Infant Baptism

[chrismarc]

Now i am expecting support on this from SW, Eric and others who also believe in Infant

Baptism (probably 80% of all Christians), including Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Orthodox, etc.

In Acts 2:38-39; 16:15,33; 18:8 (cf. 11:14), and 1 Cor 1:16 it is stated that an individual and his whole household were baptized. It would be hard to say this involved no small children. Now, who are the members of a household? In my own household, the "members" are my wife, myself and 2 daughters. People generally had more children in those days, before contraception and abortion and an anti-child mentality became prevalent. So it is quite reasonable to assume that children were included in the baptism. The very fact that it mentions household rather than simply husband, is a clear indication of others being involved. In that time and culture, that probably would have included parents as well, maybe grandparents, or siblings or cousins.

Many biblical passages connect household and children:

(Gen. 18:19) For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just . . . (Gen. 31:41) It was like this for the twenty years I was in your household. I worked for you fourteen years for your two daughters . . . (Gen. 36:6) Esau took his wives and sons and daughters and all the members of his household . . . (Gen. 47:12) Joseph also provided his father and his brothers and all his father's household with food, according to the number of their children.

(Num. 18:11) . . . I give this to you and your sons and daughters as your regular share. Everyone in your household who is ceremonially clean may eat it. (1 Chron. 10:6) So Saul and his three sons died, and all his house died together.

(Matt. 19:29) And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.

(1 Tim. 3:12)... deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.

Furthermore, the Greek word for house or household in four passages connecting it with baptism (Acts 16:15,33, 18:8, and 1 Cor 1:16) is oikos (from which the English economy derives). Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon defines it in its usage at Acts 18:8, 1 Cor. 1:16, and Acts 16:31 (in the immediate context of 16:33), as the inmates of a house, all the persons forming one family, a household (p. 441; Strong's word #3624).

To be saved (or baptized), one doesn't necessarily have to be aware of what is happening. For example, say a child was born a vegetable, with severe brain defects, and died at ten years of age, still incapable of rational thought or communication. Is that child damned simply because she couldn't "believe"? I think not. I think that God's mercy extends to those who do not yet know or understand the gospel, or else all aborted babies, children who die at a young age, or before the age of reason, etc. go to hell. I don't believe that for a second. But here are some more relevant verses:

(Luke 19:9) Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son ofAbraham. (Acts 11:14) He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved. (Acts 16:31) They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved; you and your household."

(Titus 3:5)... he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.

Compare this to (John 3:5)- Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, unless a man is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (cf. 3:3: "unless a man is born again ...")

The two passages are almost exactly parallel:

Titus: "saved" / John: "enter the kingdom of God"

Titus: "washing of rebirth" / John: "born of water"

Titus: "renewal by the Holy Spirit" / John: "born . . . of the Spirit"

This is how one interprets Scripture: by comparing it with itself when there are obvious parallels, to help determine what the less clear passages might mean. I think this one is undeniable. What is "washing" in one verse (with two other common elements) is shown to be "water" in the other. Thus, baptism is tied to salvation, in accord with the other verses above.

Jesus makes it clear that children are to be in the Kingdom thus requiring baptism:

(Luke 18:15-16) "And they brought unto him also infants, that he might touch them. Which when the disciples saw, they rebuked them. But Jesus, calling them together, said: 'Suffer children to come to me and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.' "

(Matt. 19:13-14) "Then were little children presented to him, that he should impose hands upon them and pray. And the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said to them:' Suffer the little children and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such.' "

(Mark 10:13-14) "And they brought to him young children, that he might touch them. And the disciples rebuked them that brought them. Whom when Jesus saw, he was much displeased, and saith to them: ' Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God.' "

Paul in Col. 2:11-13 makes a connection between baptism and circumcision. Israel was the church before Christ (Acts 7:38; Rom. 9:4). Circumcision, given to 8-day old boys, was the seal of the covenant God made with Abraham, which applies to us also (Gal. 3:14,29). It was a sign of repentance and future faith (Rom. 4:11). Infants were just as much a part of the covenant as adults (Gen. 17:7; Deut. 29:10-12, cf. Matt. 19:14). Likewise, baptism is the seal of the New Covenant in Christ. It signifies cleansing from sin, just as circumcision did

(Deut. 10:16, 30:6; Jer. 4:4, 9:25, Rom. 2:28-9, Phil. 3:3). Infants are wholly saved by God's grace just as adults are, only apart from their rational and willful consent. Their parents act in their behalf.

For more on John Calvin's exegetical argument connecting baptism with circumcision, see: Baptism and its Parallel With Circumcision (John Calvin)-

http://web.archive.org/web/20030604152710/...smus/RAZ328.HTM

The fundamentalist position against infant baptism is a consequence not of the Bible's

strictures, but of their logic about salvation. They see salvation as coming not through

an infusion of grace (Catholic position), but through an acceptance of Jesus as one's

personal Lord and Savior (not in the Bible).

End of biblical exegesis on infant baptism.

Being outnumbered on this forum, please be patient as i attempt to teach non-Catholics why we believe what we do. i would ask all nay-sayers to read the referenced texts in prayer and ask the Holy Spirit to open your scaly eyes and your hearts to the fullness of the Truth. As hard as this may be, try not to just spout off anti-Catholic drivel based on hatred of the Church which you have been fed for years. Is it possible these attacks come from someone other than God?!

