Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[MariaG]

Now, if Jesus felt infants needed baptism to remove original sin or for any other reason, His instructions would have included that. But they do not. To put words into His mouth, adding to His clear instructions is not to be a faithful follower of Jesus, but to be a follower of some manmade tradition.

I will leave you with that. He that has ears to hear, let him hear.

Good bye.

But this is where is where you are quite wrong. Jesus did leave instructions, some written and some oral and we were told to hold fast to traditions whether by oral or by letter.

Infant baptism is implicit - all households in scripture

more explicit but still not clear but only “not clear” since the 1600’s - circumcision is compared to baptism in scripture

and from the writings of the ECF, also apparent that infant baptisms were done since the time of the apostles.

:bible1: 1John 4:1Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

I’ll trust the interpretation that was Clearly present from those taught by the apostles rather than rely on new found traditions of men who claim to have a better interpretation found nowhere in the history of Christianity until the relative present time. Scripture warns us that there are false prophets. Common sense, history and the most important the Holy Spirit tell me that infant baptism is scriptural.

 

[fellowChristian]

Ephesians 5:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,

Could you tell me please where in scripture does it give an age limit?

**Matthew 19:14 **
14 But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

**Mark 10:14 **
14But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, "Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

Acts 2

38Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized 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 for you and your children **and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."

A child does not need to repent anyway.

And you do realize we baptized like this for over 2000 years.Entire households were baptized!

**1 Corinthians 1:16 **
16Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.

**Acts 16:15 **
15And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.

**Early Church Fathers **

And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family." Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).

“[T]herefore children are also baptized.” Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233).

“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). **

“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). **

“Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Fearest thou the Seal on account of the weakness of nature?” Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:17 (A.D. 381).

“We do baptize infants, although they are not guilty of any sins.” John Chrysostom, Ad Neophytos (A.D. **388). **

There is more but you should get the point. It was always like this. And then came the Protesters.

 

[Benadam]

**

Now, if Jesus felt infants needed baptism to remove original sin or for any other reason, His instructions would have included that.

**
and the above statement is :
**

To put words into His mouth, adding to His clear instructions is not to be a faithful follower of Jesus, but to be a follower of some manmade tradition.

**

I will leave you with that. He that has ears to hear, let him hear.

 

[Phil12123]

I was trying to figure out why you were so darned excited about Matthew 28:19-20 when it completely destroys your argument. It appears that you have been misreading it. I think (and please correct me if I am wrong) that you read it to say that Jesus is giving a three-part instruction: 1) Go and make disciples of all nations; 2) baptize them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; and 3) teach them.

Unfortunately, this is not what this passage says. To illustrate how this passage should be read **I will insert two words **into the translation you have provided that should give you a better understanding of what Jesus meant. “go and make disciples of all nations by] baptizing THEM in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and then] teaching THEM to obey everything I have commanded you.”

The first part of that passage is the general command (your former #1) and the last two are the specific ways of doing it. Jesus is telling the Apostles how to make disciples of all nations as well as commanding them to do it. Notice that the first thing the Apostles should do is baptize. This is because, as many others have pointed out in this thread, this is the method by which people become Christians - in the same way that circumcision was the method by which Jewish boys became part of the old covenant.

Your argument that people have to become disciples before being baptized is not supported by this text. Instead, it is baptism (and being faithful to their later instruction) that makes them disciples.

I had resolved to no longer post to this thread, as it was becoming clear that it was a waste of time with no one willing to simply believe and obey Jesus’ clear and unambiguous words. But you have introduced a quite grievous error that I cannot leave unchallenged, namely, the adding of words to the text to alter its clear meaning to support your manmade tradition. You have taken a trick out of the JWs’ bag. Their “New World Translation” was obviously concocted to support their heretical views because all other translations didn’t. Don’t mean to digress, but here’s an example of their insertion of words into a text to alter its original meaning:

**JWs teach that Jesus was created by Jehovah, so when they come to Col. 1:16-17 which teaches Jesus created all things, they have to insert “other” or Jesus would have created Himself too. With their NWT, He created all [other] things.

