.

You say that like accepting God’s word as authoritative is a bad thing.

Not a condescending speck there. The truth is that it is sad for all of us to see how far you have departed from the Apostolic faith.

As a Catholic, I understand that you believe that. But I don’t so your condescending remarks just don’t work as the personal attacks you mean them to be.

Placido:

If those “requirements” existed from the beginning, why is it that nobody “saw” them until the sixteen century?

Who says nobody saw them until the sixteenth century? Jesus saw them. Paul saw them. Philip saw them.

And you are infallible?

I’m not the Baptist Distinctives.

Babies in all Christian families from 33 AD to 1600 met “the Biblical criteria” and were baptised - then, something changed.

No, they did not. If they did, there would be some record of these super genius babies.

But it was neither “the Biblical criteria” nor the babies that changed. It was the understanding of some self-appointed teachers that deviated from the gospel truth.

And we say the same thing about Catholics.

Neither does it say it excludes infants.

That’s exactly right. I take the time to read your posts before I respond to them. Please show me the same respect. I’ve stated several times now that it neither includes NOR excludes children.

You say this like it’s some big revelation to you, but if you had just read my posts, you would have seen that I’ve said this all along.

Let us start with the baby in Elizabeth womb (Luke 1). Don’t you see that that baby could understand and articulate the Gospel even before his birth?

No. There’s nothing in scripture to indicate that the baby in Elizabeth;s womb met the Biblical criteria for baptism. What’s more, baptism had not yet been introduced as an ordinance of the church.

 

[Mickey]

That’s what they are. That’s why they’re called the Baptist Distinctives: because they’re what distinguishes us as Baptists.

Okay. If these “distinctives” talk against infant baptism, when did this understanding develop and by whom?

What verse tells us that that’s the criteria for baptism?

The verse that tells us to baptize infants talks about whole households.

We believe that baptism, while not salvific, is something to be taken very seriously.

Another baptist “distinctive”?

Because we do take it so seriously, we feel that it would be both disobedient and irresponsible for us to deviate from the Biblical criteria for baptism.

Then you had better change the “distinctives” because Scripture tells us to baptize whole households.

I agree. It says “whole households”. Whether or not it says whole households was never the issue.

Amen brother! Now you are understanding!

Then I can not, in good conscience, baptise them.

As a baptist, I supposse you will follow your “distinctives”.

I’m sorry that makes you sad, but God has given us His word and we are not to deviate from it.

Nor should you.

I* did *say that infants do not meet the Biblical criteria for baptism.

Yes. And you are mistaken.

I did not deny that whole households includes infants.

Excellent!

I said that there is nothing in the text to indicate that it makes an exception for infants in that household.

Great!

And, again, I did not say that Catholics or Orthodox or anyone else should or shouldn’t do anything. I just said that this is what we do.

Hmmm. Perhaps the “distinctives” should be re-evaluated.

 

[Mickey]

The first is that credo-baptism is the norm, simply because of the sheer numbers of Baptists, charismatics, non-denom, etc, who practice credo-baptism.

As far as the reformed churches are concerned, infant baptism is practiced by Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, some non-denoms, church of Christ, etc, etc.
And yes, I know baptists too–perhaps not your flavor of baptist.

It is odd that you try to say that your 500 year old innovative baptist practice which denies God’s children the sacrament of holy baptism, has become the protestant norm?!?

 

[kcmekim]

Okay. If these “distinctives” talk against infant baptism, when did this understanding develop and by whom?

The distinctives are based on scripture which was developed by the Apostles in the 1st century.

The verse that tells us to baptize infants talks about whole households.

I’ve already addressed this about a dozen times now.

Another baptist “distinctive”?

Nope.

Then you had better change the “distinctives” because Scripture tells us to baptize whole households.

No, actually, it says that they did baptise whole households, not that we are to baptise whole households. In any event, the household is irrelevant. We’re talking specifically about infants and, like I’ve said numerous times, if an infant meets the Biblical requirements to be baptised, I have no problem baptising them.

Amen brother! Now you are understanding!

