Infant "Baptism"

Kade Rystalmane

Well-known member
I've made a couple of new friends here at CARM and in our discussions against those who reject water "baptism" as necessary for salvation, we have skirted around the topic of infant "baptism" in an effort to address a common opponent. I would like to offer this thread for us to discuss the topic of infant "baptism". There are a few things to lay out here in the Original Post (OP).

1. This discussion is for anyone who believes water "baptism" is necessary for salvation. Others may argue against those who post who reject this, but I will not.
2. I put "baptism" in quotes because the English word has become something that means a wider range of mode than what I believe the Bible is speaking about including sprinkling, pouring, and anything other than total immersion in addition to total burial in water. We can talk about that, too, but it is a secondary topic in relation to my purpose here.
3. I don't recognize any spiritual authority outside of the Bible so if anyone appeals to some other authority, I'm going to ignore that and focus on arguments from scripture only.

I will press hard on the topic, but I intend to focus on your doctrines and not you. I look forward to a discussion from scripture.

@Son Of Saxon @VDMA (feel free to tag others you think would enjoy this discussion!)
 

Kade Rystalmane

Well-known member
1st Premise - Infants are not candidates for water baptism because they have no sin.

Ezekiel 18:20 says that the sins are not inherited from the father. So the guilt of sin is not transmitted across generations.

Matt. 19:14 says that of such (like children) is the kingdom of Heaven (the church). The church is made of those who are free from sin and in a right relationship with God. This is the primary nature and identify of the church. Thus, children are free from sin and in a right relationship with God. They do not need to be spiritually reborn (restored to God) through water baptism.
 
V

VDMA

Guest
I've made a couple of new friends here at CARM and in our discussions against those who reject water "baptism" as necessary for salvation, we have skirted around the topic of infant "baptism" in an effort to address a common opponent. I would like to offer this thread for us to discuss the topic of infant "baptism". There are a few things to lay out here in the Original Post (OP).

1. This discussion is for anyone who believes water "baptism" is necessary for salvation. Others may argue against those who post who reject this, but I will not.
2. I put "baptism" in quotes because the English word has become something that means a wider range of mode than what I believe the Bible is speaking about including sprinkling, pouring, and anything other than total immersion in addition to total burial in water. We can talk about that, too, but it is a secondary topic in relation to my purpose here.
3. I don't recognize any spiritual authority outside of the Bible so if anyone appeals to some other authority, I'm going to ignore that and focus on arguments from scripture only.

I will press hard on the topic, but I intend to focus on your doctrines and not you. I look forward to a discussion from scripture.

@Son Of Saxon @VDMA (feel free to tag others you think would enjoy this discussion!)
In church history the debate over Holy baptism has never been an issue, it was not until the radical reformation that it became debated topic. There is 100 % unity with sacred scripture and the church fathers that baptismal regeneration is the apostolic historic biblical view of baptism once delivered to the saints. You are not going to find a single church father who rejected baptismal regeneration.

The question boils down to this, if you believe Baptism does nothing and it’s nothing more than mere symbolism, the logical conclusion would be why baptize babies, if it doesn’t do anything. Mere symbolism is just not taught in the Bible.

On the other hand, the biblical view of Holy baptism, clearly teachers baptismal regeneration, why would you withhold God’s gift of Holy baptism from the littlest of children? 🤷🏻‍♂️ The sacrament of Holy baptism (sacraments imparts divine grace) is a objective means of grace. Children are included in all nations and all households.

Mat 19:14 but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”

Eph 5:26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word…

If our definition of faith excludes infants and children, then our definition of faith is different than Jesus’

Thread 'Holy Baptism according to Sacred Scripture'


https://wolfmueller.co/infant-faith-list-scriptures/

https://wolfmueller.co/historical-examples-of-infant-baptism/

When talking about baptism it’s important to narrow your arguments down to the baptismal passages which I conveniently provided the link titled 'Holy Baptism according to Sacred Scripture' ☝🏻

For example, using verses such as Ephesians 2:8-9 are not helpful and have nothing to do with Baptism. Or perhaps the thief on the cross argument, which is not an argument because New Testament Baptism it was not yet instituted.

