Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[NotWorthy]

**In what respect did it fall short? The children coming, or being brought, to Jesus were held by Him and blessed, and none of them are shown being baptized, so how is that even relevant to this discussion? Because it’s about children? So what? What does it have to do with baptizing infants?
**

Phil, this is why I’m tired of discussing this with you. On July 22, after numerous rebuttals, I finally got you to admit:

**I said, “by Him or any of His disciples.” Fine, He didn’t baptize. What about my statement, “or by any of His disciples”? **

And yet, 5 weeks later, you return to this baseless argument.

 

[Phil12123]

Me: **Let’s pose a scenario: Today, a modern-day Paul and Silas preach to a household and it includes 1 infant, 1 child 15 years old, 1 child 25 years old, and a father and mother. They all hear the Gospel that Jesus Christ died for their sins and rose again, and that if they repent and believe that message they will not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16 etc.). Let’s say the 1 infant responds by pooping his diaper and crying for his mother’s milk. The 15-year old child responds by saying, “Yeah, right,” and walks out of the room to go play a video game. The 25-year old says, “I’m not that big of a sinner, so who cares if He died for my sins?” The father says, “I believe it!!” The mother says, “I don’t have time to think about that right now. I have to change a diaper and feed my baby.” Paul and Silas decide to move on to the next household with their Gospel message. But before they leave, WHO, of the five household members, should they baptize, and WHY? **

You:

According to the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, they baptized all of them, on the basis of their father’s faith; it was simply assumed that the whole family would be Christian.

Wait, this scenario is not in the Book of Acts. I made it up. My question is, who of the five household members should be baptized, according to your understanding and beliefs about baptism? This is not the jailor, or Lydia, or Stephanas, or any household in the Book of Acts. It is a modern-day family. Now, would you still baptize ALL of them, based solely on the faith of the father?

 

[Phil12123]

Phil, this is why I’m tired of discussing this with you. On July 22, after numerous rebuttals, I finally got you to admit:
And yet, 5 weeks later, you return to this baseless argument.

**And as usual, you ignore my questions. What does that passage have to do with infant baptism? I did not say Jesus did not baptize them, did I? I said, **

In what respect did it fall short? The children coming, or being brought, to Jesus were held by Him and blessed, and none of them are shown being baptized, so how is that even relevant to this discussion? Because it’s about children? So what? What does it have to do with baptizing infants?

 

[NotWorthy]

**And as usual, you ignore my questions. What does that passage have to do with infant baptism? I did not say Jesus did not baptize them, did I? I said, **

In what respect did it fall short? The children coming, or being brought, to Jesus were held by Him and blessed, and none of them are shown being baptized, so how is that even relevant to this discussion? Because it’s about children? So what? What does it have to do with baptizing infants?

Your argument is completely baseless because you are siting the Synoptic Gospels. And in NONE of the Synoptic Gospels are Jesus and his Disciples baptizing anyone. So, by your faulty logic, Jesus and His disciples didn’t baptize anyone for the same reason that they didn’t baptize children.

For your logic to work, you have to show that Jesus had a practice of baptizing adults, but then simply blessed children. It doesn’t show this.

 

[NotWorthy]

****Wait, this scenario is not in the Book of Acts. I made it up. My question is, who of the five household members should be baptized, according to your understanding and beliefs about baptism? This is not the jailor, or Lydia, or Stephanas, or any household in the Book of Acts. It is a modern-day family. Now, would you still baptize ALL of them, based solely on the faith of the father?

That’s simple. I would baptize the child and the adults who wanted to be baptized.

Why wouldn’t I baptize the others? Because times have changed, and the children don’t necessarily follow the religion of the Father.

 

[Phil12123]

Your argument is completely baseless because you are siting the Synoptic Gospels. And in NONE of the Synoptic Gospels are Jesus and his Disciples baptizing anyone. So, by your faulty logic, Jesus and His disciples didn’t baptize anyone for the same reason that they didn’t baptize children.

For your logic to work, you have to show that Jesus had a practice of baptizing adults, but then simply blessed children. It doesn’t show this.

But why is the fact that infants were brought to Him (for Him to bless them or for whatever reason) relevant to whether we should baptize infants today? Since the Synoptics don’t mention baptism, why are these passages, all appearing in the Synoptics, relevant to our discussion of infant baptism? Is your point that since they are “of such is the kingdom of heaven” they are proper candidates for baptism? Or what?

 

[Phil12123]

That’s simple. I would baptize the child and the adults who wanted to be baptized.

Why wouldn’t I baptize the others? Because times have changed, and the children don’t necessarily follow the religion of the Father.

OK, you get an A for not baptizing those who didn’t want to be baptized and who didn’t follow the Father’s faith, but an F for baptizing the infant and any of them who wanted to be baptized but were nonbelievers.

 

[NotWorthy]

But why is the fact that infants were brought to Him (for Him to bless them or for whatever reason) relevant to whether we should baptize infants today? Since the Synoptics don’t mention baptism, why are these passages, all appearing in the Synoptics, relevant to our discussion of infant baptism? Is your point that since they are “of such is the kingdom of heaven” they are proper candidates for baptism? Or what?

