Posted on 02/24/2013 11:55:01 AM PST by daniel1212
My responses:
“A Jewish tradition that accepts the inclusion of infants into the body of believers.”
No. We have the COMMAND of God that EVERY MALE JEW MUST be circumcised on the 8th day under the NATIONAL COVENANT. As such, this is very different than the Church. There is no such command. You compare apples with oranges here and conclude that every fruit is identical.
“Paul saying our children are uniquely set aside in the eyes of God.”
1 Co 7:14 - Children in mixed marriages are literally “set apart as different” (Greek: hagios). This prevents them from being treated differently than children in homes where both parents are believers. Please read the context. Again, nothing here about infant baptism.
“We have Peter saying the promise is to our children.”
Did you not read my earlier response? The facts of the Scripture have not changed. The promise of the Holy Spirit as a gift was to every Jew, every descendant of a Jew and every Gentile, WHO REPENTED. Infants do not REPENT. As such, this has nothing to do with your attempt to prove infants should be baptized.
“We have Jesus saying that infants should not be prevented from coming to him.”
Which has nothing to do with the non-Biblical idea of infant baptism. They were not coming for baptism, were they? No. The parents brought them to be blessed by the rabbi.
“We have Lydia accepting Christ and her entire household being baptized.”
We are left to assume each was old enough to believe and be baptized. There is nothing in that passage that speaks to infant baptism.
“We have through the first 150 years of the church a consensus on the part of church leaders that parents are responsible within the church for the spiritual training of their children.”
God gives this responsibility to parents and specifies so in the BIBLE. Infants are not “spiritually trained”.
“We have one of them saying that infants can be born again.”
ONE HUNDRED YEARS AFTER CHRIST, this was said. The hundred years before were silent. Why???
“Those are the facts presented up to this point.”
Actually, it would be accurate to say, these are a collection of disparate points you have tried to get to fly in formation, but they do not. Nor does a single point indicate infants should be baptized.
“As to your point about a rabbi blessing infants. How do they come to Him now? His point was not local for that day for He told them to not to forbid it for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”
Infants do not “come to Him now”.
Nor did Jesus baptize a SINGLE infant. Why?
Nor did he command a single parent to baptize and infant. Why?
Nor did any of the 12 Apostles baptize a single infant. Why?
Nor did any author of Holy Scripture baptize an infant or record such. Why?
Given that there is nothing in Holy Scripture about infant baptism, nothing written in the first hundred years about it.... one might wonder why you are trying so hard to find a way to justify a non-Biblical practice?
Got me. Wouldn’t it be better to obey the Scriptures and not add to them?
Another Christian named Origen wrote in about 250 AD:
“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit”
In other words, Origen is arguing that even though infants haven’t personally sinned yet, they still are possessed of the sin nature.
Theology aside, though, he clearly says the apostles would even give baptism to infants.
The New Testament teaching by Paul that our children are set aside and holy in the eyes of God would not conflict with that. Nor would the teaching of Peter in Acts that the promise is for our children. Nor would the teaching that Lydia’s, the Jailer’s, and Cripus’ households were baptized conflict with the baptism of infants. Nor would Jesus own teaching who said about infants, “Let the little children come to me.”
So, I could go on and on with others in early church history who testify to infant baptism at the earliest stages of the church.
On the other hand, you don’t have to accept that explanation, and you can have your reasons for not accepting it. However, what you cannot say is that those who do teach it have made it up out of thin air.
They haven’t.
There is a basis in scripture and church history for the teaching of infant baptism.
“Another Christian named Origen wrote in about 250 AD:”
... 250????? Nothing in the first 100 years.
“The New Testament teaching by Paul that our children are set aside and holy in the eyes of God would not conflict with that. Nor would the teaching of Peter in Acts that the promise is for our children. Nor would the teaching that Lydia’s, the Jailer’s, and Cripus’ households were baptized conflict with the baptism of infants. Nor would Jesus own teaching who said about infants, “Let the little children come to me.””
... And yet, not a single passage you listed teaches infant baptism. Not one. For this reason, I am pointing out that the concept is made up from somewhere other than God’s Holy Scriptures.
“So, I could go on and on with others in early church history who testify to infant baptism at the earliest stages of the church.”
... No. Hundreds of years AFTER the formation of the Church.
