Jump to content

The Christian Protestant Community Forums

Sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community forums. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Community Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
William

The Biblical Basis for Infant Baptism

Recommended Posts

Staff
15 minutes ago, atpollard said:

If only you didn't call it "Baptism". 🤗

 

Rather than speaking for any denomination, let me just speak for myself.  I like the covenant imagery and I can see the Biblical support.  Where "Paedobaptism" rubs against the fur goes back to the Gospels and Acts 2.  John the Baptist called the people to a clear "Baptism of Repentance" that was for adults (those able to repent).  Jesus started His earthly ministry with the exact same message and the exact same baptism.  When Jesus welcomed the "little ones" to himself, he did not make a point of baptizing them.  When Peter spoke again in Acts 2, he seems (to me) to call the repenting crowd to a baptism of repentance just like that of John and Jesus as a precursor to receiving the Holy Spirit.  We know from later in Acts that God can save people by having them hear, then receive the Spirit and then get baptized with water when He wants to make a point.  So everything about the OT seems to be about man being obedient in a physical ritual to a future God given reality (the coming of Jesus) and everything in the New Covenant seems to rest on a God initiated Spiritual reality that man echoes in a physical remembrance of what God has done.

 

Applying this to SALVATION, Baptism (the water) appears to be linked with man repenting (the Baptism of Repentance from John, Jesus and Peter) and Baptism (Spirit) appears to be the God initiated "one Baptism" that changes us.

You are the expert on the Ordo salutis ... which comes first, the work of man or the work of God?

Making the water baptism the "one baptism" that saves appears to flip the Ordo salutis. 

 

Can a child be under the new covenant but not a Child of God (Elect)?  That is a question too hard for me and one I am not sure I want to know the answer to.  I sleep better thinking that all children go to heaven and just trust God to do whatever is PERFECT.

Are any of the Scriptures speaking directly to those too young to hear? That is in both the OT and NT? 

 

Concerning the Ordo Salutis no Reformed claims that covenant baptism saves. We do not teach that water is so annexed to grace that grace cannot be administered without water nor does water in itself convey regeneration. They are not "always' instantaneous [baptismal regeneration].

 

"everything in the New Covenant seems to rest on a God initiated Spiritual reality that man echoes in a physical remembrance of what God has done." Consider that for a moment in light of Covenant/household/paedo baptism. The child grows up and historically reflects back to how long God has blessed them. 

 

And to answer your question as to whether a child can be under the New Covenant but not Elect the answer is most assuredly yes. Just as in the OT covenant children received covenant blessings and yet departed later. 1 Corinthians 7:14 says the child of a believer is set apart [from the children of the world]. There would be no such thing as covenant breakers if people didn't actually break the covenant. 

 

Lastly, if you believe all children are heaven bound, that is, they are to be received by God then why deny them the covenant sign and seal? Are they good enough for God but not good enough for the Baptist church? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, William said:

Lastly, if you believe all children are heaven bound, that is, they are to be received by God then why deny them the covenant sign and seal? Are they good enough for God but not good enough for the Baptist church?

Are you prepared to argue that all infants without exception that die outside the covenant are hell bound?

I prefer "cognitive dissonance" ... just keep those thoughts in their respective boxes and let God worry about the details.

 

Peter said "Repent and be baptized" and you will receive the Holy Spirit ... that is the "promise" that is for all generations, all tribes, all tongues and all nations.

"I BELIEVE" (Credo) that everyone that repents should be baptized because "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved."  [Romans 10:9-10]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, William said:

You decide whether Baptist are a sect. The only Baptist today I generally come across which hold to the Nicene Creed are either particular baptist or SBC. Other "independent" baptist churches are hit and miss. 

Independent Baptist just means that they are Credobaptist ...

... I acknowledge that beyond that anything goes.  From KJVO to Snake handlers to HyperCalvinism to Ultra-Liberal to solidly Orthodox.  However you spoke of Ana-baptists (which I am ignorant of in detail other than as the early Mennonite/Amish Church) and "classic Baptists" (which can't get much more 'classic' than the 1689 Baptist Confession). 

