Infant Baptism - Laying out the facts

[Randy_Carson]

And the argument that you, Randy, and Porknpie use…“the bible does not say you cannot baptize infants,” is an invalid argument. It holds absolutely no weight. Think about it.

I have. I have scripture verses suggesting that infants were baptized when whole households were baptized. I have ancient writings of the Early Church Fathers discussing and extolling infant baptism. I have an authoritative (and infallible) Church that has practiced infant baptism for 2,000 years.

What do you have? Personal interpretation of a few verses about ADULT converts to the Christian faith misapplied to their children? In other words, you have nothing.

So, the questions remain:

1. Does the Church have the authority to determine whether infant baptism is valid or not? Yes or No.
2. Does the Bible explicitly prohibit infant baptism? Yes or No.
3. Did the Early Church Fathers prohibit the baptism of infants? Yes or No.

Think about it.

 

[Scitor]

you keep mentioned “personal lord and savior” yet the sinner’s Prayer is un biblical and it has been proved many times.

Sorry, but you are quite wrong. The sinner’s is not unbiblical or has it been proven to be unbiblical.

The phrase highlighted in bold is not found anywhere in scripture.

Neither is the word Trinity. Is Christ not your personal Lord and Savior. Does he not know every strand of hair on your head, every thought in your mind.

Verses protestant use to support this doctrine
christianteens.about.com/od/Bible_Verses_On/a/Bible-Verses-About-Accepting-Christ.htm

Thanks for supporting my argument

You are trying to equate belief = salvation.

Absolutely not. This is a disingenuous attempt at spreading misinformation. I equate accepting Christ as your Lord and Savior = Salvation. You could say personal Lord and Savior too…it is pure semantics.

Faith is daring the soul to go beyond what the eyes can see

I totally agree.

Matthew 7:21
It is not everyone that says to me, ‘My Lord, my Lord’’, who enters the Kingdom of Heaven, but whoever does the will of my Father who is in Heaven.

Again…I agree. But I try to do the will of the Father out of love, not out of obligation. Big difference. We can never earn our salvation. It is a gift. And, once given, it can not be taken away.

Let’s take a look at a few other passages of Scripture. Let’s open our Bibles to Matthew 25:31-46:

“…Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You drink? And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? And when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You? And the King will answer and say to them, Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me. Then He will also say to those on His left, Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me. Then they themselves also will answer, saying, ** Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You? Then He will answer them, saying, Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me. And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life .”**

What is the basis of judgment here, Our faith alone?

In light of Matt 12:50, the words refer to Jesus’ followers who seek to do God’s will. Humble and compassionate treatment of Jesus’ followers necessarily accompanies acceptance of the gospel that they proclaim. If you read a little deeper neither the sheep nor the goats knew beforehand whether they would be on the right or the left given they both asked “Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thristy, or a stranger, or without clothes, or sick…” Thus, neither was working for salvation.

 

[Scitor]

What about a few other passages. How about Revelation 20:11 15. Look for the words “faith alone” in this passage.

“And I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. And death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.”

And again, in Matthew 16:26 27:

“For what will a man be profited, if he gains the whole world, and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels; **and will then recompense every man according to his deeds.” **

And what about Revelation 2:23:

“And I will kill her children with pestilence; and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts;** and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds.”**

Specifically to Revelations 20:11-15 (and in general to your post) - You show a lack of understanding of the scripture you have used. There are two sets of books at this judgement. The names of all believers are in the book of life. The names of the “earth dwellers” are not in the book of life (see Rev 13:8, 17:8). They are judged according to their works, which are recorded in the other book. No one can ever be saved by works, because that would leave room for human boasting (see Eph 2:8-9). The eternal dwelling place of all unbelievers is the lake of fire. The eternal resting place for all those who accepted Christ as their Savior is heaven.

And what amazing information does St. Paul give us in Romans 2:5 11?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sorry, but you are quite wrong. The sinner’s is not unbiblical or has it been proven to be unbiblical.