Actually, I’ve understood this all along. You just didn’t think that a Baptist was worthy of the respect of reading my posts before you responded.

As a baptist, I supposse you will follow your “distinctives”.

That’s right. They’re in place for a reason.

Nor should you.

Nor will I, and that is why I will not baptize an infant who does not and cannot meet the Biblical requirements for salvation.

Yes. And you are mistaken.

I disagree. I have never seen an infant yet who meets the Biblical criteria for baptism.

 

[kcmekim]

As far as the reformed churches are concerned, infant baptism is practiced by Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, some non-denoms, church of Christ, etc, etc.
And yes, I know baptists too–perhaps not your flavor of baptist.

Then by definition, they’re not Baptists.

It is odd that you try to say that your 500 year old innovative baptist practice which denies God’s children the sacrament of holy baptism, has become the protestant norm?!?

We don’t deny God’s children the ordinance of baptism. We simply wait until (a) they do become a child of God and (b) they meet the Biblical requirements to be baptised.

 

[Mickey]

Then by definition, they’re not Baptists.

Sure they are. There are 1st baptists, 2nd baptists, American baptists, Southern baptists, reformed baptists, etc, etc.

We simply wait until (a) they do become a child of God .

They are born a child of God.

 

[kcmekim]

Sure they are.

No, actually, they’re not. The reason they call the Baptist Distinctives the Baptist Distinctives is that they are what distinguishes us as Baptists. If they deny these distinctives, then they are, by definition, not Baptists.

They are born a child of God.

Then why does the Bible say that we’re born children of wrath?

 

[Mickey]

The distinctives are based on scripture which was developed by the Apostles in the 1st century.

The distinctives were written by men who re-interpreted Sacred Scripture. These men lived in the 17th and 18th century.

I’ve already addressed this about a dozen times now.

Then it should be sinking in by now.

No, actually, it says that they did baptise whole households, not that we are to baptise whole households.

I see. Whole hopuseholds were baptized in the Sacred Scriptures. But that does not apply to us?

In any event, the household is irrelevant.

It is extremely relevant…and Scriptural.

I have never seen an infant yet who meets the Biblical criteria for baptism.

I’m not a betting man. But I would wager to say that Jesus Christ would not agree with you.

 

[kcmekim]

The distinctives were written by men who re-interpreted Sacred Scripture. These men lived in the 17th and 18th century.
Then it should be sinking in by now.

Even if this were true, when they were compiled isn’t the issue. The issue is that they are based on scripture.

I’m not a betting man. But I would wager to say that Jesus Christ would not agree with you.

And I disagree.

 

[placido]

Who says nobody saw them until the sixteenth century? Jesus saw them. Paul saw them. Philip saw them.

Oh yeah, Jesus saw them and Paul saw them and Phillip saw them … and then came the great apostasy and from shortly before Paul’s death until the 1600s nobody could see them any longer …

I’m not the Baptist Distinctives.

You (plural). You said, “We don’t believe they’re infallible, but they are definitive”.
If you are not infallible, then what you “believe” to be “definitive” is of no consequence.

No, they did not. If they did, there would be some record of these super genius babies.

But from 33 AD to 1600 babies of Christian families were baptized. The records are there for all to see.

And we say the same thing about Catholics.

Good. We say something about you. You say something about us. You think what we say is wrong. We think what you say is wrong. What then?
According to you there is no solution to that problem. According to us there is a solution – the Church Jesus founded.

That’s exactly right. I take the time to read your posts before I respond to them. Please show me the same respect. I’ve stated several times now that it neither includes NOR excludes children.
You say this like it’s some big revelation to you, but if you had just read my posts, you would have seen that I’ve said this all along.

Sorry for not noticing your “vain repetition”. BTW, I don’t like it when people start pleading for respect without any valid reason.

No. There’s nothing in scripture to indicate that the baby in Elizabeth;s womb met the Biblical criteria for baptism. What’s more, baptism had not yet been introduced as an ordinance of the church.