Your own insertion of the small word “by” in Matt. 28:19 is no less a grievous error. It alters the clear meaning of the passage to support your manmade tradition.

You have correctly stated my “interpretation” of the passage as saying the three steps: (1) make disciples, (2) baptize them, (3) teach them to do that to others. What your little word “by” does is say we make disciples by baptizing them and teaching them, and from what you say, apparently there is no need for the gospel being preached or anyone believing it. Just baptize everyone, believer and nonbeliever, and they are all thereby made disciples! You say, baptism is the first thing done. You don’t even mention the preaching of the gospel, or anyone believing it. So, correct me if I misconstrue your interpretation, you make baptism the all-important and only means by which a person is made a disciple. You say the text does not support my “argument” that a person become a disciple before being baptized, so I guess the person could be a total atheist, but when he is baptized…poof!..he is now a “disciple”!!!

Is that what Jesus was really saying? Is that how His disciples, as seen in Acts, did it? And perhaps most importantly, is that how Jesus Himself and His disciples did it? Take a look:

**John 4:

1. Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples **than John
2. (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples),

Do you see the two-step approach of Jesus Himself? He (1) made disciples, and He (2) baptized disciples. He *made *them first and then He (or His disciples, actually) baptized them. Matt. 28:19 is the same. Verse 20 is simply added to tell them to teach the new disciples everything He commanded the original disciples, so the new ones would do the same and go out and make more new ones. In all of this, the making of disciples was done by preaching the gospel, and those who believed that message were baptized and taught to go out and do the same.

Your private interpretation is not even supported by the CCC, which says belief is required.**

 

[Oregooner]

Phil12123

I thought you might try to argue that I have changed the text. As I’m sure you are aware, however, no one but a mere polemic would believe that the insertion of “by” is an insertion of substance rather than simple illustration. The fact that the following word is “baptizing” rather than “baptize” requires the reader to insert the “by” anyway. I was merely making it obvious for you because you didn’t understand how to interpret the passage.

As to your accusation that I left out belief from my explanation, I can only say that it wasn’t the intention of my comments to address belief as a necessity for salvation. Of course it is. However, as indicated in another post in this thread, baptism and belief are interwined, just not in the way you think. Here is a link to Thomas Aquinas’ Summa from New Advent which addresses the issue of how much faith is really necessary for baptism: newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#8. Please look at Article 8, particularly the replies to the objections.

In addition, the Apostles did not consider a person a “disciple” until he was baptized. He simply was not a member of the Church until this happened. Therefore, there is no way that your interpretation could work in the real world in which Matthew 28:19-20 was written. Baptism came first, discipleship second.

John 4 doesn’t help you. You are stuck on the order of the text. I might point out that to make your interpretation work here, you would have to insert “then” before “baptized”. This a far less natural insertion than the one I made for you in Matthew 28 and, ironically, closer in line with the insertions you highlighted from the NWT. Making and baptizing disciples is one cohesive act which includes teaching and consent by the putative disciple to be baptized. A full faith can only arise later through the Grace of God that is given to a person at their baptism.

I hope all of this helps you to understand baptism. Please continue to share your thoughts with the rest of us.

 

[Phil12123]

I thought you might try to argue that I have changed the text. As I’m sure you are aware, however, no one but a mere polemic would believe that the **insertion of “by” is **an insertion of substance rather than simple illustration. The fact that the following word is “baptizing” rather than “baptize” requires the reader to insert the “by” anyway.

