Is infant baptism biblical??
The following is something I found interesting at....
http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/infantbaptism.htm
I found it to be one of the most biblical explanations on the study of infant baptism. I agree with the statements wholeheartedly and challenge anyone to debate the statements to be wrong, biblically.
"Jesus commissioned his disciples with the following words:
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age" (Mat 28:18-20). Jesus commanded the Eleven to: 1) Go and make disciples, 2) Baptize them [the new disciples] and 3) teach them [the new disciples, who get baptized] to obey everything the Eleven were commanded to do, which would include this same three step command. The proper Biblical procedure, if followed, forces us to water baptize disciples. [Jesus' disciple is a Christian (Mt. 12:47-50; Lk. 14:26,33; Acts 11:26). Moreover, one must be able to repent of his sins and place his faith in Jesus for salvation to become Christ's disciple (Acts 20:21; 3:19; 26:20; Gal. 5:24; 2 Pet. 3:9; etc.).]
In order for a person to even know that he must repent and place his faith in Jesus for salvation infers that he must be beyond the infant stage. Moreover, it is only such people who can do this that qualify to be baptized, according to Jesus. Again, after one becomes a disciple [a Christian] he is to be water baptized and not before. After that, such a disciple is to be taught to obey everything Jesus taught the Apostles to do, which includes whom to baptize.
Notice the Mt. 28:18-20 standard being carried out even before Jesus' death:
The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples (John 4:1,2). Jesus' disciples water baptized those who became Jesus' disciples, that is, those who became new Christians. Isn't this clear? Nowhere do we see in the Christian Scriptures that infants were ever water baptized. That would contradict these Scriptures.
HouseholdCertainly, one of the chief Scriptures which cites household and is referred to by paedobaptism proponents is the following one:
He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household." Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole family (Acts 16:30-34). The advocates of infant baptism see this as Scriptural proof for their practice, but is it really that or nothing more than a mere assumption based on the word household? Such people assume the Philippian jailer must have had infants in his family, but there is absolutely no proof of this. Perhaps, his children were all grown and married or maybe he had only one child 10 years of age. We cannot be sure of any details. But this we do know, the ones that were newly water baptized came to a saving faith in Jesus Christ, v.34, which agrees with the Lord's standard criteria for one to receive Christian baptism (Mt. 28:18-20). Therefore, it is impossible for the Philippian jailer to have had infants in his household, since they can't repent and place their faith in Jesus.
Notice another time household is cited, which the proponents of infant baptism will probably never volunteer:
Then the father realized that this was the exact time at which Jesus had said to him, "Your son will live." So he and all his household believed (John 4:53). Clearly, everyone in that man's household was old enough to have a personal faith in Jesus, which is needed for salvation. Why then couldn't it be the same way for the Philippian jailer, even apart from Acts 16:34? Moreover, couldn't the same be said about the following household:
Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized (Acts 18:8). The entire household of Crispus was old enough to believe in the Lord. It was after this act of faith that they were water baptized.
Another Scripture misused for infant baptism is Mt. 19:13-15:
Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there. There is no reference here that the little children (infants) were baptized. The children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them.
In conclusion, no Christian should have anything to do with infant baptism for any reason. In fact, such is a baptism in name only. If such a person who was previously "baptized" as an infant should become a real Christian, he is commanded like all others to undergo true Christian baptism. Moreover, the mode of Christian baptism found in the Bible is immersion. Lastly, infant dedication has been derived by some from Lk. 2:22,23, but this should never be associated in any way with water baptism."
posted by Pastor Jim | 7:25 PM
14 Comments:
Pastor Jim,
Welcome to the revealing world of blogs. I also delight in the things of God. The views are quite varied, and we each are a unique part of the truth. I agree with your post. There are other things that pastors do that are not really in the word, such as weddings, funeral's, so maybe one by one these more important issues such a baptism can be straightened out. The other things are not commanded but that doesn't mean God is displeased. They are services to men.
Be Blessed,
Pete
Thanks for your comment, Pete.
Just to let you and everyone else know, I am not a pastor, nor is my name Jim. It is just a name given by someone else, so I stuck with it.
As far as weddings and funerals, I believe they are something more of a legal matter instead of a religious matter. I believe it is nice to have a minister perform your wedding and bring up some scriptures to start the marriage off on the right foot. I feel it is nice to have a minister perform a funeral because of his sense of compassion and understanding. It makes a person feel more comfortable in there time of need. I don't believe either is a religious ceremony.
I agree with what you said about they "are not commanded but that doesn't mean God is displeased. They are services to men." The thing about baptism, though, is that it is needed in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. It is something that must be performed properly to show our obedience to God. We are to hear the word, believe the word, repent of our sins, confess that Jesus is the Son of God, and be baptized. That is how it is taught in the bible, and that is how we should do it.
