Baptism of babies & infants

[fireandflames]

luke 3:3 - babies have no sins so why would they get baptized?

acts 19:4 - again this discusses what baptism was for.

 

[adrift]

luke 3:3 - babies have no sins so why would they get baptized?

acts 19:4 - again this discusses what baptism was for.

Acts points out that John’s baptism was not sufficient. Why do you think that was?

Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). I don’t see where He said accept babies. In Luke Jesus said Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’"

Paul said in Col 2:11-12 that baptism has replaced circumcision. When were the Jews circumcised? When they were 8 days old.

The bible says in Acts 16:15 that Lydia’s household was baptized and in Acts 16:33 Philippian the Jailer’s household was baptized. In 1 Cor 1:16 Paul says “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas”. Those versus don’t say accept for the babies.

 

[ParkerD]

Acts points out that John’s baptism was not sufficient. Why do you think that was?

Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). I don’t see where He said accept babies. In Luke Jesus said Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’"

Paul said in Col 2:11-12 that baptism has replaced circumcision. When were the Jews circumcised? When they were 8 days old.

The bible says in Acts 16:15 that Lydia’s household was baptized and in Acts 16:33 Philippian the Jailer’s household was baptized. In 1 Cor 1:16 Paul says “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas”. Those versus don’t say accept for the babies.

Adrift,
I think Fireandflames raised a good point. “Household” does not imply that there are babies in the household, at all.

John 3:3-5 in Douay-Rheims translation says: 3 Jesus answered, and said to him: “Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb, and be born again? 5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Nicodemus understood Christ to be talking about someone who was “old” who needed to be “born again.” He questioned how that could happen. Clearly, Christ was not talking about an infant, nor did Nicodemus think that He was talking about an infant needing to be baptized.

 

[rtconstant]

Adrift,
I think Fireandflames raised a good point. “Household” does not imply that there are babies in the household, at all.

John 3:3-5 in Douay-Rheims translation says: 3 Jesus answered, and said to him: “Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb, and be born again? 5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Nicodemus understood Christ to be talking about someone who was “old” who needed to be “born again.” He questioned how that could happen. Clearly, Christ was not talking about an infant, nor did Nicodemus think that He was talking about an infant needing to be baptized.

Well its rather more likely that Nicodemus was using himself as a point of reference which would make sense.

Also it is extremely unlikely that an ancient household didn’t have children. In those days it was not unusual for several generations to live in a single household. But even assuming that this household was an exception. The point is that it was understood that the patriarch of the household could speak for it under these circumstances.

In the end there is no reason whatsoever to assume that God would desire children to be grafted into the Old Covenant and then deny them entrance into the New One.

 

[Lilyflower]

The most prominent objection I have seen is based on Mark 16:16: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” From this, advocates of believer’s baptism understand Jesus to mean that belief in Christ must precede baptism for the sacrament to be valid.

I’m not entirely in agreement with this as the only priviso as Scripture also evidences and clearly shows others advocating for one not able to advocate for himself. He was not rejected but healed.

No-where did Christ say ‘sorry but he must believe before I heal’. No, He healed through the faith of the sick man’s advocates, where the sick man was unable to advocate for himself.

So too logically with infant baptism.

Blessings and peace

 

[Eric_Prine]

Infant baptism is something I’ve been trying to study more. (I grew up Protestant and am not quite Catholic yet, but definitely intrigued).
I do not think infant baptism makes any sense in the Protestant mindset of what is a Christian. That would be an individual decision of atleast intellectual belief and faith. But in light of covenant theology, I think infant baptism makes perfect sense. I saw someone mention already about it being the ‘new covenant circumsion’ in Colossians 2:12. If the Church is in some sense atleast, the new Jewish people, the new covenant nation of God, similar but more expansive and inclusive than the old, I could see infant baptism as possibly being valid. Peter in his first epistle, I think the first chapter writing to Gentile Christians said that they were ’ a holy nation, a royal priesthood.’ Plus I wonder if belief along with faith is something you grow into. Maybe I’m thinking a little bit post-modern about this, but I really don’t think you can just have 2 categories of belief and non-belief. So far my walk with God over the years, it seems there are levels of belief, and faith can be weak or always get stronger. So I have a hard time making the separation of Christian vs. non-Christian solely resting on the idea of belief. I’m not quite sure yet, but if this thinking is true, I don’t see why an infant could not be baptized and the belief is something that they grow into as they are raised by their parents.