“On the other hand, you don’t have to accept that explanation, and you can have your reasons for not accepting it. However, what you cannot say is that those who do teach it have made it up out of thin air.”
... Actually, you are concluding something you’ve yet to prove.
“There is a basis in scripture and church history for the teaching of infant baptism.”
... If there is a basis in Scripture, you sure haven’t listed it here. I’ve responded to every passage you tried to put forth, demonstrating that none of them was about infant baptism.
In the end, you posted a lot of stuff that had nothing to do with infant baptism. I enjoyed seeing what you attempted, but you didn’t prove your case.
You’ve yet to answer my questions:
Why doesn’t Jesus Christ tell you to baptize infants?
Why don’t the Apostles? Why not at least one?
Why is there not passage in Scripture that commands it? Not one?
Why is there no passage that models it? Not one?
Why is there no passage that instructs you to do it?
Why is there no passage that instructs the Church to do it?
Why is there one giant black hole on this issue in the Bible? If it is even remotely important, why wasn’t it ever mentioned?
Why are there no pictures of infants being baptized before 100 AD?
Why are there no Church Father writings before 100 AD showing this?
You are supporting a practice/doctrine that is never mentioned by either the Bible, nor the Apostles tradition for the first 100 years or more. Why? Why would you support it? Because it feels good?
Blessings to you. Love the Lord your God with ALL your mind.
2013 and you argue with 250????
(Actually, 215, but I skipped Hippolytus and went to Origen.)
You, of course, know what libraries and records they had access to.
“The New Testament teaching by Paul that our children are set aside and holy in the eyes of God would not conflict with that. Nor would the teaching of Peter in Acts that the promise is for our children. Nor would the teaching that Lydia’s, the Jailer’s, and Cripus’ households were baptized conflict with the baptism of infants. Nor would Jesus own teaching who said about infants, “Let the little children come to me.””
***Yes, all of those are supportive of infant baptism. You, though, have a different theological belief, and so you cannot look through another’s eyes.***
“So, I could go on and on with others in early church history who testify to infant baptism at the earliest stages of the church.”
***Yes. The church is 2000 years old and we’re talking when it was only 10% of that 2000 old.
“On the other hand, you don’t have to accept that explanation, and you can have your reasons for not accepting it. However, what you cannot say is that those who do teach it have made it up out of thin air.”
***Nope. It has a basis in fact, as I’ve listed above. As evidience, it must be countered by your evidence which is limited. No place does the New Testament say, “You must not baptize babies.” You must compile circumstantial evidence.
“There is a basis in scripture and church history for the teaching of infant baptism.”
***Yes, I’ve mentioned an entire group of scripture that would support and/or fit with infant baptism. You have listed not one apostle or prophet saying “do not baptize/include infants.”
Why doesn’t Jesus tell me NOT to baptize infants?
Why don’t the Apostles? Not even one says “Do not baptize infants.”
Why is there not a passage of scripture that denies infant baptism?
The Household baptisms are a possible example of infant baptism.
Why is there no scripture that denies infant baptism?
Why do you deny those scriptures that support the full inclusion of infants?
And when our socialist government comes to take your children away and they lock you up or off with your head, and they train your kids to be atheistic, that’s just the way it is, isn’t it? It’s all on your little ones. If they don’t figure it out on their own, then that’s just tough.
Because God has no regard for the faith of his martyrs relative to their families.
/sarc
2013 and you argue with 250????
Perhaps I didn’t make my reason clear. I don’t doubt the practice came in at a later time. What we don’t find is anything before 100 AD, hence a practice that wasn’t Biblical and was not practiced by the Church, but was added later - I suspect a pagan practice.
***Yes, all of those are supportive of infant baptism.***
Actually, not even one of those even addresses the issue of infant baptism. Not in english. Not in greek. I read NT Greek. I looked. Ain’t there.
***Nope. It has a basis in fact, as I’ve listed above. As evidence, it must be countered by your evidence which is limited. No place does the New Testament say, “You must not baptize babies.” You must compile circumstantial evidence.
And you can find no evidence in scripture. Zilch. You are doing your best to spin straw into gold, but it remains a pile of straw that refers to kids, but no baptism is present.
The scripture doesn’t say lots of things. Doesn’t say you shouldn’t baptize the family dog either. Doesn’t have to. Baptism is for humans who have repented and entrusted themselves to Christ.