Brother, time for you to list the Biblical criteria for baptism. I am waiting.

placido

 

[Mickey]

No, actually, they’re not. The reason they call the Baptist Distinctives the Baptist Distinctives is that they are what distinguishes us as Baptists. If they deny these distinctives, then they are, by definition, not Baptists.

I’ll find out which flavor they are and get back to you. There are many.

Then why does the Bible say that we’re born children of wrath?

We are born with original sin. This is why infant baptism is necessary.

"Everyone in the world falls prostrate under sin. And it is the Lord who sets up those who are cast down and who sustains all who are falling. In Adam all die, and thus the world falls prostrate and requires to be set up again, so that in Christ all may be made to live."
*Origen, Homilies on Jeremias, 8:1 (post A.D. 244). *

 

[Mickey]

Even if this were true…

It is true.

Baptist distinctives—five key convictions (authors)

Thomas Helwys (1611)
The London Confession (1644)
Benjamin Griffiths (1746)
Andrew Fuller (1785)
Isaac Backus (1781)

I believe it was the London confession which provided your innovations on baptism.

Now let us look at a quote from one of the Church Fathers. This was written approximately 115 years after the death of the last Apostle, St John the Evangelist.

**“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.” **
(St Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition 21:15, c. 215 A.D.)

 

[Mickey]

And I disagree.

Lord have mercy.

 

[kcmekim]

But from 33 AD to 1600 babies of Christian families were baptized. The records are there for all to see.

I can’t help what somebody else may or may not have done. All I can do is to say that we’re not going to do it that way.

Brother, time for you to list the Biblical criteria for baptism. I am waiting.

Why? You don’t believe in them. Your church doesn’t believe in them. You don’t adhere to them or accept them as authoritative. What would be the point? You’ve already made it clear that you don’t accept them.

 

[kcmekim]

Now let us look at a quote from one of the Church Fathers. This was written approximately 115 years after the death of the last Apostle, St John the Evangelist.

**“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.” **
(St Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition 21:15, c. 215 A.D.)

The difference is that we do not consider Hippolytus’ words to be equal to scripture.

 

[kcmekim]

I’ll find out which flavor they are and get back to you. There are many.

I think they’re Catholic.

We are born with original sin. This is why infant baptism is necessary.

Then baptize infants if you want to. I’m not trying to stop you.

 

[Mickey]

I think they’re Catholic.

You know them? What a small world. They told me they were baptist.

Then baptize infants if you want to. I’m not trying to stop you.

You will never stop or convince anyone who practices the apostolic faith to refrain from baptizing infants.

 

[Mickey]

The difference is that we do not consider Hippolytus’ words to be equal to scripture.

No. Here is the real difference.
You adhere to traditions of men who twisted the Sacred Scripture to their own destruction—men who changed the apostolic practice 1600 years after Christ instituted the holy Sacrament of baptism. You have denied this sacrament to your children and declared it to be a mere symbolic ordinance. The early Christians and Church Fathers knew the apostolic practice–and they wrote about it. Infants were always baptized–nothing has changed. The early Church dealt with many heresies (Arians, Novatians, etc). If the apostolic practice was adult believer’s baptism, and suddenly all Christians began baptizing infants, history would have recorded it as a terrible heresy in the Church. But instead we have silence. Why? Because infant baptism has always been the apostolic practice.

I pray that the baptists come to undersdtand this one day.

 

[kcmekim]

You will never stop or convince anyone who practices the apostolic faith to refrain from baptizing infants.

I’ve never tried to convince anyone of anything. I’ve explained to you over and over and over again that I don’t care what you do or don’t do. I’m not trying to convince you to do anything or not do anything. I’m just telling you what we do.

I truly don’t understand why you find that so threatening.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if you want to baptize infants then, by all means, baptize every infant you can get your hands on. I don’t care what you do.

 

[Lethe]

I’ll come in with a reply to the objection to infant baptism - I am an agnostic, and was never baptised but I actually wish I had been - regardless of whether you grow up to believe in the faith, it gives you somewhere you ‘belong’ and not to mention extra role models (godmother and father) which some people really need.