Baptism is God’s work. Lutherans view the sacraments as a means by which God’s grace and forgiveness is imparted to the recipient. The focus of attention, then, is on God’s actions. The sacraments are thus theocentric (having God as the central focus) or, as the Large Catechism says, it is “God’s own act” (LC Baptism The Book of Concord ). As Luther states, “What human work can possibly be greater than God’s work?” (LC Baptism).

Lutherans, Anglicans*, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox rightly baptize infants because they have a proper understanding of what Holy baptism is doing… baptism regeneration (there are some minor Nuance distinctives but they all agree on baptismal regeneration).

Presbyterians are rightly baptize infants but they have a deficient view of what baptism does, they merely believe it a sign and seal into the covenant church and that baptism replace circumcision.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kade Rystalmane

Well-known member
In church history the debate over Holy baptism has never been an issue, it was not until the radical reformation that it became debated topic. There is 100 % unity with sacred scripture and the church fathers that baptismal regeneration is the apostolic historic biblical view of baptism once delivered to the saints. You are not going to find a single church father who rejected baptismal regeneration.

The question boils down to this, if you believe Baptism does nothing and it’s nothing more than mere symbolism, the logical conclusion would be why baptize babies, if it doesn’t do anything. Mere symbolism is just not taught in the Bible.

On the other hand, the biblical view of Holy baptism, clearly teachers baptismal regeneration, why would you withhold God’s gift of Holy baptism from the littlest of children? 🤷🏻‍♂️ The sacrament of Holy baptism (sacraments imparts divine grace) is a objective means of grace. Children are included in all nations and all households.

Mat 19:14 but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”

Eph 5:26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word…

If our definition of faith excludes infants and children, then our definition of faith is different than Jesus’

Thread 'Holy Baptism according to Sacred Scripture'


https://wolfmueller.co/infant-faith-list-scriptures/

https://wolfmueller.co/historical-examples-of-infant-baptism/

When talking about baptism it’s important to narrow your arguments down to the baptismal passages which I conveniently provided the link titled 'Holy Baptism according to Sacred Scripture' ☝🏻

For example, using verses such as Ephesians 2:8-9 are not helpful and have nothing to do with Baptism. Or perhaps the thief on the cross argument, which is not an argument because New Testament Baptism it was not yet instituted.

Baptism is God’s work. Lutherans view the sacraments as a means by which God’s grace and forgiveness is imparted to the recipient. The focus of attention, then, is on God’s actions. The sacraments are thus theocentric (having God as the central focus) or, as the Large Catechism says, it is “God’s own act” (LC Baptism The Book of Concord ). As Luther states, “What human work can possibly be greater than God’s work?” (LC Baptism).

Lutherans, Anglicans*, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox rightly baptize infants because they have a proper understanding of what Holy baptism is doing… baptism regeneration (there are some minor Nuance distinctives but they all agree on baptismal regeneration).

Presbyterians are rightly baptize infants but they have a deficient view of what baptism does, they merely believe it a sign and seal into the covenant church and that baptism replace circumcision.
I think you meant to post this elsewhere? I believe in baptismal regeneration. :)
 
V

VDMA

Guest
I think you meant to post this elsewhere? I believe in baptismal regeneration. :)
No! You cannot talk about baptism, specifically paedobaptism (Infant Baptism) without actually speaking to what baptism is and what baptism does according to sacred Scripture.

Zwigian “Baptist” are “credobaptism”, precisely because they believe it’s merely symbolic, they have a highly deficient view of Baptism. You don’t baptize infants for mere symbolic reasons, paedobaptism baptize infants most importantly because it’s biblical and the sacraments imparts divine grace, Baptism is one of the means which faith is received.

One of the objections to infants baptism is, they see those who were baptized as infants, fall from the faith. Holy Baptism is not a “get out of jail card” to live a life of unrepentant sin, it’s possible to forfeit the gift of faith. Those who are baptized can reject the promises received in their baptism, their baptism can become a baptism of judgment, instead of the grace. Baptized saints live in daily repentance and by faith.

You can’t speak to infant baptism without addressing what baptism is and what baptism does according to sacred scripture.

On the subject of the necessary of baptism. Yes, baptism is necessary* for salvation.