No, it does not require the reader to insert it. How can you not see the difference it makes, in substance? This is obviously why you did insert it, to show what a difference it makes in the substance of what Jesus said. Without the “by” you have the command to make disciples, without saying HOW. Then you baptize THEM, the disciples you have made. With the “by” you make it say, THIS is HOW you make the disciples, by baptizing them, etc. It totally changes the substance of the command. In my view of the passage, you make the disciples by preaching the gospel and if the hearer repents and believes the gospel, he becomes both a believer and a disciple, which are synonymous. Show me one verse that says a believer is not a disciple or a disciple is not a believer.

As to your accusation that I left out belief from my explanation, I can only say that it wasn’t the intention of my comments to address belief as a necessity for salvation. Of course it is. However, as indicated in another post in this thread, baptism and belief are interwined, just not in the way you think. Here is a link to Thomas Aquinas’ Summa from New Advent which addresses the issue of how much faith is really necessary for baptism: newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#8. Please look at Article 8, particularly the replies to the objections.

So what are you saying? Rather than referring me to Aquinas, why don’t you just say what you mean? Do you not agree that a person has to be a believer, i.e., believe the gospel message preached to him, before being baptized? Let’s say, he doesn’t become a “disciple” until he is baptized (according to you), but before he is baptized, he must still be a believer, right? You agree that you don’t baptize atheists to make them disciples, right?

In addition, the Apostles did not consider a person a “disciple” until he was baptized. He simply was not a member of the Church until this happened. Therefore, there is no way that your interpretation could work in the real world in which Matthew 28:19-20 was written. Baptism came first, discipleship second.

You are arriving at your conclusion by ignoring the text of Matthew and maintaining your own private presuppositions that are unscriptural. Where does it say a person was not considered a “disciple” until baptized? Matt. 28:19 says to make disciples of all nations. How, by baptizing? No, according to Mark 16, by preaching the gospel. If the hearer believed the gospel, repenting of sin, he was then to be baptized and taught to do likewise. But back to the subject of this thread, in no case is an infant a believer or a disciple, and thus when infants were brought to Him, all He did was hold them and bless them, NOT baptize them and NOT instruct His disciples to baptize them.

John 4 doesn’t help you. You are stuck on the order of the text. I might point out that to make your interpretation work here, you would have to insert “then” before “baptized”. This a far less natural insertion than the one I made for you in Matthew 28 and, ironically, closer in line with the insertions you highlighted from the NWT. Making and baptizing disciples is one cohesive act which includes teaching and consent by the putative disciple to be baptized.

**Not at all. It says Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, and yet it was His disciples who did the baptizing. So what did Jesus do Himself? He at least “made” the disciples, with His disciples “baptizing” them. Are you saying He did nothing because they weren’t really “disciples” until they were baptized by His disciples? If that is true, Jesus neither made disciples nor baptized them. But that is not what the text says, is it?

Furthermore, the order of the text is very simple but important----He made and baptized more disciples. Notice it does not say, made disciples, baptizing them, so you can’t insert your “by” here, can you? It is two separate, equal verbs, made and baptized. He made disciples. He (or His disciples) baptized disciples. Not “one cohesive act” but at least two. Why do you fight it? Just believe it. Don’t try to weasel your way around it. Just have simple, childlike faith and believe it.**

 

[onenow1]

Hi, Phil
Let church baptise children as Jesus said, do not hinder the little children! We as mortals have no idea what is in the mind of a child, but God does, that’s why baptism is a necessary first step.By waiting to a point where men think a child is ready to accept Jesus, is silly. Holy Spirit will take care, of that at the childs confirmation.

Acts 19: 2-5, And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?” But they said to him, “We have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “How then were you baptized?” They said, “With John’s baptism.” Then Paul said, “John baptized the people with a baptism of repentance, telling them to believe in Him who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.” On hearing this they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus;"

Comment: They believed what John preached so they believed in Jesus why did they not receive the Holy Spirit, could it be the Last instructions of Jesus ?