 

[Eric_Prine]

…besides, I have been so up and down in my faith over the years, if I was a Christian because of belief, I would have become Christian, than not Christian, then Christian again, more times than I could count on my fingers!

 

[ParkerD]

Well its rather more likely that Nicodemus was using himself as a point of reference which would make sense.

Also it is extremely unlikely that an ancient household didn’t have children. In those days it was not unusual for several generations to live in a single household. But even assuming that this household was an exception. The point is that it was understood that the patriarch of the household could speak for it under these circumstances.

In the end there is no reason whatsoever to assume that God would desire children to be grafted into the Old Covenant and then deny them entrance into the New One.

RTConstant,
I can see your point, but how is an infant “denied entrance into the New Covenant”? When Christ said “for of such is the kingdom of Heaven”, he was talking about little children who had not been baptized, because they were infants who had been brought to him for a blessing by His hand. He did not imply they needed baptism.

Isn’t the New Covenant different than the Old Covenant, in that the old covenant was a covenant dealing with physical birth into the House of Israel, whereas the new covenant deals with spiritual birth into the kingdom of God whether the person is a Jew or a Gentile? It seems to me that the two do not need to be assumed to both take place during infancy, and that spiritual birth requires covenant making by the person being spiritually reborn. I think Christ conveyed this idea to Nicodemus.

 

[Lilyflower]

…besides, I have been so up and down in my faith over the years, if I was a Christian because of belief, I would have become Christian, than not Christian, then Christian again, more times than I could count on my fingers!

Jesus bless you. You are the very sort He wants. We have much work to do. He will reveal in due course what He want you specifically to do.

He has work for life long converts and work only you and I can do because of our experience.

Blessings and peace.

 

[rtconstant]

RTConstant,
I can see your point, but how is an infant “denied entrance into the New Covenant”? When Christ said “for of such is the kingdom of Heaven”, he was talking about little children who had not been baptized, because they were infants who had been brought to him for a blessing by His hand. He did not imply they needed baptism.

Well I would say that unless that we are going to assume that this also means that Heaven is only populated by those particular children. We have to assume that Christ was speaking in several layers when he said that. One that children are part of the New Covenant which is why an immediate physical response was required, and also that we approach God as a child approaches its parent.

Isn’t the New Covenant different than the Old Covenant, in that the old covenant was a covenant dealing with physical birth into the House of Israel, whereas the new covenant deals with spiritual birth into the kingdom of God whether the person is a Jew or a Gentile? It seems to me that the two do not need to be assumed to both take place during infancy, and that spiritual birth requires covenant making by the person being spiritually reborn. I think Christ conveyed this idea to Nicodemus.

The New Covenant does indeed have differences from the Old Covenant. But its not completely alien to it. The Old Covenant also had spiritual context. The mark of circumcision wasn’t just a physical change. It was also sign of a person who was consecrated to God. While it is true that a lot of the Old Covenant focused on temporal benefits, I doubt that you could find a Jew who believes that their religion is purely physical in nature.

Like anytime one is looking for clues of clarification. One looks at precedent.

 

[acuddymar]

I believe the reason that the Catholic Church does not refuse Baptism to those below the age of reason including infants is because Scripture does not. There are several instances of entire households being baptized with no suggestion or inference of anyone beling excluded so the Catholic Church does not.

