Infant Baptism Question

[upside]

I am currently in dialogue with a non-denominational evangelical who has a hang up with infant baptism. She says that in scripture, baptism is always preceded with “believing,” and therefore, this rules out infant baptism in her mind. She says this particularly in regard to the passages that talk of whole households being baptized.

Any suggestions?

 

[Gorgias]

The heads of the households believed; but, based on their choice to believe, their whole families were baptized – without any indication that they, too, were given the opportunity individually to choose.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

We know that the vary early Church practiced infant baptism. In contrast, there is no record of only the adults of the household being baptized, and the children only on adulthood.

 

[thephilosopher6]

The very early Church baptized infants. Like, for example, we know Origen was baptized as an infant and he was born about 80 years after the death of the Apostle John.

 

[Charliesj]

Baptism is the way that we enter into the new covenant with God, circumcision was the way Israelites entered the old covenant but there was no was for an 8 day old male child to believe in the covenant that they were entering. Their parents made the decision on their behalf and then raised them in the covenant relationship with God

 

[boomerang]

Believing came before baptism in the NT because the apostles were preaching the gospel to adults, not babies. Of course they would have to believe before they submitted to baptism. They would never agree to be baptized if they didn’t understand what they were doing. But after they were baptized, everyone in the house was baptized. In the age before birth control, what do you want to bet that those homes contained children under the age of reason? Most likely all of them.

 

[thistle]

I am currently in dialogue with a non-denominational evangelical who has a hang up with infant baptism. She says that in scripture, baptism is always preceded with “believing,” and therefore, this rules out infant baptism in her mind. She says this particularly in regard to the passages that talk of whole households being baptized.

Any suggestions?

catholic.com/tracts/infant-baptism

 

[MT1926]

I am currently in dialogue with a non-denominational evangelical who has a hang up with infant baptism. She says that in scripture, baptism is always preceded with “believing,” and therefore, this rules out infant baptism in her mind. She says this particularly in regard to the passages that talk of whole households being baptized.

Any suggestions?

Every time I hear this question said to me it blows my mind that they do not hear or understand what they are saying.

be·lieve
bəˈlēv/
verb
gerund or present participle: believing
1.
accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.
“the superintendent believed Lancaster’s story”
synonyms: be convinced by, trust, have confidence in, consider honest, consider truthful

Even though she will deny it tell her believing is a work. There is nothing we can do to keep the word believe from being a verb. We Catholics believe there is absolutely no work we can do to merit the free gift of God’s grace.
Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God— 9 not because of works, lest any man should boast.

What better way is there to prove that we believe this than to Baptize babies who are incapable of doing any works to merit the free gift of God’s grace.

As others mention above about verses saying for you and your household or for you and your children can only exclude infants if you are reading that into the text.

Acts 2:39
39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”

Now we need to realize no one reads the Bible with a clean slate. We all read the Bible with our own backgrounds and answers in the back of our mind. We know the answers before we read the verses and read those answers into the verses.

So let us try not to do this here. Let’s put ourselves in the shoes, or sandals, of the parents standing in the crowd listening to Peter. You’re standing there with your entire family. Your spouse holding your 6 month old, your 2 year old sitting on the ground your bored 5 year old running around in circles, your 7 year old saying I’m hungry can we go home and your 10 year old listening to Peter and soaking it in. When Peter says this to you what would enter into your mind? If someone says to me my children I am looking around me and saying to myself ok here are my 5 kids.

Let’s continue, verse 41 tells us about 3000 were Baptized that day. Without reading what we know into the verse do we honestly believe there was not a single infant in the crowd?

Not sure if you are a parent or not, but I remember when my first daughter was born 22 years ago. She wasn’t leaving my sight for nothing. I still remember the first “Adult Only wedding we were invited to.” It was for my business partner. I was so mad, they had to drag me to his wedding, because I said if he doesn’t want my daughter there he doesn’t need me there.

Now verse 41 says 3000 souls were added that day. Really? I fought with my parents for a week before they finally convinced us to go to the wedding without our daughter. There is no way the Apostles explained individually to each and every family there that their child had to be able to believe first or be 8 years old or what ever age is determined and still baptize 3000 souls in a day. And why didn’t this further explanation make it into the next few verses.

Sometimes we just need to be logical and not read the answer into the question.

 

[mattp0625]

I am currently in dialogue with a non-denominational evangelical who has a hang up with infant baptism. She says that in scripture, baptism is always preceded with “believing,” and therefore, this rules out infant baptism in her mind. She says this particularly in regard to the passages that talk of whole households being baptized.

Any suggestions?

They are attempting to glean something from scripture that isn’t there.

Just because we can see John the Baptist performing baptisms in the Jordan River, and there is no indication of children being baptized in that part of scripture, does not mean that scripture indicates we cannot baptize infants or that infant baptisms did not take place.

The same logic is applied to the fact that Jesus was baptized later in life.

You might also ask your friend, who follows sola scriptura, where the bible defines the age of reason for baptism. It does not define it, yet somehow they came up with an age.

Dr. David Anders said scripture indicates baptism is a gift for the people and their children. Also, under the old covenant, circumcision was performed on male children.

 

[fred_conty]

I am currently in dialogue with a non-denominational evangelical who has a hang up with infant baptism. She says that in scripture, baptism is always preceded with “believing,” and therefore, this rules out infant baptism in her mind. She says this particularly in regard to the passages that talk of whole households being baptized.

Any suggestions?

I think John 3 explains it well. Jesus said that unless we are born again we will not enter heaven. Does she want the child in heaven?

Also from the fact that Jesus’ wants all to be baptized for that is what he instructed his disciples and apostles to do. Why? So that the Holy Spirit may dwell in them as temples. Doesn’t she want her child to become a temple of the Holy Spirit?

It really isn’t up to us to make the decision of whether or not to baptise children. Jesus has already made that decision because he wants everyone to be baptised and has said so. Why would he make an exception for children whom he loved so much? He wants them with him.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I am currently in dialogue with a non-denominational evangelical who has a hang up with infant baptism. She says that in scripture, baptism is always preceded with “believing,” and therefore, this rules out infant baptism in her mind. She says this particularly in regard to the passages that talk of whole households being baptized.

Any suggestions?

The REAL question is really this: Do babies need Jesus to be saved? If the answer is Yes, then there has to be some ‘mechanism’ (e.g. baptism) for bringing babies into the New Covenant. Otherwise, there’s no way for a baby/child to enter into the New Covenant. And if one must be fully able to personally make an act of faith, then this means no child can be saved, which nobody believes. So either a child is born automatically into the New Covenant and later falls out and must later put their faith in Christ, or else there’s a way to bring babies into the New Covenant, such as baptism.