Welcome to the world of blogging! Glad to see you began one for yourself! ;)
And, Congratulations on hearing the heartbeat of your baby! Isn't that the most wonderful sound?
Hi Pastor Jim,
I am glad you have your own blog.
God bless you.
Thanks everyone, and welcome aboard!
I see Anthony found you! I knew he would! :)
How exciting for you that you heard your baby's heartbeat! I remember that time in my life well. Will y'all be finding out the sex of the baby? (Keep us posted)
I'm really glad you created your own blog. I think you have a lot of wisdom.
Naturally, I fully concur with your assessment of infant baptism. :)
"It was for no reason except his own faithful love that he saved us, by means of the cleansing water of rebirth and renewal in the Holy Spirit which he has so generously poured over us through Jesus Christ our Saviour; so that, justified by his grace, we should become heirs in hope of eternal life. This is doctrine that you can rely on." (Titus 3:5-8).
I want my infant too to be saved by means of the cleansing water of rebirth = baptism to become heir in hope of eternal life.
If you have excluded infants from the word "household", then any other confused pastor can one day exclude women from the word "household" saying, "baptism of women is not biblical."
I love the Catholic Church because it's clear and not complicated.
Anthony, isn't the Catholic church based upon the Word of God? Why would differentiate it?
The Bible is quite clear about salvation. It is God who calls, regenerates hearts and saves those who call on His name.
Infant baptism doesn't 'save' anyone.
"If you have excluded infants from the word "household", then any other confused pastor can one day exclude women from the word "household" saying, "baptism of women is not biblical."'
anthony, there is no confusion to it. There are no infants in my household (yet). There are no infants in Gayla's household (I believe). There are no infants in your household (pretty sure). There are no infants in my in-laws household (and they have four children still there). It also says '"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They replied, "BELIEVE IN THE LORD JESUS, and you will be saved—you and your household." Then they spoke the word of the Lord TO HIM AND ALL THE OTHERS IN THE HOUSE. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. Infants CAN'T BELIEVE, anthony. When they asked what do they need to do to be saved, Jesus said to them BELIEVE AND BE BAPTIZED. Again, you have to believe to be baptized. Again, infants CAN'T BELIEVE.
In every situation where God speaks about the household being saved, it speaks of them having to BELIEVE. EVERY SITUATION!!!
God also wants us to be as children. He must think infants are pure and innocent if He wants us to be like them. So, why do they need to be saved? They already are until they learn to sin. Then once they learn to sin, they can understand God and be baptized. The only person who gets any gratification out of infant baptism are the parents.
Again, anthony, you are adding to the Bible. You are assuming things just to try be "right." You are not right, anthony. God says you are not right. He tells us what needs to be done to be baptized. I'm serious, if you just read the Bible without the blinders of the catholic church on, you will see the light. It is there waiting for you.
Oh yeah, Gayla, the catholic church is based on the Bible and traditions. This is where many mistakes are made. They hold man's traditions with the same power as they hold God's word.
"When they asked what do they need to do to be saved, [Peter] (not Jesus) said to them BELIEVE AND BE BAPTIZED."
Peter did not address infants. He addressed adults.
"Refusing to Baptize infants" is not Biblical.
The adult must believe before he gets baptized, but you can't refuse to baptize your child just because infants "can't believe".
Baptism is done to become heir in hope of eternal life. I want my child to have eternal life.
Jesus said, let children come to me.
Jesus wants you to be like children in a sense to "accept His words of life with humilty", "to stop arguing like hypocrites", "to be humble". It has nothing to do with salvation. All humanity needs salvation (Adults & infants).
You said: "God says you are not right."
This is not Biblical PJ. This is your pride.
Do you think I may reply with your own words [I'm serious, if you just read the Bible without the blinders of the evangelical church on, you will see the light. It is there waiting for you]? Not at all.
Why was Jesus Baptized? Did He lack faith? was He a sinner?
No, He was like a child.
He gave us an example to follow. We all need Baptism. With Baptism our sins are washed away and we become heirs (sons & daughters of God). He Baptizes us with fire and with the Holy Spirit.
Again my child PJ, do not take the Bible literally. Peter addrssed adults not infants. The majority of the Early Christians were adults not infants. The Church was given the authority by Jesus to decide for things. Later, the Church began to baptize infants. Read the history of the Church and stop being stuck at one period of time. MOVE ON baby.
"When they asked what do they need to do to be saved, [Peter] (not Jesus) said to them BELIEVE AND BE BAPTIZED."