Acuddymar

 

[adrift]

Adrift,
I think Fireandflames raised a good point. “Household” does not imply that there are babies in the household, at all.

It is unreasonable to believe that there were no babies in the households of the time. However, consider the following from Acts 2:38-39

38 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.
39
For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”

Every one of you does not mean just adults further the promise involving baptism is for the children as well. It doesn’t say when your children are adults than the promise will be given to them.

 

[ParkerD]

It is unreasonable to believe that there were no babies in the households of the time. However, consider the following from Acts 2:38-39

Every one of you does not mean just adults further the promise involving baptism is for the children as well. It doesn’t say when your children are adults than the promise will be given to them.

Hi, Adrift,
The word “household” was not talking about every household in that time period. It was used when talking about specific families in specific instances.

The Acts 2:38-39 passage is a good example of several important meanings about baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. The “promise” talked about in verse 39 seems in the context to be the promise of the Holy Ghost, just as Christ had promised to send after He ascended into heaven. So the expectation is that a person would have that promise become effective in their life after their baptism, and it would be by receiving “the gift of the Holy Ghost.” It would also come to “whomever the Lord our God will call,” meaning in context that someone on the receiving end of that “call” would have enough understanding to feel or know that they have been “called” by the Lord to repent and be forgiven of their sins, be baptized, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. An infant would not be represented within that context. A young person of age to receive a “call” would, however. So it needn’t be strictly an adult.

Have a good day.

 

[adrift]

Hi, Adrift,
The word “household” was not talking about every household in that time period. It was used when talking about specific families in specific instances.

Household in that time period were not the same as today. As someone has already pointed out, they contained what would today be considered multiples families. There would be grandparent, parents brother, sisters, aunts uncles cousins not to mention the servants and slaves all under one roof. So it is more than reasonable to assume that infants would fall under all the household. Further more you say it was talking about a specific family but ignore that all in the household were baptized. There is no disclaimer that it was only adults.

38 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.
39
For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”

Everything you said is almost true. There is something that has to be done in order to receive the promise. One of which is be baptized. The promise is made not only to them but to their children. So in order to receive the Holy Spirit you must be baptized. When the covenant was made with the Jews the sign was circumcision. It wasn’t declared for infants but developed naturally to being infants. Baptism is the entrance to the Christian family just like circumcision was the entrance to the Jewish family. Jesus commanded all be baptized nowhere does he say just adults.

 

[freedomwriter]

Household in that time period were not the same as today. As someone has already pointed out, they contained what would today be considered multiples families. There would be grandparent, parents brother, sisters, aunts uncles cousins not to mention the servants and slaves all under one roof. So it is more than reasonable to assume that infants would fall under all the household. Further more you say it was talking about a specific family but ignore that all in the household were baptized. There is no disclaimer that it was only adults.
Everything you said is almost true. There is something that has to be done in order to receive the promise. One of which is be baptized. The promise is made not only to them but to their children. So in order to receive the Holy Spirit you must be baptized. When the covenant was made with the Jews the sign was circumcision. It wasn’t declared for infants but developed naturally to being infants. Baptism is the entrance to the Christian family just like circumcision was the entrance to the Jewish family. Jesus commanded all be baptized nowhere does he say just adults.

Could you provide scripture where there is an instance where a baby is baptized. I have looked and could not find one. Thanks God Bless

 

[Bill_Pick]

Will you please show me the verse that said ONLY adults.

Suggests baptism of all, entire household including children Acts 2:38-39; Acts 16:15; Acts 16:33; 1 Cor 1:16
Necessity of baptism Jn 3:5
Circumcision (normally performed on infants) replaced by baptism Col 2:11-12

 

[Bill_Pick]

Will you please show me the verse that said ONLY adults.

Suggests baptism of all, entire household including children Acts 2:38-39; Acts 16:15; Acts 16:33; 1 Cor 1:16
Necessity of baptism Jn 3:5
Circumcision (normally performed on infants) replaced by baptism Col 2:11-12

Where is the biblical admonition to exclude infants from the same Abrahamic covenant that is still in effect?