Mar 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Also, Sola Scriptura, does not mean Solo Scriptura…at least that shouldn’t. If your view has never (emphasis added) been taught in Church History, it’s probably a good indication you’re wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
baptize infants most importantly because it’s biblical and the sacraments imparts divine grace, Baptism is one of the means which faith is received.
Except, of course that it all nothing but Catholic (Roman and othrwise) meaningless Ritualism. There's no such thing as a "Sacrament", Cat holic rituals accomplish nothing other that giving their victims a false sense of security. ANd Water Baptism imparts NOTHING (other than a baby with a slightly cleaner head - so not a total waste of time).

I was Baptized as an infant (like any self respecting Italian Baby) - got the pictures to prove it (I was a GOOD looking Baby!!). It meant nothing, of course. A Good Photo-op, and peace among my Italian In-Laws (Mom was a saved Baptist, and didn't need any of it).

When I was 20, I DID become Born Again (conviction of SIN, Surrender Repentance, calling on God for Jesus' SIN OFFERING to be mine in FAITH), and have been a practicing Christian ever since.

I did get Baptized by immersion 4 days AFTER becoming a Christian. It changed nothing (except my wet clothes), added nothing, and was nothing more than an act of Obedience. The Bible says for born again folks to be baptized, and so I was. Simple as that.

Eph 2:8,9 gives the mechanism of Salvation, and there's no "Water" in sight.
 

Kade Rystalmane

Well-known member
No! You cannot talk about baptism, specifically paedobaptism (Infant Baptism) without actually speaking to what baptism is and what baptism does according to sacred Scripture.
Okay, but we both agree that water baptism saves, that water baptism brings the sinner into contact with the Blood by putting us into the death of Christ. We both believe it frees us at that moment from sin, sanctifies us, justifies us, etc. I was just starting from that common foundation and moving forward. If there is something specific about what baptism is and does that you think I am deficient on, please specify.
One of the objections to infants baptism is, they see those who were baptized as infants, fall from the faith. Holy Baptism is not a “get out of jail card” to live a life of unrepentant sin, it’s possible to forfeit the gift of faith.
I agree that you can be lost after you have been saved. Takes willfull rebellion rather than a momentary stumbling, butnit can be done.
On the subject of the necessary of baptism. Yes, baptism is necessary* for salvation.
We agree.
Also, Sola Scriptura, does not mean Solo Scriptura…at least that shouldn’t. If your view has never been taught in Church History, it’s probably a good indication you’re wrong.
If you say so. I respect no authority in spiritual matters save for the Bible. That is our common foundation.
 

Lt. Columbo

Member
I've made a couple of new friends here at CARM and in our discussions against those who reject water "baptism" as necessary for salvation, we have skirted around the topic of infant "baptism" in an effort to address a common opponent. I would like to offer this thread for us to discuss the topic of infant "baptism". There are a few things to lay out here in the Original Post (OP).

1. This discussion is for anyone who believes water "baptism" is necessary for salvation. Others may argue against those who post who reject this, but I will not.
2. I put "baptism" in quotes because the English word has become something that means a wider range of mode than what I believe the Bible is speaking about including sprinkling, pouring, and anything other than total immersion in addition to total burial in water. We can talk about that, too, but it is a secondary topic in relation to my purpose here.
3. I don't recognize any spiritual authority outside of the Bible so if anyone appeals to some other authority, I'm going to ignore that and focus on arguments from scripture only.

I will press hard on the topic, but I intend to focus on your doctrines and not you. I look forward to a discussion from scripture.

@Son Of Saxon @VDMA (feel free to tag others you think would enjoy this discussion!)
Here are people burdened with sin and a guilty conscience:

"When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and asked Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37)

Peter has the remedy for people burdened with sin and a guilty conscience:

"Peter replied, “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." (Acts 2 :38)

Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (1 Pet 3:21)

I don't see how this aspect of baptism could be applied to infants.
 
V

VDMA

Guest
If you say so. I respect no authority in spiritual matters save for the Bible. That is our common foundation.

If you want to argue with “no creed but the Bible” I’m okay with that up to a point. Tradition, is good and useful as long as it doesn’t violate sacred scripture. The final authority is sacred Scripture (which I agree) but you have failed to make a single biblical argument from sacred scripture.