***Yes, I’ve mentioned an entire group of scripture that would support and/or fit with infant baptism. You have listed not one apostle or prophet saying “do not baptize/include infants.”
Why would I have to prove a negative, when Scripture teaches baptism is for those who repent and entrust themselves to Christ? Infants don’t do that, hence don’t qualify.
Don’t you even stop to ask yourself why not one of your “entire group” of scriptures even mentions baptism of an infant? As such, they don’t support infant baptism. I went through each with you. Not a single one had anything to do with dunking babies.
“The Household baptisms are a possible example of infant baptism.”
Argument from silence. “Possible example” contains no evidence it happened - especially in context.
“Why is there no scripture that denies infant baptism?”
Above. Baptism is for those who believe and repent. Infants don’t do that.
“Why do you deny those scriptures that support the full inclusion of infants?”
Because none does. Not a single one you showed here mentions or supports baptism of anyone who can’t believe and repent.
Im afraid you’ve run out of straw on this one. The best you’ve been able to do is to find some references after 100 AD and NO scriptures that command, instruct or show a single infant baptism. None.
And finally AGAIN, you avoided answering my questions. Not even one of them was answered.
Why?
Is it because there is only one answer that can be possible? Ah, yes.
Here they are again, in case you’ve forgotten...
Why didn’t Jesus Christ tell you to baptize infants?
Why didn’t the Apostles?
Why not at least one Apostle?
Why isn’t there one example of any believer baptizing an infant in the NT?
Why is there not passage in Scripture that commands it?
Not one in the entire NT?
Why is there no passage that models it? Not one?
Why is there no passage that instructs you to do it?
Why is there no passage that instructs the Church to do it?
Why is there one giant black hole on this issue in the Bible? If it is even remotely important, why wasn’t it ever mentioned?
Why are there no pictures of infants being baptized before 100 AD?
Why are there no Church Father writings before 100 AD showing this?
Pot, kettle, black...
You say the bible doesn't approve of infant baptism.
I say the bible doesn't deny infant baptism.
Since the subject isn't specifically addressed, you are arguing with only circumstantial evidence for a negative....doesn't approve of.
In support of infant baptism are these facts:
Jesus said, "Let the little children (infants when context is read in Luke) come to me and forbid them not."
Paul said, "they (your children) are holy."
Peter said, "the promise is to you AND TO YOUR CHILDREN."
In Acts Lydia and her entire household were baptized, as were those of the jailer and of Crispus.
In the Old Testament, children were circumcised at 8 days old.
In the Old Testament, in addition to the above:
And, of course, there is the great verse in Romans:
Romans 8:29 NIV For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
You continue to pile up verses from the Bible that don't address infant baptism - perhaps thinking that their number alone will support your case. So far, you have not produced a single verse that includes a wet baby. Really, not one infant baptism, command, instruction, etc. Nor have you produced a single extra-Biblical writing in the first 100 years of the Church to demonstrate that this was practiced. In total, you've produced nothing to prove your case.
Now, you want to put the onus on me to support your case by asking me to show Scripture prohibits infant baptism. Sorry. I won't do your job. However, I will answer why your request is meaningless... The Bible doesn't deny lots of things. Baptism of aliens, baptism of dogs and cats, baptism of severed limbs, proxy baptism for distant relatives, etc. It does not need to deny every category. It simply demonstrates in every instance, that baptism is for people who hear, believe and repent, and then follow Christ in baptism. Those who do not do these things are NEVER baptized. Ever.
YOU HAVEN'T ANSWERED ANY OF MY QUESTIONS TO YOU. WHY?
Frankly, I only know of one simple reason why you are not answering... there is no support for infant baptism in Scripture at all. I've patiently dealt with every single issue you raised, yet you haven't answered even one of my questions.
Please take any 3-5 of my questions and answer them.
AMPU, you have not provided one verse that denies infant baptism.
I just provided a number of verses that says God knows His from the womb. Paul says God watches out specifically for His children. Jesus says that the infants are to come to Him.
You are arguing from a negative and refuse to admit that all you are providing is circumstantial evidence. You say the bible denies infant baptism but cannot show where it does so.
Not even one single verse. Not even a piece of a verse.
