Does the bible have any Infant Baptism passage?

[Blaise]

SPOKENWORD:

Yes br. Fiat,But God is in control. He will not allow one of these little ones to perish. I trust Him because He loves us to much that babies would perish. God Bless

Yes! God loves us all including the babies. Yet it is not God who condemns us (and the babies) but we who do. Please read the passage below from Exodus. This should help you understand why the Catholic Church teaches that babies too should be baptised. This passage makes it very clear that the sins of our ancestors condemn us (even as babies). And baptism cleanses us of our sins. So would you deny an infant this grace land leave him/her to be condemned by the sins of his/her parents?

Exodus 34:5-7
5 And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD. 6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, 7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

 

[NonDenom]

Blaise:

Yes! God loves us all including the babies. Yet it is not God who condemns us (and the babies) but we who do. Please read the passage below from Exodus. This should help you understand why the Catholic Church teaches that babies too should be baptised. This passage makes it very clear that the sins of our ancestors condemn us (even as babies). And baptism cleanses us of our sins. So would you deny an infant this grace land leave him/her to be condemned by the sins of his/her parents?

Exodus 34:5-7
5 And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD. 6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, 7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

Hi Ho All
This would be a fine scripture to quote for others to understand why we should Baptize infants, except we don’t live by old testament law anymore.
Thanks.

 

[Melchior]

NonDenom:

Hi Ho All
This would be a fine scripture to quote for others to understand why we should Baptize infants, except we don’t live by old testament law anymore.
Thanks.

Well this passage isn’t law. Unless you think the OT is irrelevent to the Christian this won’t fly. There are somes timeless truths in there about covenat relationships. And God has always dealt with families in all his covenants, not just indivduals. God made a covenant with Abraham and his seed. He made a covenan t with Noah and his seed he made a covenant with Israel under Moses - the men and their seed. Each covenant had a symbol or sign of promise. Circumcision, the Rainbow. Now the new covenant has a sign of promise - baptism. As with the other covenants this one includes families. The converst in Acts 2 would have had this clearly in their minds. To exclude their children, form the New Covenant would have been an impossible concept to these Jews. Peter would have had to say something radical about it. He did not.

Baptism in scripture is something God does to us not something we do in response to God. It is about His promise not our obedience.

Mel

 

[NonDenom]

Well this passage isn’t law. Unless you think the OT is irrelevent to the Christian this won’t fly. There are somes timeless truths in there about covenat relationships. And God has always dealt with families in all his covenants, not just indivduals. God made a covenant with Abraham and his seed

. He made a covenan t with Noah and his seed he made a covenant with Israel under Moses - the men and their seed. Each covenant had a symbol or sign of promise. Circumcision, the Rainbow. Now the new covenant has a sign of promise - baptism. As with the other covenants this one includes families. The converst in Acts 2 would have had this clearly in their minds. To exclude their children, form the New Covenant would have been an impossible concept to these Jews. Peter would have had to say something radical about it. He did not.

Baptism in scripture is something God does to us not something we do in response to God. It is about His promise not our obedience.

Mel

Hi Mel
I didn’t say that the Old Tesatament was irrelevent or that it wasn’t full of timeless truths. We as sinners arent treated the same in the New Testament as they were in the Old Testament, and thank Jesus for that. We can assume all we want, but the fact remains that when talking about Baptism NEVER is infant Baptism mentioned. When does an infant become a child may be a matter of opinion though, they did get married at 13 or 14 and I would consider them to still be a child at that age.
Thanks

 

[Melchior]

NonDenom:

Hi Mel
I didn’t say that the Old Tesatament was irrelevent or that it wasn’t full of timeless truths. We as sinners arent treated the same in the New Testament as they were in the Old Testament, and thank Jesus for that. We can assume all we want, but the fact remains that when talking about Baptism NEVER is infant Baptism mentioned. When does an infant become a child may be a matter of opinion though, they did get married at 13 or 14 and I would consider them to still be a child at that age.
Thanks

The word Trinity isn’t used either. Neither is an age of accountability to be found anywhere in scripture. Baby dedication? Nope, not there. The fact remains whole households were baptised upon the faith of the head of the household. Households include babies. And remember first century society was not like our autonomous society. I man was the representative and head of his family in every way. If he was a Christian then so was his family.