Matt 29:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

1 Peter 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Genesis 17: 11-12, You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.
He that is eight days old among you shall be circumcised; every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house, or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring,

Peace, OneNow1

 

[Phil12123]

Let church baptise children as Jesus said, do not hinder the little children! We as mortals have no idea what is in the mind of a child, but God does, that’s why baptism is a necessary first step. By waiting to a point where men think a child is ready to accept Jesus, is silly. Holy Spirit will take care, of that at the childs confirmation.

**I only have time tonight to respond to the above (have to hit the sack and get up early tomorrow).

You say, “Let church baptise children as Jesus said, do not hinder the little children!”

Where did Jesus say, “Let church baptise children”? Or if you mean, He said, “do not hinder the little children,” what was he talking about? Hinder to be baptized? NO. He never baptized and never instructed his disciples to baptize any of the children that came to Him, that His disciples were hindering. NOT ONCE. How many times do I have to say that before it sinks in? Show me a verse that shows He or His disciples baptized any children that were initially being hindered in coming to Him. You can’t do it, can you?

And waiting till the child accepts Jesus is “silly”? So you would baptize the child who is a nonbeliever and is totally ignorant of what is occurring or why he is being baptized? Where did Jesus say accepting Him is silly, or waiting for the child to do that, is silly?**

 

[onenow1]

Quote= Phil
You say, “Let church baptise children as Jesus said, do not
hinder the little children!”

Quote=OneNow1 Here’s my thoughts Phil, as a father being baptised in the name of the Father and of the Son and Of the Holy Spirit, I certainly would not exclude my child, to Jesus direct commandment to go out and baptise, Phil we take care of our children in spiritual well as physical needs, family is the most impotant work a father and mother have and remember, Jesus chose his disciples before they were baptised, Jesus gives us our children, they are chosen, by Him, catholics chose to obey this commandment not as a symbol but as a reality.

Quote= Phil Show me a verse that shows He or His disciples baptized any children that were initially being hindered in coming to Him. You can’t do it, can you?

Quote= OneNow, nor can you show he didn’t. But this verse may help you. John 21: 25
But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written
Quote= Phil
Where did Jesus say, “Let church baptise children”?

Quote= OneNow1, where does it say not to? the infrince is it was done ! I see nothing to the contrary though !

Church=Matt. 16: 18, upon this [RockPeter] I will build my church

Timothy 3:14-17 I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that,

if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth].

Great indeed, we confess, is the [mystery of our religion]: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

Quote=Phil
And waiting till the child accepts Jesus is “silly”? So you would baptize the child who is a nonbeliever and is totally ignorant of what is occurring or why he is being baptized? Where did Jesus say accepting Him is silly, or waiting for the child to do that, is silly?

Quote= OneNow1, On the faith of the family.
Col. 2: 11-12
1 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ;
12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God,] who raised him from the dead

Acts. 16: 15, 33, he and his family were baptised at once. she was bapiised with all the household.

there are many more but gotta go now.

Peace OneNow

 

[jtown]

Phil12123

Here is the rule for baptism we use:
John 3:5
Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

or you can look at

John 3:3
In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.

You are uncertain what these verses mean from your previous analysis on John 3:5. Lets get some clarification from Paul he may know what he is talking about:

Romans 6: 3-4

3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

So Paul in the above passage is stating “death” and “new life”…sounds like “born again” to me. Remember he is talking about BAPTISM.

Now that I have established with a few verses (and I could list much more) that Jesus is stating that unless you are baptized you will not get into heaven (again John 3:5)

This can shed light on the verses we have mentioned from Luke 18:16.

But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

Now lets see if we can bring this idea home Jesus says

1. You must be baptized to get into heaven (John 3:5)
2. Children are also meant to inherit the kingdom of God (Luke 18:16)

So, we do not believe we should deny the children the kingdom of heaven by not baptizing them.

Please do not go on with Matthew 18:16 and Mark 16:16 until you can address John 3:5. You asked earlier we show you from Jesus where you interpret his words wrong. You do not know how to interpret John 3:5, and this creates a huge dilema in your argument.