You have a verse?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Again…I agree. But I try to do the will of the Father out of love, not out of obligation. Big difference. We can never earn our salvation. It is a gift. And, once given, it can not be taken away.

Catholics say, “Amen!” No one can take your salvation away from you.

Of course, a person can simply walk away from or reject the gift. Boatloads of scriptures show that to be true.

 

[Scitor]

I have. I have scripture verses suggesting that infants were baptized when whole households were baptized. I have ancient writings of the Early Church Fathers discussing and extolling infant baptism. I have an authoritative (and infallible) Church that has practiced infant baptism for 2,000 years.

What do you have? Personal interpretation of a few verses about ADULT converts to the Christian faith misapplied to their children? In other words, you have nothing.

So, the questions remain:

1. Does the Church have the authority to determine whether infant baptism is valid or not? Yes or No.
2. Does the Bible explicitly prohibit infant baptism? Yes or No.
3. Did the Early Church Fathers prohibit the baptism of infants? Yes or No.

Think about it.

You do not have verses showing infant baptism or suggesting infant baptism. I clearly showed without doubt that each instance household is used it was followed by stating the household first believed.

You do not have an authoritative (and infallible) Church - By the very nature that the catholic church (or any church) is made up of and run by human men proves this. We have 2000 years of history to show the catholic church is in fact fallible.

No I do not have just personal interpretation. I look to works of great theologians. And like the catholic church, the SBC has its leadership that guides its members.

 

[Steveabrous]

No I do not have just personal interpretation. I look to works of great theologians. And like the catholic church, the SBC has its leadership that guides its members.

The problem with this is that your “authority” is only a few hundred years old, and it rejected the already established authority that had been there from the beginning.

Your “great theologians”, again, have only been around for a few hundred years at best. While we are quoting 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century theologians who say infant baptism was handed down by the Apostles themselves.

 

[adrift]

I do not see any misuse here. And it does prove what I stated and my comment has not been refuted. If you cannot see how instituting a law putting to death those that are re-baptized is support for and also a means of enforcing infant baptism, then all I can say is your bias restricts your ability think clearly on the matter.

Firstly, you have no idea who I am, you do not know what experience I have nor my background. It is extremely rude to say that I cannot think clearly. BTW your statement applies to you. It is probably your own bias that concludes that if I don’t agree with you I must be not thinking clearly and am biased

Let us go over that OP

The fact is that infant baptism did not become a part of the Catholic church until the fourth century.

You claim it is a fact. Yet I provided evidence that it existed from the beginning. Your bias ignored it.

What about this fact. What you do is offer up Theodosius II statement that does not concern the institution of baptism. It isn’t about infant baptism. It is obvious that it exist prior to this law. What you fail to acknowledge is that the law would apply to an adult who was baptized and would try to be rebaptized. The law does not mention that a baby had to be baptized. What you don’t provide is that up to this point infant baptism didn’t exist and this law than put into existence. Yeah! your bias fails to see that infant baptism had to exist prior.

There is no record of infant baptism from apostolic and post-apostolic writers. Please show me one example of infant baptism

This statement like your previous statement is false. I have shown you records of both.

Peter in the first sermon on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 says, “Repent and be baptized.” Infants cannot repent. In every example of baptism in the bible, baptism is preceded by belief in Christ and repentance.

Show me in scripture that he address infants? He was addressing adults.
Jesus said

“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

 

[adrift]

Scripture is not clear either way. Yes it says believe and be baptized. I see it more as a command not a prerequisite. Jesus says in order to attain heaven you must be reborn of water and the Spirit. He did not say first believe. Jesus also said suffer not the little ones to come unto me.

The scriptures are clear. The Enunch asked what must I do to be baptized. What was he told, “believe.” In every example of baptism in scripture believe precedes baptism. Please provide an example of baptism in the bible where this is not the case.

This is a non sequitur. I talk of Jesus and you bring in the Eunuch.