Just as Jesus describes those becoming Disciples as “coming to Him” (i.e. “Come to me, all who are thirsty”), he uses the term for infants (notice the word for infant includes those that can’t walk yet), “Bring the children to me”. He wants these infants to be a part of His Kingdom.

 

[NotWorthy]

OK, you get an A for not baptizing those who didn’t want to be baptized and who didn’t follow the Father’s faith, but an F for baptizing the infant and any of them who wanted to be baptized but were nonbelievers.

Yeah, it comes from fighting Jesus’ words, or are you still on that shtick?

And again, Phil, you prove that a man reading one line from a Gospel 2000 years later (a line that has passed through at least two translations) knows more about what Jesus taught than those that spent their lifetimes with His Apostles.

 

[Phil12123]

Phil, I thought I made my point clear yesterday. Evidently not, so I’ll repeat it.

**That response falls short. Try again.
**

 

[NotWorthy]

**That response falls short. Try again.
**

The response that I’m tired of your petty accusations that I’m fighting against Jesus’ words and all that this implies falls short?

If I wished to be more blunt, I’d get a little friendly warning from the moderators.

Good-bye, Phil.

 

[Phil12123]

Just as Jesus describes those becoming Disciples as “coming to Him” (i.e. “Come to me, all who are thirsty”), he uses the term for infants (notice the word for infant includes those that can’t walk yet), “Bring the children to me”. He wants these infants to be a part of His Kingdom.

Perhaps the infants are already a part of His Kingdom until they reach the age of understanding and then reject Him. If He says, “of such is the kingdom of heaven,” meaning those in the kingdom are innocent in their minds and in their ways, the infants are already there, where He said the adults had to become (be converted and become as little children). To show that, He rebuked the disciples who hindered the children. Baptism would not be needed for them. They can’t repent and don’t need to. Nor until they have understanding need they believe, or anyone else for them. So baptism would be entirely in appropriate. When they reach the age of understanding, they accept or reject the Gospel. At that point they need to be born again and then receive baptism.

 

[Phil12123]

The Early Fathers understood this very well - I refer you to Tertullian’s essay on Baptism, to see what they believed in the Early Church about baptism.

What they believed in the Early Church about baptism? Really? Then I find this portion of Tertullian’s essay very interesting:

**And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary—if baptism itself is not so necessary—that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, “Forbid them not to come unto me.” Let them “come,” then, while they are growing up; let them “come” while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the “remission of sins?” More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to “ask” for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given “to him that asks.” **

We see from the above that it was not a matter of do we wait till they are 8 days old to baptize them? But wait till they “are learning” and “become Christians when they have become able to know Christ.” You’re not going to fight those words too, are you?

 

[mercygate]

Did the jailor come to Christ by being baptized? Or by doing what Paul told him to do, in response to his question, “What must I do to be saved?” Namely, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." He came to Christ by faith, by believing the Gospel. Thereafter, he was baptized (along with everyone in his house, all of whom also believed the word of the Lord spoken to them by Paul). Baptism is not the means of coming to Christ. Believing the Gospel is.

I think I have read this whole thread. Two points come to mind.

1. “Making disciples” in the Great Commission is not clearly defined and does not exclude the baptism of infants among those who receive the Gospel. A “disciple” is “one who learns.” The believer’s-only baptism argument places the bar at ‘the age of accountability’ – but one may be a “learner” at any age, most easily in infancy. Moreover, one who affirms the Gospel upon reaching the age of accountability does NOT stop learning Christ or remain at that level of discipleship, but (hopefully) continues to grow throughout his Christian life.
2. How is it that Martin Luther, the original promulgator of sola *Scriptura, *did not abrogate the practice of infant baptism?

The exclusion of infants from this sacrament is a novelty unheard of until people decided that the doctrine of “Scripture *alone” *meant not “Scrpture alone” but MY reading of Scripture, divorced from the wisdom and practice of all of my forbears in faith, and divorced from the living stream of teaching that Christ promised to guide by the Holy Spirit “into all the truth.”

Such an idiosyncratic view of sola Scriptura – that the meaning of Scripture is clear outside the context of the actual belief and practice of Christians, and that only what is specifically commanded by Scripture is legitimate – was never comprehensible to me, even when I was a sola Scriptura Protestant.

 

[mercygate]

What they believed in the Early Church about baptism? Really? Then I find this portion of Tertullian’s essay very interesting:

And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary—if baptism itself is not so necessary—that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, “Forbid them not to come unto me.” Let them “come,” then, while they are growing up; let them “come” while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the “remission of sins?” More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to “ask” for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given “to him that asks.”

We see from the above that it was not a matter of do we wait till they are 8 days old to baptize them? But wait till they “are learning” and “become Christians when they have become able to know Christ.” You’re not going to fight those words too, are you?