You need something more than scripture to help you decipher this passage. Something other than what was written that was passed down through the ages to make sure you got it right.

Perhaps you need sacred tradition?

Once you understand John 3:5, then you will understand why we baptize infants.

Peace
-Jtown

 

[Benadam]

I think that the definition of baptism is the problem here. There has not been an agreement on what baptism is. Phil has stated that it is necessary in order to receive the Holy Spirit and so there is agreement about that. Catholics believe that Baptism changes the soul in a real metaphysical way. That the soul is infused, sealed or imprinted, so to speak, with the pattern of Christ’s death and resurrection enabling the soul to receive the Grace lost by Adam’s original sin. This belief naturally leads to baptizing our children as infants. Without knowing that about Baptism the slippery slope that leads to the denial of baptism as necessary presents it’self.

 

[onenow1]

Luke 3
21 Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened,

22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove, and a voice came from heaven, “Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased.”

Matt. 3;
13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him.
14 John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
15 But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness.” Then he consented.
16 And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him;

Mark 1;
8 I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."
9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
10 And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove;
11 and a voice came from heaven, “Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased.”

comment: What is very interesting all three gospels relay the same information, that the Holy spirit did not descend until after baptism. There can be no mistake water was essential, and if it were merely a symbol, why do most christian communities use it even if only as a symbol, may I suggest they don’t what to take any chances just in case, we catholics are right for nearly two thousand years.

Notice before baptising Jesus ,John bore witness to Jesus before baptising him just as we do for infants.

John 3;
26 And they came to John, and said to him, “Rabbi, he who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you bore witness, here he is, baptizing, and all are going to him.”
27 John answered, "No one can receive anything except what is given him from heaven
28 You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him.

Peace,OneNow1

 

[Phil12123]

He said, “do not hinder the little children,” what was he talking about? Hinder to be baptized? NO. He never baptized and never instructed his disciples to baptize any of the children that came to Him, that His disciples were hindering. NOT ONCE. … Show me a verse that shows He or His disciples baptized any children that were initially being hindered in coming to Him.

I have another thought in conjunction with the above. But first, let’s look at the passages, which may be parallel passages all talking about a single event:

**Matt. 19:
13. Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them.
14. But Jesus said, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.’’
15. And He laid His hands on them and departed from there.

Mark 10:
13. Then they brought young children to Him, that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked those who brought them.
14. But when Jesus saw it, He was greatly displeased and said to them, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God.
15. "Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.’’
16. And He took them up in His arms, put His hands on them, and blessed them.

Luke 18:
15. Then they also brought infants to Him that He might touch them; but when His disciples saw it, they rebuked them.
16. But Jesus called them to Him and said, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God.
17. "Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.’’ **

**In all three passages, we are told why the infants or children were brought to Him and in two of the three we are told what He did with them when He received them. In none of them do we see Jesus or any of His disciples baptizing them.

What conclusions can we draw from this?

1. Neither Jesus nor any of His disciples baptized any infants or very young children.
2. Jesus taught His disciples (a) infants and very young children are loved by and important to Jesus, unlike the disciples’ earlier attitude that hindered their coming to Jesus, (b) Jesus wants to bless them, (c) of such is the kingdom of God, but (d) they were not proper candidates for baptism.
3. Jesus, by teaching and example, showed that infants and very young children should not be baptized, and therefore we can rightly conclude that He and His disciples, when preaching, did not baptize any infants or very young children in any household containing them. That practice would have continued even after His ascension, consistent with His teaching and example. Any later practice of baptizing infants or very young children would have been contrary to Jesus’ express teaching and example. The length of time such a practice has continued since then is irrelevant to its validity.**

 

[Benadam]

**

3. Jesus, by teaching and example, showed that infants and very young children should not be baptized, and therefore we can rightly conclude that He and His disciples, when preaching, did not baptize any infants or very young children in any household containing them. That practice would have continued even after His ascension, consistent with His teaching and example. Any later practice of baptizing infants or very young children would have been contrary to Jesus’ express teaching and example. The length of time such a practice has continued since then is irrelevant to its validity.