According to Holy Scripture, Christ did found His One Church on Peter and gave him the Keys to the Kingdom (Mt. 16:18-19) - this will be my the next topic i shall take up, in reply to Marnie's request for biblical texts on certain Catholic doctrine.

If you reject His Church, you reject Him.

[st. Worm]

I wish you well on this one, but I have found it to be almost impossible to convince anyone about baptism on an internet forum. In fact, when I was a recovering fundamentalist, I know I had to read a number of excellent commentaries and other works over a couple of years before I really grasped what the Bible was saying on the subject. Of course the Bible does not in specific words say that infants should either be baptized or not baptized. However, I think the vast majority of evidence in both the Bible and earliest recorded non-biblical church history totally support the idea and with good reasons. It is however something that needs to be taught in a more structured and stable venue where teaching can actually occur.

It is funny that credo-baptist rush to perform baby "dedications" even though Scripture is perfectly silent about that practice in the New Testament Christian church. To a baptist you just aren't saved until you can run down the aisle during an invitation and make a personal statement yet at the same time you are somehow automatically saved by being too young or too stupid to be accountable for your sins. Someone should have told little unborn John how improper it was for him to respond about his Savior while still in the womb of Elizabeth!

[st. Worm]

"Your position is merely an assumption"

Actually your's is even more of an assumption. A household more than likely included children or why even mention it. Of course its possible that there were no children in those households but you make an assumption either way. Also, there is nothing in the Bible that says or implies that baptisms were immersions. That's a misreading of the term baptizo. The term can just as easily mean dip or pour without immersing and is used that way when the OT Hebrew was translated to Greek. As I said baptism requires a study and not just the same old verse or two sound bite that is used by baptists to draw a conclusion.

SW

[st. Worm]

All reliable Lutheran theologians believe the NT teaches infant baptism. The message and doctrine of baptism is taught throughout the NT. I recall addressing this very issue with you once before and cited numerous passages used to support baptism of all and not just adults upon confession of faith. However I don't recall you even bothering to address any of my posts in which I did.

You are basically hanging your hat on the idea that no specific verse says "all infants shall be baptized" yet you don't see the greater significance that no passage specifically excludes baptizing infants. If St. Peter was correct when he wrote baptism now saves us bringing faith to the sinner then how can you be opposed to it? Even the Calvinist's view of infant baptism which equates baptism with OT circumcision makes more sense than yours. Even though they don't acknowledge the working of the Word and God's promise through the water they still understand that infants need not earn their baptism just as OT covenant males did not earn their circumcision. Of course in your world baptism is all about you, a good work earned by another good work, self generated faith. In ours its about Christ and the means of His grace to us.

sw

[st. Worm]

Also Horizoneast, I went back and checked your "research" where you quoted Professor Meyer as if you had personally read his work. That quote you cited was taken straight from a hit piece about infant baptism by a Wayne Jackson in the Christian Courier (hardly an acclaimed journal with regard to the advancement of biblical scholarship) which included several selected quotes such as the one you cited from others that suited his laughable attempt at researching the issue. You really should give proper credit even though in this case I fully understand why you would not want to associate yourself with Jackson and his dubious publication.

sw

[st. Worm]

"LOL - I don

[st. Worm]

And horizoneast, just to show you that you really should consider changing your reading material, in the very same article that you "borrowed" the quote from, Jackson makes the astounding claim that salvation comes from our obedience! So much for salvation by grace through faith alone, at least according to your guy Jackson.

[st. Worm]

"Still waiting for those supporting verses. Having trouble finding any?"

As I said, when we went through this before I supplied numerous verses and applied them in a reasonable systematic that you never responded to. Instead I recall you supplied the same Meyer's quote that you tried again tonight, which may or may not even be accurate, since in reality you took the quote from a source that appears to be somewhat questionable. You never directly read Dr. Meyers work yourself even though you cited it as though you did.

I hope you don't ever try that parlor trick on term papers or a college thesis.

sw

[tah]

Now i am expecting support on this from SW, Eric and others who also believe in Infant

Baptism (probably 80% of all Christians), including Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Orthodox, etc.

Wow, I don't know but a couple of folks who believe in infant baptism..

and I know a lot of folks...

Is there any actual scripture where an infant is baptised??

( am way out of my league on these boards and I really appreciate

you all not telling me to go "play in the sandbox while us grownups talk"...)

Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved; you and your household."

doesn't that mean that if his household believed they would be saved also ??...

I am sorry but I did not read anything in your post that would lead

me to believe infants should be baptised..

Salvation comes to me when I see my sin and repent and ask Jesus to forgive me and I accept Him as my Savior.. I must believe Him and receive Him..Born Again..isn't that true of everyone??

Then I can be baptised which is symbolic of my new birth into the Kingdom...

as for children ..I believe God holds each soul accountable for their own soul..

we all reach an age of accountability ..

I do not know what that age is but there is a scripture that "even a child in know by his ways"

I have always taken that to mean that God holds even a child responsible for his actions..

so there is a point where they know..

Until then.....I have not asked God or sought out an answer for that but I have a feeling that if I do you would not like my findings...

[st. Worm]

"Why would Meyer write that infant baptism