Where is your evidence that families who converted baptized infants? It is not in scripture. You, like many others, assume/infer infants where baptized.

I will repost Randy Carson

Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household.

The word “household” comes from the Greek word “oikos” which is a household that includes infants and children. You can learn more about oikos here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oikos

Further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia’s faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents’ faith, not the children’s faith.

Finally, the “brethren” mentioned in v. 40 are not exclusively the members of the household but also those of the local church which met at Lydia’s home.

And
Fr. of Jazz

OK, so from:
(1) the biblical data given:
(a) including Lydia’s whole household was baptized (Acts 16:15) as was all the family of the jailer (Acts 16:33). Paul says he baptized the household of Stephanas (1 Cor 1:16). There is no reason in the text to exclude infants or children from the respective households, and
(b) there is certainly no prohibition in the entire NT against the baptism of infants.

(2) the patristic data: one example here among many available on the web. It is reported by them as an established practice and considered apostolic.

The Catholic Church East and West and the EOC have always held when they talked/wrote about it that infant baptism is a legitimate practice of apostolic origin.

So how would you sketch out the argument for your protesting view that it is more reasonable to conclude that infant baptism (the preexisting claim the CC and EOC) is positively contrary to God’s will and must be abandoned completely?

Bear in mind that if the argument for your protesting position is based on sola scriptura (SS), another protesting claim, you are begging the question, until you establish why it is more reasonable to adopt SS as the means God chose to hand on His word rather than by the united and interrelated process of Scripture and Apostolic Tradition in the Catholic and Apostolic Church going back to Pentecost (STC).

 

[adrift]

You do not have verses showing infant baptism or suggesting infant baptism. I clearly showed without doubt that each instance household is used it was followed by stating the household first believed.

.

No you have not. There is not one verse that say the “household” first believed.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

And like the catholic church, the SBC has its leadership that guides its members.

That’s not really true. The Catholic Church is headed by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit. The SBC is a tradition of men, founded by men, long long after the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ. The SBC was founded based on a theory of men that somehow the Catholic Church had failed, hence the need for the SBC. However the SBC never produced any evidence for their theory.

IOW, a Divine religion like Catholicism can not be compared to a tradition of men like the SBC.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You do not have verses showing infant baptism or suggesting infant baptism. I clearly showed without doubt that each instance household is used it was followed by stating the household first believed.

And I clearly showed that the Greek term “oikos” typically included all the residents of a home including infants.

Bottom line? There is simply not enough information to tell with certainty from scripture alone. If that’s all we have to go on, then I have a probability (that infants were included) while you have a possibility (that they were excluded). Given the context of Jewish custom regarding circumcision, the connection Paul makes calling baptism the “circumcision of Christ,” and the documents written by the early Christians regarding baptism of infants, I’d say the probability is pretty high.

But that’s not all I have, is it?

You do not have an authoritative (and infallible) Church - By the very nature that the catholic church (or any church) is made up of and run by human men proves this. We have 2000 years of history to show the catholic church is in fact fallible.

You never answered my original question. Did Jesus give REAL authority to the Church? Yes or No.

As for your assertions concerning 2,000 years of history proving the Church’s fallibility, well, let’s just save that for another thread.

No I do not have just personal interpretation. I look to works of great theologians. And like the catholic church, the SBC has its leadership that guides its members.

Oh. Which of these are infallible?

And if none are, then it really does come down to the fact that you either A) accepted what fallible men have told you about infant baptism or B) came to your own conclusion about infant baptism and then became a Baptist because they were preaching what you already believed. Either of those choices were based upon fallible human judgment.

+++

I’m curious, Scitor…you skipped right past the post where I quoted half a dozen early Christians discussing infant baptism…why is that?

 

[adrift]

I’m curious, Scitor…you skipped right past the post where I quoted half a dozen early Christians discussing infant baptism…why is that?