My point with church history and the Church Father’s (I love how the “Reform” minimize their importance, because they know they have no support from them on the sacraments). I can point to sacred scripture and ALL the Church Fathers (unanimous) and council (unanimous), you can point to ZERO (emphasis on zero). There is not an unanimous consensus with the Church Fathers on everything but there is on baptismal regeneration. That is very significant.

Again, Sola Scriptura, does not mean Solo Scriptura…at least that shouldn’t. If your view has never (emphasis added) been taught in Church History, it’s probably a good indication you’re wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
V

VDMA

Guest
I am constantly amazed how “Sacramentarians” (those that reject Sacraments) can believe in the miracles of the Bible; literal six days creation, a world wide flood, the crossing of the Red Sea, the feeding of the 5000, inerrancy of scripture, the corporal blood and body of Christ and flat out reject the miracle of Holy baptism.

INFANT BAPTISM: The tread I posted titled “Holy Baptism According to Sacred Scripture” lays out the biblical historic arguments on what baptism is, what baptism does, and who can be baptized. The links I posted above some might find them helpful. ☝🏻

I am not going to recreate the wheel, so I’m going to repost it.

If our definition of faith excludes infants and children, then our definition of faith is different than Jesus’

Jesus defined baptism as an integral part of making disciples and commanded his followers to baptize in connection with God’s action of turning people to himself (Matt. 28: 18–20), as did the earliest Christians (Acts 2: 38; 8: 38; 9: 18; 10: 48; 16: 15; 16: 33).

Scripture References For The Doctrine of Baptism

Is There Forgiveness of Sin In Baptism?

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,

Eph 5:26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,

Our Lord gave his life for the church and now conveys his love and forgiveness in baptism.

Mar 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

The passage does not say that one must first believe and be saved, and then be baptized. No, it is belief and baptism that one is saved. Baptism without belief does not save.*

Act 2:38 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 will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

It was baptism that took the convicted crowd into the forgiveness of sin that they sought. The word "for" in the text is a Greek preposition that indicates purpose... they are to be baptized "for" the purpose of forgiveness of sin.

1Pe 3:20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.

1Pe 3:21 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 good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Water delivered Noah from the old world into the new one. So water baptism also delivers us from the world of sin into the new world in Christ. In water baptism, we are spared from the judgement that the flood prefigured.

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

To put on Christ is to be covered as clothing covers our bodies. In baptism our sinful flesh is covered.

Tit 3:5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,

He saved us "through" (διὰ) the washing of rebirth (baptism.)

Act 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

The cleansing from sin takes place through outward baptismal washing and with faith in the promises that come with water baptism.

Who Can Be Baptized?

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

Mat 28:19 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,

Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Both baptizing and teaching are adverbial participles that participate in accomplishing the main verb of making disciples. Note also that we are to make
disciples of all nations.

Act 2:39 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.”

The 1st fulfillment recorded in the Bible of the Great Commission in Matthew 28. Take special note that this promise is to adults and children!

Act 16:31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

1Co 1:16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)

Act 16:15 And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.

Col 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,

Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Take special note that whole households were baptized into the forgiveness of Christ! Though the Bible does not specifically state the ages of the individuals within the family, there is a good chance that some of the family members could've been infants.

Infants were circumcised by God's decree before they were old enough to be accountable for their Jewish faith. Thus they became partakers of the promise God gave to Abraham. If baptism is the circumcision of Christ, infants must (can) also be baptized, even as they were circumcised. See Genesis 17:12ff

Baptism without Faith does not save. So can children ~Infants Believe?

Luk 18:15 Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them.

Within all the writings of Luke... Luke uses the word 'babies' (βρέφη) in the narrow sense meaning only infants. In verse 16, Luke uses the word 'children' to refer to infants and older children. (Note: the word 'children' (παιδίον) is not restricted to just older children.) So...the kingdom of God belongs to infants and little children. We are to receive the Kingdom of God like a little child/infant.

Mat 18:3 and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 18:4 Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 18:5 “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me,

Mat 18:6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

Jesus, using the same concepts as in Luke 18:15. takes a trusting and unpretentious little child (παιδίον) into his arms (Mark 9:36) and declares that an adult's faith must be like a child's faith... that being: receptive, open and trusting. Following this, Jesus goes on to declare that these little (μiKprov) ones believe in Him. (Note: µtKprov (mikron) in the Greek usually refers to the class of children under four years old and according to both Hebrew and New Testament usage has special reference to the "littlest," namely the infants.)