Phil, I hope you see what you just did, that you just turned this event into a teaching that isn’t there. Just because no children were baptized here doesn’t mean they weren’t already, but more importantly that Baptism was even in the mind of anyone there.

**A point I would like to make. I would think that if Baptizing infants was wrong. Someone at that time would have made that mistake and it would have been corrected. That’s why most teachings are declared, to correct error. It seems to me that there would be many instances of it being attempted and if it is such a bad thing to do then it would have been clarified.

 

[jtown]

Event Martin Luther believed in infant baptism:

angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.bornagain.html#N_2_
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/catechism/web/cat-13a.html

I would like to know from Phil who believes that infant baptism was some invention outside of Christs teaching who started it?

Who started it and when? Please provide evidence such as links or books I can read.

Also who saw this infant baptism occurring and corrected it?

Peace
-Jtown

 

[Phil12123]

Phil, I hope you see what you just did, that you just turned this event into a teaching that isn’t there. Just because no children were baptized here doesn’t mean they weren’t already, but more importantly that Baptism was even in the mind of anyone there.

**If the children were “already” baptized, who baptized them? John the Baptist, who baptized with the baptism of repentance? No, because the infants and children would not be repenting. Jesus? Not likely, because His disciples were forbidding them to come to Him, which would not have been the case if they already came to Him and were baptized by Him prior to that. Rather, they would have been welcomed as fellow believers, instead of hindered or forbidden.

If “more importantly” baptism was not even in the mind of anyone there, why do you suppose that would be? That seems to be all that is in your mind, when it comes to infants and children and Jesus’ blessing them. Your mindset is…baptize them as soon as possible after birth, then let the Holy Spirit sort it all out at their confirmation, right? You may be very correct that baptism for those infants and children was not in anyone’s mind, because it was not a proper thing to even consider for infants and very small children. Baptism was something done to people, young or old, after they believed the gospel message, repenting of their sins and believing in Jesus as Messiah or Lord and Savior.**

A point I would like to make. I would think that if Baptizing infants was wrong. Someone at that time would have made that mistake and it would have been corrected. That’s why most teachings are declared, to correct error. It seems to me that there would be many instances of it being attempted and if it is such a bad thing to do then it would have been clarified.

Jesus’ disciples would have observed John baptizing his baptism of repentance, with those being baptized “confessing their sins” (Matt. 3:6), and seeing that it would not have been for infants or children so young they could not repent or confess sins. When they became Jesus’ disciples, they would have been taught by Jesus of any differences between His baptism and John’s baptism. Jesus’ baptism would not have differed in the matter of who should be baptized; His baptism would not have been less in requirements of repentance. So His baptism would have also not be for infants or children so young they could not repent or confess their sins. Certainly, there would not have been “many” instances of it being attempted, not with Jesus right there making new disciples and having the Twelve baptize them (only those who believed the gospel message and not others who did not yet believe it). And, of course, His disciples would have observed Jesus holding and blessing the infants but not baptizing them.

 

[Phil12123]

Even Martin Luther believed in infant baptism:

And so did other Reformers like John Calvin. That is why you still see it practiced today in Lutheran and Presbyterian churches. But does that make it right or scriptural or in obedience to Christ’s commands? Who does it today, even with a long history of doing it, does not make it right. There were other Reformers who rejected the practice, such as the Anabaptists, and their descendants continue to reject it today as unscriptural and contrary to Christ’s commands.

I would like to know from Phil who believes that infant baptism was some invention outside of Christs teaching who started it?

Who started it and when? Please provide evidence such as links or books I can read.

Also who saw this infant baptism occurring and corrected it?