It also does not say anywhere in scripture that baptism is a response to salvation. Nor does it forbid infant baptism so at worst we each ahve as much biblical evidence.

However I would like to see you engage the bulk of my post about how covenant signs have always been applied and specifically Acts 2:38 & 39:

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.”

This explicitly state that the promise is for them and their children - which is taken almost word for word from Genesis 11 regarding circumcision. So it is clear from this passage that Peter was instucting them to not only be baptized themselves but also that they should bring their children to the waters as well. And it does not put and age requirement on the children.

Mel

 

[NonDenom]

The word Trinity isn’t used either. Neither is an age of accountability to be found anywhere in scripture. Baby dedication? Nope, not there. The fact remains whole households were baptised upon the faith of the head of the household. Households include babies. And remember first century society was not like our autonomous society. I man was the representative and head of his family in every way. If he was a Christian then so was his family.

It also does not say anywhere in scripture that baptism is a response to salvation. Nor does it forbid infant baptism so at worst we each ahve as much biblical evidence.

However I would like to see you engage the bulk of my post about how covenant signs have always been applied and specifically Acts 2:38 & 39:

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.”

This explicitly state that the promise is for them and their children - which is taken almost word for word from Genesis 11 regarding circumcision. So it is clear from this passage that Peter was instucting them to not only be baptized themselves but also that they should bring their children to the waters as well. And it does not put and age requirement on the children.

Mel

Hi again Mel
You just did something that you claim we Protestants are always doing, taking scripture and bending it to fit our point. You highlighted the "be Baptized everyone of you ", but you forgot to highlight the “Repent” part of it. I’m not sure a infant can nor need’s to repent. Repent means to turn away from whatever sin it is that we are engaged in, not repent from original sin. If we repented of original sin then we would have to only do it once, right?. Or does original sin stay with us until purgatory?. I appreciate your opinions on these questions.
thanks

 

[Melchior]

NonDenom:

Hi again Mel
You just did something that you claim we Protestants are always doing, taking scripture and bending it to fit our point. You highlighted the "be Baptized everyone of you ", but you forgot to highlight the “Repent” part of it. I’m not sure a infant can nor need’s to repent. Repent means to turn away from whatever sin it is that we are engaged in, not repent from original sin. If we repented of original sin then we would have to only do it once, right?. Or does original sin stay with us until purgatory?. I appreciate your opinions on these questions.
thanks

Hi NonDenom,

Let me clarify one thing. I am your Protestant brother. Most Protestant actually do believe in Infant baptism. So I will not address the rest because it seems directed at a Catholic position. I agree fully that we need to repent. And I am certain those first Christians who baptized their children did raise them in the fear and admonition of the Lord, thus encouraging to repent of their sins reminding them that they belong to Christ having been baptized into His church. It is really a beautiful picture of Salvation by Christ alone. While the believers child is still helpless God is gracious enough to make promises to that child in baptism. Because really what is baptism but the Gospel in liquid form? Of course what is promised must be “ratified” so to speak by faith because we are saved by grace through faith.

Mel

 

[MariaG]

Original sin is not something one can repent from. During Baptism, original sin is removed, although our conspicious (okay I really botched that spelling) or leaning towards sin remains.

 

[Blaise]

NonDenom,

So if I understand you correctly what you are trying to say is that

1. For Baptism; Repentence is a prerequisite/must. Unless a person repents he/she cannot be Baptised. Am I correct in understanding your stand?
2. Also when you contend that infants cannot be Baptised (as they are not capable of repenting) can you clarify from what source/research you make this contention?

Can you please clarify on the above 2 points to enable me to get a clear understanding of your stance.