If our definition of faith excludes infants and children, then our definition of faith is different than Jesus’

All those Biblical references I posted; to cleaning, to washing, to rebirth, to renewal, all are baptismal references.

1. Jesus said that his church would stand and the gates of hell would not prevail again it (Matthew 16:18)

2. The Bible says the church is the pillar of truth (1 Timothy 3:15)

3. The entire church throughout history believed in baptismal regeneration and the only ones to deny baptismal efficacy were the anabaptists of the reformation who were largely heterodox or even Heretical in their doctrines. All the church fathers (Irenaeus, who was discipled by Polycarp who was discipled by Apostle John) affirmed it. Every council that spoke of baptism affirmed it, and, what's more, a straightforward reading of the baptism passages also teaches baptismal regeneration.

So either Christ failed to keep his promise, or your view is not apostolic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
V

VDMA

Guest
Excerpt: The object of Baptism is “all nations”; this includes infants.

"…six arguments that are raised against infant Baptism and our examination of them in the light of God’s Word.

1.There is no passage of Scripture that tells us to baptize infants.

This argument ignores the clear fact that Christ has told us to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them” (Mt 28:19). Since infants are part of all nations, there should be a specific passage of the Bible that tells us to exclude infants if they, in fact, are to be excluded from Christ’s command and promise. Jesus tells us that it is his desire that we bring little children to him (Mk 10:13–16). Therefore, we baptize infants because they are included in Christ’s command, and it is the Savior’s wish that we bring our children to him in obedience to his command and trusting in his promises.

2.Infants are not sinful and therefore do not need baptism.

This argument listens to the voice of reason and ignores the revelation of Scripture. Infants appear to be innocent. Yet they have original sin by nature. Original sin is a hereditary guilt and a hereditary corruption. The guilt of Adam is charged to an infant’s account as he enters the human race (Ro 5:12–19). God said to Adam that he would die in the day he disobeyed him (Ge 2:17). The penalty for Adam’s disobedience rests on us all as we come into this world. Original sin is also a hereditary corruption. By nature we lack the righteousness God demands and, instead, have a lust for sin. As Scripture observes, “Every inclination of his [mankind’s] heart is evil from childhood” (Ge 8:21). People by birth are sinful (Ps 51:5; Jn 3:5, 6), spiritually dead (Eph 2:1), blind (1 Co 2:14), and enemies of God (Ro 8:7). As Luther observed: “This inherited sin has caused such a deep, evil corruption of nature that reason does not comprehend it; rather, it must be believed on the basis of the revelation in the Scriptures” (SA III I:3).
Those who do not believe Scripture may think infants are innocent. The Word of God reveals, however, that they are sinful and in great need of new birth. Since Baptism is the means by which God gives us new birth (Ro 6:1–4; Tit 3:4–7), we should by all means bring our children to be baptized so that God may convert them and make them his children. Therefore, we baptize infants because they are sinful and do need the rebirth that God gives through Baptism.

3.Infants are not accountable for their actions until they reach the age of discretion or accountability.

There are those who feel that God will not hold infants or children responsible for their actions until they have reached a certain age at which they understand the gravity of what they are doing. At this age, so they believe, God will hold people accountable. This view disregards the teaching of Scripture that all people are under God’s judgment as they come into this world. Paul wrote, “We were by nature objects of wrath” (Eph 2:3). By our entrance into the human race, we became charged with the guilt of Adam’s sin. The penalty he earned by his disobedience applies to us as well, for we are born in his image, not in God’s image (Ge 5:1). Therefore, we baptize infants because they are by nature sinful and are under the wrath of God.

4.Baptism is not to be administered until a person can make a conscious decision to turn his life over to the lordship of Christ.

There are those who feel that Baptism is something we do simply because Christ said we should. They say that Baptism is simply an outward sign that we have consciously decided to turn our lives over to the lordship of Christ. To make that conscious decision, they say, one must have reached the age of discretion when he can consciously understand the implications of his action. Beyond being the outward sign of an inward decision, they say Baptism has no benefit. However, this ignores the need for a new birth already as an infant. This disregards that Baptism is the tool God uses to give a new life, forgiveness, and salvation. This also ignores the fact that only God can turn us to himself; we cannot turn ourselves to God. Therefore, we baptize infants that God might bring them to himself (Tit 3:5).