Now, show the verse OR admit your case is merely circumstantial.
xzins,
I can’t imagine you would be purposely obtuse. It appears though that you are being so...
1. You are claiming that infant baptism is a doctrine of your church, yet it appears no where in Scripture
2. You are claiming that infant baptism is a doctrine of your church, yet it appears no where in the first 100 years of the Church.
3. I have patiently demonstrated not a single verse you brought forth shows a wet infant.
4. I have patiently written that every single verse about baptism shows a combination of hear, believe, repent. That is not circumstantial. It is a FACT. I’ve said this numerous times, but you’ve yet to acknowledge I’ve said it to you. It exists in every instance of the Christian practice of baptism, starting with Matthew 28:18-20 and continuing through the epistles. It is a fact. The only fact that shows what baptism is and who it is for. NO INFANT CAN POSSIBLY DO ANY OF THESE THREE THINGS.
You are left with a desire to baptize infants with no God provided reason to do so - and the act would circumvent all God has inspired that commands, instructs and demonstrates baptism in the New Testament. In short, you are left with only your desire.
YOU have not answered a single question I raised, not have you shown me the wet baby.
Since you cannot show me a single wet baby, please answer some of the questions I raised. Why won’t you?
Why didn’t Jesus Christ tell you to baptize infants?
Why didn’t the Apostles tell you to baptize infants?
Why not at least one Apostle?
Why isn’t there not one example of any believer baptizing an infant in the NT?
Why is there not one passage in Scripture that commands it?
Not one in the entire NT?
Why is there no passage that models it? Not one?
Why is there no passage that instructs you to do it?
Why is there no passage that instructs the Church to do it?
Why is there one giant black hole on this issue in the Bible? If it is even remotely important, why wasn’t it ever mentioned?
Why are there no pictures of infants being baptized before 100 AD?
Why are there no Church Father writings before 100 AD showing this?
I see your dilemma. Infant baptism is based on nothing but desire and a practice that started hundreds of years after the Church began.
Again, so that you can hear it clearly: You are arguing a negative from silence. You say the bible denies baptism to infants, and you can provide no verse saying so.
Not one. Not the hint of one.
If there WERE one, you would post it.
So, by way of challenge, post the verse that says: “Do NOT baptize infants.” Feel free to use synonyms for infants. Feel free to use synonyms for do, not, and baptize.
In fact, feel free to post a verse that says: “Baptize ONLY adults.”
“You are arguing a negative from silence. You say the bible denies baptism to infants, and you can provide no verse saying so.”
No. I’ve never said the Bible denies it. It doesn’t need to deny it.
I’m denying your claim that baptism is a Christian sacrament for infants. It is not. Sacraments are instructed in Scripture. There is nothing in the Bible instructing infant baptism - at all. I’ve asked you to provide some Biblical evidence. You searched. You tried. You have provided none. Which is what I said you’d find.
If it is a sacrament for infants, it would be instructed. It is not.
We do have plenty of verses telling us who is to be baptized. You are ignoring them. Why?
Where are the answers to any question I asked you?
How does anyone claim to know, thus love, Jesus The Word if obeying Him is not the top priority but look to 'man' and their words for what they want. We know the end of that story. Being hell bent to get one's way in any area, which is not God's way for It Is Written, is being more than obtuse!
Good posts!
Thanks for your comments.
I do want to add that there are Orthodox, Catholic and some Protestant groups that fall into the category of baptizing infants. They are all practicing something that is not shown in the Holy Scriptures. They have differing reasons.
Psalm 119:
1 Blessed are those whose ways are blameless,
who walk according to the law of the Lord.
2 Blessed are those who keep his statutes
and seek him with all their heart—
3 they do no wrong
but follow his ways.
4 You have laid down precepts
that are to be fully obeyed.
5 Oh, that my ways were steadfast
in obeying your decrees!
6 Then I would not be put to shame
when I consider all your commands.
7 I will praise you with an upright heart
as I learn your righteous laws.
8 I will obey your decrees;
do not utterly forsake me.
His Word alone is a light to our path and able to make the man of God complete. How blessed all of us are to have access to His Word. Probably more access than any time in history. Let’s treasure it, study it, and let it lead us to greater love for Him.
Amen! God's Word is the final authority. And we couldn't truly learn/know HIM without His inspired Word. Always learning, always growing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.