Good questions. Maybe we can both research it and learn about that.

 

[onenow1]

Good Morning,

Acts. 2:
37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”

38 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,> shall< receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

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."

40 And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.”

41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Phil, do the above passages not strike you that Paul references Peter’s preaching quite extensively ? If I were Paul and did’nt believe that baptism now saves, I certainly would’nt reference Peter.

Take notice to the sequence in verse 38, repentence and then baptism. why would he include baptism if it were a mere symbol.

Here are interesting verses. Job. 14: 1-4, "Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble.
He comes forth like a flower, and withers; he flees like a shadow, and continues not.
And dost thou open thy eyes upon such a one and bring him into judgment with thee?
Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not one.

Comment; Only God throuh baptism, not by a sinners prayer. which is the work of man. Let the water that Jesus blessed do the job.

Don’t we all believe infants are meant to inherit the kindom of heaven, then why withold baptism. If you believe Jesus did miracles on earth, this is one of the greatest. He opens the door first with the grace of baptism, then the journey begins.

Peace,OneNow1,

PS.These are my assumptions, in cooperation with Jesus words to Peter and the apostles, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Matt. 16: 19

 

[Lampo]

“Baptism…now saves you.” That is a direct quote from 1 Peter 3:21. Baptism saves us. Also, the passage from Titus backs up what we believe – “God} saved us…by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit…so that we might be justified by His grace.” What is the “washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit”? Baptism. John 3:5, ”…unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Baptism. What happens in all 4 accounts of Jesus’ baptism (John 1:31-34; Luke 3:21-22; Mark 1:9-11; Matt 3:16-17)? After Jesus is baptized with water, the Holy Spirit descends upon Him. Water and the Spirit…Baptism.

So, what do we see quite clearly from Scripture? We see that Baptism involves water and the Spirit. We see that through Baptism we receive the Holy Spirit. Through baptism we are regenerated (Titus 3:5) or “born again” (John 3:3). Through Baptism we are saved. All by God’s grace alone. That is what we, as Catholics, believe.

 

[NotWorthy]

---

**In all three passages, we are told why the infants or children were brought to Him and in two of the three we are told what He did with them when He received them. In none of them do we see Jesus or any of His disciples baptizing them.

What conclusions can we draw from this?

1. Neither Jesus nor any of His disciples baptized any infants or very young children.
2. Jesus taught His disciples (a) infants and very young children are loved by and important to Jesus, unlike the disciples’ earlier attitude that hindered their coming to Jesus, (b) Jesus wants to bless them, (c) of such is the kingdom of God, but (d) they were not proper candidates for baptism.
3. Jesus, by teaching and example, showed that infants and very young children should not be baptized, and therefore we can rightly conclude that He and His disciples, when preaching, did not baptize any infants or very young children in any household containing them. That practice would have continued even after His ascension, consistent with His teaching and example. Any later practice of baptizing infants or very young children would have been contrary to Jesus’ express teaching and example. The length of time such a practice has continued since then is irrelevant to its validity.**

Hmmmmm, is there anything wrong with these assumptions that you are making here…

Let’s see. In all three of your passages, Jesus is teaching and preaching, not baptizing anyone, not even adults.

So, if I go by the “Phil12123 School of Biblical Interpretation” rules, I can easily assume that baptism is not important at all. When do I get my diplomas Phil? Did I graduate?

On the other hand, Phil, you just brought up a valid point. When does one enter the “Kingdom of Heaven”? If you agree with Catholics, you enter it initially (though not fully) when you are baptized. Does this sound right, Phil?

Let’s look at your Scripture from Matthew one more time:

Matt. 19:
13. Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them.
14. But Jesus said, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.’’
15. And He laid His hands on them and departed from there.
Do not forbid them. Hmmmmm…
To deny infant baptism is to deny the Kingdom of Heaven to these infants.

So, what can one conclude from this passage?