5.Infants cannot believe; therefore, they should not be baptized. This argument confuses faith and conscious knowledge.

Faith involves knowledge, but this knowledge is a knowledge of the heart, not just a knowledge of the head. Infants can believe. Saving faith is essentially trust and confidence in Jesus. Jesus said, “If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea” (Mt 18:6). People who have lost their mental capabilities to mind-altering illnesses still can have faith. So can infants, whose hearts have been transformed by the Holy Spirit through Baptism. Reason cannot understand how this can be, but faith accepts the words and promises of God. As Luther observed:
Thus we do the same with infant Baptism. We bring the child with the intent and hope that it may believe, and we pray God to grant it faith. But we do not baptize on this basis, but solely on the command of God. Why? Because we know that God does not lie. My neighbor and I—in short, all people—may deceive and mislead, but God’s Word cannot deceive. (LC Fourth Part:57)
Therefore, we bring infants to be baptized, because we trust that through Baptism God will work faith in their hearts.
Here we must also note the parallel of circumcision in the Old Testament to Baptism in the New Testament (as Paul notes it in Col 2:11, 12). Circumcision was to be performed on all males on the eighth day. Baptism has taken the place of circumcision. There is no command to baptize on the eighth day, but the parallel between the circumcision of infants and the baptism of infants is clear.

6. There is no evidence of infant Baptism in the early church.

There is, however, evidence of infant Baptism. Whole households were baptized (1 Co 1:16; Ac 16:15, 33). There is mention of infant Baptism in the writings of the early church fathers. Irenaeus (d. 202)—who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John—speaks of people of all ages, from infants up to the oldest, as reborn through Christ. Justin Martyr (d. 165) speaks about becoming disciples of Christ from childhood. Origen (d. 254) did very extensive research work and indicated that the custom to grant Baptism to children had been handed down to the church by the apostles. In 256 at a synod held in Carthage, the question was asked if Baptism might be administered before the eighth day. The synod answered that the grace of rebirth might not be legitimately withheld from anyone who had been born. Therefore, infant Baptism was practiced in the early church."

https://ref.ly/o/godsolovedworld/1197923?length=6767 via @Logos

 
V

VDMA

Guest
We baptize infants and then instruct them; we instruct adults and then baptize them.

With infants, we baptize them that God might give them faith. We instruct them that the faith God began (in baptism) may be nourished and sustained. We baptize those children whose parents request Baptism for them (we baptize infants of believers only). With adults, we instruct them and then baptize them. When Philip met the Ethiopian, he first told him the good news about Jesus. Then the Ethiopian requested Baptism for himself.

Baptism is necessary because God wills it, but a person could be saved without Baptism (as long as Baptism has not been despised).

Mark 16:16 Faith is a gift from God, which He bestows through the Word and through Holy Baptism. “Concerning Baptism, our churches teach that Baptism is necessary for salvation [Mark 16:16] and that God’s grace is offered through Baptism” (AC IX 1). “Baptism is not a work that we offer to God. It is a work in which God baptizes us.

Mat 28:19 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.

Luk 7:30 but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kade Rystalmane

Well-known member
If you want to argue with “no creed but the Bible” I’m okay with that up to a point. Tradition, is good and useful as long as it doesn’t violate sacred scripture. The final authority is sacred Scripture (which I agree) but you have failed to make a single biblical argument from sacred scripture.

My point with church history and the Church Father’s (I love how the “Reform” minimize their importance, because they know they have no support from them on the sacraments). I can point to sacred scripture and ALL the Church Fathers (unanimous) and council (unanimous), you can point to ZERO (emphasis on zero). There is not an unanimous consensus with the Church Fathers on everything but there is on baptismal regeneration. That is very significant.

Again, Sola Scriptura, does not mean Solo Scriptura…at least that shouldn’t. If your view has never (emphasis added) been taught in Church History, it’s probably a good indication you’re wrong.
I'm not here in this conversation to discuss this. I will not reply to it further.
 

Kade Rystalmane

Well-known member
Act 2:39 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.”