So, the Bible was not inspired by the Holy Spirit? God did not put this in the Bible?
"Refusing to Baptize infants" is not Biblical."
Prove it!! Show me!!
"The adult must believe before he gets baptized, but you can't refuse to baptize your child just because infants "can't believe".'
It is not about "refusing," anthony. It is not NEEDED for an infant to be baptized.
"It has nothing to do with salvation."
Baptism has nothing to do with salvation????????? I'm telling you, anthony, you got to read more of the Bible.
"You said: "God says you are not right."
This is not Biblical PJ. This is your pride."
If God says to do something a certain way and we refuse to do it that way, we are wrong. God tells us how to be baptized; you do not do it the way He tells us = God says you are wrong. It doesn't get much more obvious than that. It has nothing to do with my pride. I did not make the rules. God did.
"Why was Jesus Baptized? Did He lack faith? was He a sinner?
No, He was like a child.
He gave us an example to follow. We all need Baptism. With Baptism our sins are washed away and we become heirs (sons & daughters of God). He Baptizes us with fire and with the Holy Spirit."
Did I miss the story of Jesus being baptized as a baby? Is this the point you are trying to make here? It seemed to me as though Jesus was baptized as an adult.
"The Church was given the authority by Jesus to decide for things."
AGAIN, anthony, you do not quite understand what "the church" is.
"Read the history of the Church and stop being stuck at one period of time."
If you want someone to become catholic I would definately not tell them to read the history of your church. A lot of skeletons in that closet. Maybe you should research all of the evil things your church has done. You might learn a thing or two. Its kind of bad when people start naming words after your church, like "nepotism." Go ahead look it up. But, then again, I am sure you know all about. There is probably some excuse for it in you "apologetics" book somewhere.
"MOVE ON baby."
That is just priceless. I couldn't sum it up any better. This truly shows what you are all about, anthony. Once you run out of catholic excuses you start calling people names. And "baby" at that. That made me chuckle to myself. You really know how to hurt someone's feelings. I don't know if I will ever be the same. I hope you will not continue to be the same, for your soul. You really need to study God's word a little more. I don't believe He told people to call each other names. He said "be like children." Not, "you are a baby."
"In speaking of souls who have failed to attain salvation, these theologians distinguish the pain of loss (paena damni), or privation of the beatific vision, and the pain of sense (paena sensus). Though these theologians have thought it certain that unbaptized infants must endure the pain of loss, they have not been similarly certain that they are subject to the pain of sense. St. Augustine (De Pecc. et Mer., I, xvi) held that they would not be exempt from the pain of sense, but at the same time he thought it would be of the mildest form. On the other hand, St. Gregory Nazianzen (Or. in S. Bapt.) expresses the belief that such infants would suffer only the pain of loss. Sfondrati (Nod. Prædest., I, i) declares that while they are certainly excluded from heaven, yet they are not deprived of natural happiness. This opinion seemed so objectionable to some French bishops that they asked the judgment of the Holy See upon the matter. Pope Innocent XI replied that he would have the opinion examined into by a commission of theologians, but no sentence seems ever to have been passed upon it. Since the twelfth century, the opinion of the majority of theologians has been that unbaptized infants are immune from all pain of sense. This was taught by St. Thomas Aquinas, Scotus, St. Bonaventure, Peter Lombard, and others, and is now the common teaching in the schools. It accords with the wording of a decree of Pope Innocent III (III Decr., xlii, 3): "The punishment of original sin is the deprivation of the vision of God; of actual sin, the eternal pains of hell." Infants, of course, can not be guilty of actual sin."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
Sounds like your catholic church has a firm grasp on this issue. No one agrees. THEY DON'T KNOW. Why???? Because they are trying to make their OWN RULES!!! They are refusing to look at the simple plan God gave us for salvation. Now that they have made up all of these ridiculous rituals (please read the article to see if you have been "properly baptized") they have to try to make up rules for the unfortunate infants who die without being baptized. Nowhere do catholics believe these infants will go to hell. They just think they will be happy without seeing Jesus' face. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN!!!!!!!!
When you start to make up your own rules, you start tripping over your own feet.
Baptism means a rebirth in Christ. It means to turn away from our old life and start over again as children in the lifestyle of Christ. Infants cannot turn away from an old lifestyle. They have no sins to turn from. They are pure as you, anthony, can see in an excerpt from a site you told me to read......
"Finally, we must deal with one major objection that Protestants often have to the Immaculate Conception. Romans 3:23 says that all people have sinned, so they say that Mary must have sinned also. However, this is not true. Children below the age of reason have not sinned (because to sin means to consciously turn your back on God, but young children cannot do that), so they constitute an implied exception."
Post a Comment
<< Home