 

[adrift]

Could you provide scripture where there is an instance where a baby is baptized. I have looked and could not find one. Thanks God Bless

I have already. It said all the household. It didn’t say except children under two years old. Bill Pick provided good evidence.

Bill Pick Will you please show me the verse that said ONLY adults.

Suggests baptism of all, entire household including children Acts 2:38-39; Acts 16:15; Acts 16:33; 1 Cor 1:16
Necessity of baptism Jn 3:5
Circumcision (normally performed on infants) replaced by baptism Col 2:11-12
Where is the biblical admonition to exclude infants from the same Abrahamic covenant that is still in effect?

 

[ParkerD]

Household in that time period were not the same as today. As someone has already pointed out, they contained what would today be considered multiples families. There would be grandparent, parents brother, sisters, aunts uncles cousins not to mention the servants and slaves all under one roof. So it is more than reasonable to assume that infants would fall under all the household. Further more you say it was talking about a specific family but ignore that all in the household were baptized. There is no disclaimer that it was only adults.

Everything you said is almost true. There is something that has to be done in order to receive the promise. One of which is be baptized. The promise is made not only to them but to their children. So in order to receive the Holy Spirit you must be baptized. When the covenant was made with the Jews the sign was circumcision. It wasn’t declared for infants but developed naturally to being infants. Baptism is the entrance to the Christian family just like circumcision was the entrance to the Jewish family. Jesus commanded all be baptized nowhere does he say just adults.

Adrift,
Even if the family is multi-generational as you suggested, the assumption that there were infants in that particular household is an assumption that is not validly assumed using the text.

You are certainly correct about circumcision, and the assumption that baptism “developed naturally to being (for) infants.” I have no doubt that as many Jews joined the new church, especially in Rome and especially the Pharisees, they would have insisted that baptism needed to be performed for babies since circumcision had been performed on babies under the old Mosaic law, the old covenant gospel.

But we are talking about a new covenant gospel, the gospel that was not to be “put into old bottles” or sewn “onto an old garment.” (Christ taught that.) I agree that baptism can come at a younger age than adulthood, but the context of Colossians 2:11-12 talks about a “circumcision made without hands”, which clearly is talking about taking the “body of the sins of the flesh” (which would be like the cut portion during circumcision) and “putting” that body of the sins of the flesh off (disposing of it), made possible because of the “circumcision of Christ”, which means the crucifixion and atonement of Christ.

In verse 13, Paul continues his analogy by talking about the “uncircumcision of your flesh” meaning the sinful person before they have Christ, and that each person who has been “buried with him in baptism” (meaning immersed in water) is “quickened together with him” by being “forgiven all trespasses.” Thus, they become a new creature through that “quickening” or “rebirth” of baptism. It does not imply that the age needs to be the same as when the law of circumcision was practiced. It is clearly using an analogy that applies to a sinful person with “trespasses”.

John 3:5 was a specific case in which Christ was talking to Nicodemus, a man who was obviously an adult. There is no implication in the text that Christ was talking about infants when he said “except a man be born…” Nicodemus did not react in a way that showed he thought Christ was talking about infants. He reacted, “how can a man be born when he is old?” What Christ meant and what Nicodemus understood Him to mean are clear in the context.

 

[freedomwriter]

Will you please show me the verse that said ONLY adults.

Suggests baptism of all, entire household including children Acts 2:38-39; Acts 16:15; Acts 16:33; 1 Cor 1:16
Necessity of baptism Jn 3:5
Circumcision (normally performed on infants) replaced by baptism Col 2:11-12

For one there is no scripture that shows baptism is for adults only. Though Jesus was 30 yrs old when he was baptized. But there are no scripture to support infant baptism. The ones you have provided are only suggestions. Col 2:11-12 is not talking about infant baptism