The 1st fulfillment recorded in the Bible of the Great Commission in Matthew 28. Take special note that this promise is to adults and children!
This verse is not in the context of small children (paidion) being saved. It is in the context of future generations, those hearing the message that day and all their offspring (teknon) that were to come after. It cannot be used to establish infant "baptism".
Act 16:31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
Even granting this is talking about the jailer's family (which I do not grant), you have to assume the infants in the family as it is not stated or implied. That this isn't even talking about his family but those in the jail under his authority eliminates this altogether as a text teaching infant immersion. I have a lot more I can say on this if need be, but the word oikos does not necessarily mean family.
1Co 1:16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)
You have to assume Stephanas' household had infants to establish the doctrine. Doctrines cannot be built on assumptions. Especially in light of other passages that discuss sin, salvation, and the prerequisites to water immersion. That belief gives us the power to become sons of God (John 1:12), confession is unto salvation (Rom. 10:10), repentance is unto salvation (2 Cor. 7:10), but that water immersion is the point of salvation means that before a person can be saved, they have to believe, confess, and repent...all things an infant is incapable of. That children do not inherit sin from their parents (Ezek. 18:20) and that they are innocent of sin (Matt. 19:14) indicates that Paul was not talking about infants in this (or any other passage).
Act 16:15 And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.
Assumes infants. No doctrine can be built on assumptions.
Take special note that whole households were baptized into the forgiveness of Christ! Though the Bible does not specifically state the ages of the individuals within the family, there is a good chance that some of the family members could've been infants.
You are basing your doctrine on chance and assumption. You are also basing it on a conclusion made then the interpretation based on that conclusion. IF there were infants in the families in question, BUT given all else that the Bible says about salvation and what is required, it is evident that infants were not part of this context as infants. At best, those that were infants were converted later as morally culpable individuals when they could believe, repent, and confess first.
Infants were circumcised by God's decree before they were old enough to be accountable for their Jewish faith. Thus they became partakers of the promise God gave to Abraham. If baptism is the circumcision of Christ, infants must (can) also be baptized, even as they were circumcised. See Genesis 17:12ff
You cannot take a type and apply all its aspects to the antitype. Circumcision wasn't about salvation or accountability. The conclusion does not follow from the argument made.
Baptism without Faith does not save. So can children ~Infants Believe?

Luk 18:15 Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them.

Within all the writings of Luke... Luke uses the word 'babies' (βρέφη) in the narrow sense meaning only infants. In verse 16, Luke uses the word 'children' to refer to infants and older children. (Note: the word 'children' (παιδίον) is not restricted to just older children.) So...the kingdom of God belongs to infants and little children. We are to receive the Kingdom of God like a little child/infant.
There isn't anything in this text that says the children believe. You are forcing that into the context.
Mat 18:3 and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 18:4 Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 18:5 “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me,

Mat 18:6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

Jesus, using the same concepts as in Luke 18:15. takes a trusting and unpretentious little child (παιδίον) into his arms (Mark 9:36) and declares that an adult's faith must be like a child's faith... that being: receptive, open and trusting. Following this, Jesus goes on to declare that these little (μiKprov) ones believe in Him. (Note: µtKprov (mikron) in the Greek usually refers to the class of children under four years old and according to both Hebrew and New Testament usage has special reference to the "littlest," namely the infants.)
Again, you have to assume your conclusion. In fact, the implication here is that they are sinless. They are already in a relationship with Jesus and those who causes them to sin and be separated from God is the worst.

There is no passage that indicates that infants are guilty of sin and in need of salvation.
There is no passage that states or implies that infants were ever baptized in scripture.

The doctrine of infant "baptism" is based on assumption and eisegesis, nothing more.
 
V

VDMA

Guest
I'm not here in this conversation to discuss this. I will not reply to it further.
That’s okay. Because, there’s really nothing to discuss. It’s just a undeniable fact every single Church Father and council taught baptismal regeneration (in addition to the clear word of God). It’s an inconvenient fact for those who reject baptismal regeneration.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kade Rystalmane

Well-known member
That’s okay. Because, there’s really nothing to discuss. It’s just a undeniable fact every single Church Father and council taught baptismal regeneration (in addition to the clear word of God). It’s an inconvenient fact for those who reject baptismal regeneration.
This has nothing to do with me.
 
Top