This passage would not make sense if only those who were accountable were being baptized. Tertullian is observing the perpetual fact of life that children are unpredictable. He lived in the late infancy of the Church. At the time of his birth, infant baptism had been practiced for more than 100 years. Later, people would delay baptism until just before death (e.g., the emperor Constantine) because they feared that sin committed after baptism was unforgiveable.

 

[onenow1]

Perhaps the infants are already a part of His Kingdom until they reach the age of understanding and then reject Him. If He says, “of such is the kingdom of heaven,” meaning those in the kingdom are innocent in their minds and in their ways, the infants are already there, where He said the adults had to become (be converted and become as little children). To show that, He rebuked the disciples who hindered the children. Baptism would not be needed for them. They can’t repent and don’t need to. Nor until they have understanding need they believe, or anyone else for them. So baptism would be entirely in appropriate. When they reach the age of understanding, they accept or reject the Gospel. At that point they need to be born again and then receive baptism.

Phil no one is arguing that you must accept Jesus in your adult life that’s a given, were you do a great disservice by denying the right of the parent, to speak up for their child in faith, the child belongs to Jesus, and if catachised correctly there is no need for a believers baptism, reconfirmation of their belief absolutely], that’s why we have the sacrement of confirmation.

Phil, as far as Jesus blessing the children, they were with Jesus, that very well may have been their baptism, that’s what baptism isa blessing;also Jesus is not bound by his own decrees, or don’t you believe in divine intervention.

You might be interested in this little comment from an orthodox site.

"And Peter said to them, 'Repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off as many as the Lord our God shall [calls to Himself] " (Acts 2:38,39).

It is also interesting to note that this quote from Peter’s Pentecostal sermon does not merely state “… the promise is for you and children,” but “for you and your children,” which makes it clear that the children mentioned here were young enough to still be considered under the protection and authority of their parents.
This is underscored when one understands that it was common for women and men to marry at the very young ages of twelve and thirteen, respectively.
From this it becomes reasonable to assume that these children to whom Peter refers were young juveniles or, at the very least, in their preadolescence.

Quote = OneNow, You can be pretty certain some of these adolescents had children also.

I thought this was inteeresting, thought you might like to read it over.
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

Peace, OneNow1

 

[NotWorthy]

Perhaps the infants are already a part of His Kingdom until they reach the age of understanding and then reject Him. If He says, “of such is the kingdom of heaven,” meaning those in the kingdom are innocent in their minds and in their ways, the infants are already there, where He said the adults had to become (be converted and become as little children). To show that, He rebuked the disciples who hindered the children. Baptism would not be needed for them. They can’t repent and don’t need to. Nor until they have understanding need they believe, or anyone else for them. So baptism would be entirely in appropriate. When they reach the age of understanding, they accept or reject the Gospel. At that point they need to be born again and then receive baptism.

So… they are a part of the kingdom? And then they are kicked out when they become of age? And then they are allowed in when they become disciples?

Are you kidding me?

 

[jmcrae]

Perhaps the infants are already a part of His Kingdom until they reach the age of understanding and then reject Him.

No, since that denies the Doctrine of Original Sin, and the need for Christ to come to us in the first place, because if there is no such thing as Original Sin, then there was no need for Jesus to come and restore us to Grace - if we are all born into Grace, then we have the ability to remain in that Grace, and it’s our own fault if we sin and go to Hell.

Jesus came to us because we were not able to be restored to Grace all by ourselves; not because we choose to sin after being born into grace. Why should Jesus die for us, only to do something we are already able to do for ourselves? That makes no sense.

Babies have nothing to repent of (and so they don’t need to make a statement of faith) but they do need to be washed clean of Original Sin by being buried and raised up with Christ in the Sacrament of Baptism, and being restored to Grace through the Sacrament.

 

[onenow1]

Originally Posted by Phil12123
Perhaps the infants are already a part of His Kingdom until they reach the age of understanding and then reject Him.

Quote= OneNow1, This entire universe is God’s kingdom Phil, make no mistake about that. Adams original sin disrupted it. That’s what baptism is all about, we cannot repent for Adam, Jesus did that on the cross. I’ll pray for all of us gettting closer to God.

Peace, OneNow1

 

[NotWorthy]

Originally Posted by Phil12123
Perhaps the infants are already a part of His Kingdom until they reach the age of understanding and then reject Him.

Quote= OneNow1, This entire universe is God’s kingdom Phil, make no mistake about that. Adams original sin disrupted it. That’s what baptism is all about, we cannot repent for Adam, Jesus did that on the cross. I’ll pray for all of us gettting closer to God.

Peace, OneNow1

You think this is what Paul was talking about in Romans, chapter 5?***

And the gift is not like the result of the one person’s sinning. For after one sin there was the judgment that brought condemnation

; but the gift, after many transgressions, brought acquittal. For if, by the transgression of one person, death came to reign through that one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of justification come to reign in life through the one person Jesus Christ. In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all. For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous*. It’s clear that Paul was talking about Original Sin. This is what Baptism wahes away.

Good point, onenow1