He ignored my post also which contained the same discussion. I can see missing it in one post but multiple post :ehh:

 

[JamesTheJust]

Sorry, but you are quite wrong. The sinner’s is not unbiblical or has it been proven to be unbiblical.

Neither is the word Trinity. Is Christ not your personal Lord and Savior. Does he not know every strand of hair on your head, every thought in your mind.

Thanks for supporting my argument

Absolutely not. This is a disingenuous attempt at spreading misinformation. I equate accepting Christ as your Lord and Savior = Salvation. You could say personal Lord and Savior too…it is pure semantics.

I totally agree.

Again…I agree. But I try to do the will of the Father out of love, not out of obligation. Big difference. We can never earn our salvation. It is a gift. And, once given, it can not be taken away.

In light of Matt 12:50, the words refer to Jesus’ followers who seek to do God’s will. Humble and compassionate treatment of Jesus’ followers necessarily accompanies acceptance of the gospel that they proclaim. If you read a little deeper neither the sheep nor the goats knew beforehand whether they would be on the right or the left given they both asked “Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thristy, or a stranger, or without clothes, or sick…” Thus, neither was working for salvation.

Faith alone is a different topic, and thus a different thread.

You have yet to address my refutation of the verses you provided (2 Samuel 12 and Isaiah 7:15), and the quotes that both Randy Carson and I have provided of Early Church Fathers, who clearly support infant baptism before, as you claim, it was invented by Theodosius II. I’m sure that we both could provide many more, but the point is this: until you respond, we cannot continue the argument.

 

[adrift]

The Catholic Church does not teach that the Pope is equal to scripture.

As I said before, you have no clue about what Catholics actually believe.

Are we done with infant baptism? If so, pick another item from your list and start another thread.

You are absolutely correct. The topic of this thread is infant baptism. We have strayed a little either new threads should be started, threads already started should be used, get back to topic or call it a day.

 

[Michael_Francis]

**http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/Off-Topic--Alert.gif

Please get back on topic, (Infant Baptism) and remain there or expect this thread to be closed.

As per the Forum Rules if you wish to tackle a different topic then create a new thread for it.

A number of posts have been removed and may be returned shortly as their own thread since they were http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/offtopic.png here.**

 

[Randy_Carson]

Scitor-

I look forward to interesting discussions of other topics in other threads, but in order to return this thread to its original topic, I would like to request that you address my post #116, please.

It’s really important to have a proper understanding of the authority that Jesus gave to the Apostles as we go forward in our conversations.

Thanks.

 

[Michael_Francis]

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/debate_on_logo.gif
NOTE:

A new thread has been created to accommodate the other topic that seems to have come up.

Who heads the church? Southern Baptist vs Catholic.

 

[Scitor]

Scitor-

I look forward to interesting discussions of other topics in other threads, but in order to return this thread to its original topic, I would like to request that you address my post #116, please.

It’s really important to have a proper understanding of the authority that Jesus gave to the Apostles as we go forward in our conversations.

Thanks.

Yes…I will reply, but please give me a bit of time. It is early morning here (i.e. 12:16am) and my four shots of espresso are starting to wear off.

 

[Porknpie]

Jazz…did you not read my previous post. I clearly showed through scripture that in each instance where household is mentioned, scripture goes on to state that those in the household believed first and then were baptized. The argument that households included infants has been thoroughly rebuffed.

And the argument that you, Randy, and Porknpie use…“the bible does not say you cannot baptize infants,” is an invalid argument. It holds absolutely no weight. Think about it.

Scitor, please answer if you believe infants are members of a household and if they are not, what are they members of?

• why would God in the OT use circumcision at day 8 to bring his children to him but wait for years to do so in the NT…and why would the early church speak so clearly on this?

“But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism…we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…” Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251).

• why does the early church speak to infant baptism, including references that they were taught by the apostles to do so?

“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

Curious it is that those closest in time to the apostles have the same understanding of infant baptism as does the Catholic Church. Think about it.

PnP