 

[NonDenom]

NonDenom,

So if I understand you correctly what you are trying to say is that

1. For Baptism; Repentence is a prerequisite/must. Unless a person repents he/she cannot be Baptised. Am I correct in understanding your stand?

Luk 13:5 I tell you, Nay: but, except, ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
This is just 1 of about 45 verses scriptures that say we must repent. Then here is the scripture that I have seen many use to show their point.
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Notice the order of things, Repent and be baptized. Not be Baptized and then repent.

1. Also when you contend that infants cannot be Baptised (as they are not capable of repenting) can you clarify from what source/research you make this contention?

I think that most people would agree that a two year old can’t say,
“Well I know that I’ve done wrong, and I know what the wages of sin are death so I must turn away from this sin and turn to God”
A two year old just doesn’t have the capability of understanding what sin is. Acts 17:30 talks about God forgiving those who did not know him because it was not their fault, do you honestly think that he would put a baby into limbo because they werent Baptized? You also use Math 19:14 as a verse to Baptize infants but what if a child dies before you Baptize them and they end up in limbo? arent you keeping them from coming to God?
Thanks

 

[MariaG]

The problem here is that the apostles in Scripture compared baptism to circumcision. Why make such a comparision if infants were not allowed to be baptized? Why would God be the author of such confusion?

Limbo is not an official doctrine of the Catholic Church. Your argument makes no sense when Limbo is not even a teaching of the Catholic Church. (Limbo is along the lines of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Everyone has an opinion, but there is no “official” answer.)

But you truly need to explain why baptism is compared to circumcision in Scripture, explain why all early Christian writings (before 300ad) talk about infant baptism and why even protestant denominations do it. Were Christians wrong for 1800 years?

God Bless,
Maria

God bless,
Maria

 

[Melchior]

MariaG said:

The problem here is that the apostles in Scripture compared baptism to circumcision. Why make such a comparision if infants were not allowed to be baptized? Why would God be the author of such confusion?

Exactly. The passage would make no sense if infants were not baptized.

Mel

 

[TNT]

SPOKENWORD:

I personally believe it has nothing to do with age, But only when the child understands the purpose. God Bless.

By that criteria, you should not be baptised yet as you have no clue about the full purpose of baptism, namely Original Sin and a New Covenant member.

 

[TNT]

SPOKENWORD:

…Jesus said, If you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart you will be saved.The Word of God has many IFS AND BUTS. IF you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that Jesus is your Lord,you shall be saved.Its not a magical formular. God Bless

Well, that would exclude infants, your personal additions to Scripture notwithstanding.
Like I said, you have no clue about the full purpose of baptism, since you refuse to even bring up or confront Original Sin.
You also denied to name of ANY church that is Christ’s Matt:16 Church. This tells us that you have no church but your own imaginings. Again, an obstacle to understanding baptism.
It’s not that you have not had abundant opportunity from the countless posts that you have read.
Goood faith discussion is lacking sorely, and you are here to proslytize, not to be informed.

 

[TNT]

NonDenom:

Luk 13:5 I tell you, Nay: but, except, ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
This is just 1 of about 45 verses scriptures that say we must repent. Then here is the scripture that I have seen many use to show their point.
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Notice the order of things, Repent and be baptized. Not be Baptized and then repent.

I think that most people would agree that a two year old can’t say,
“Well I know that I’ve done wrong, and I know what the wages of sin are death so I must turn away from this sin and turn to God”
A two year old just doesn’t have the capability of understanding what sin is. Acts 17:30 talks about God forgiving those who did not know him because it was not their fault, do you honestly think that he would put a baby into limbo because they werent Baptized? You also use Math 19:14 as a verse to Baptize infants but what if a child dies before you Baptize them and they end up in limbo? arent you keeping them from coming to God?
Thanks

Have you ever read through a good book or the Church Fathers and Church teaching on Divine Providence and Predestination? If not, I highly recommend it.
No natural birth qualifies one to be in heaven, unless you are into Pelagianism.