 

The 1689 Confession, like the later Southern Baptist Faith and Message, was founded from "Reformed" roots with the goal of removing the last vestiges of 'Romanism' (Sacraments became Ordinances and Paedo became Credo).  I don't know if they were right or wrong, but you would agree with MOST of the 1689 Confession rather than disagree (I am thinking).  So the Reformed Baptists, General Baptists and Southern Baptists all trace  back to Anglican or Reformed Church roots with the Credo-baptist/Ordinance distinctive grafted on.  All power is in God rather than elements (bread, wine or water) and the Church is made of "believers".  Those are the original "Baptist Distinctives".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
22 minutes ago, atpollard said:

Are you prepared to argue that all infants without exception that die outside the covenant are hell bound?

I prefer "cognitive dissonance" ... just keep those thoughts in their respective boxes and let God worry about the details.

Not at all. I'll argue that only Elect infants are heaven bound. Without unconditional election no infant nor adult is heaven bound. Problem is, we do not know which adults as well as infants are elect. I do not believe the Elect can lose their salvation. Therefore, elect infants will remain in the faith or come back to it should they demonstrate a prodigal moment. If credo-baptism [profession of faith] guaranteed only the Elect were baptized then no adults which are baptized should ever depart from the faith. However, that's not the case as evidenced by so many adults which have departed the faith. Therefore, such attempts are futile. Besides, if we knew we would not only select which infants but also adults. It is the duty of Christ Jesus to divide the sheep from the goats and the wheat from the tares.  And as we are to preach the gospel to every tribe, tongue, and nation without distinction... . as heads of households we are not to distinguish between Elect and non-Elect infants. We are to administer the sacrament to our children without distinction. We are heads of households and that is our responsibility as the name and title of "head of household" implies. In a covenant household [Reformed] we raise our children in the moment conveying God's grace to them now and the blessings to them now as members of the covenant now under the sovereignty of God now. That is, in contrast to one day in the future when emphasis is placed upon themselves to perform a work or act of faith.

 

Again, Baptist seemingly don't acknowledge that Covenant baptist acknowledge Credo-Baptism for adults capable of making a profession of faith. There is no question as to whether adults are to believe and be baptized. The question and contention is whether the sign and seal of baptism ought be administered to children of the household. With restraint, I'll refrain from repeating that the house of Israel which was in a covenant relationship is addressed in Acts 2. Nowhere were children abrogated, but instead Peter used an allusion to the OT a familiar covenant language to them in that the seal of the covenant [promise] was being given to not only heads but their children and those far off. Nowhere in Scripture are children abrogated from the Covenant. NT makes strong use of imagery of the smallest faith of children yet today Baptist replace that with adult like faith. Christ Jesus can overcome even the weakest faith of a child. A child that grows up believing that they are indeed children of God rather than one day after when.

 

Lastly, elect infants will grow up and remain in the covenant and demonstrate saving faith. To those others which depart both Hebrews 6 and the Epistles of John address that they were temporarily illuminated, tasting the goodness, but not one of us. That pertains to not only non elect infants in the covenant church but as well as the Baptist church with only adult membership.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a "Baptist", baptism in water grants admission into the Visible Church which is comprised of the Invisible Church and "wolves in sheep clothing".  We do not willing admit any that do not PROFESS to be Christian.  Only God knows who is part of the Invisible Church and who is not (Baptist or Reformed), so we have that in common. 

 

A Hebrew girl was under the old covenant without personal circumcision because she was BORN into a covenant household.  Why is God's arm shorter now that admission into the covenant is granted with a baptism not of human hands (but of the Spirit).  Should the children of the new covenant not be born into a spiritual baptism just as the daughter was born into a spiritual circumcision under the old covenant?

From my P.O.V. it is ALL in the hands of God with no need for our help ... just a call for our repentance.

 

[PS: I acknowledge that mine is the historic heterodox view and Paedobaptism is the historic orthodox view, but I must obey my conscience and not 'eat the meat sacrificed to idols' even as I refrain from judging others for obeying their conscience.]

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, William said:

Not at all. I'll argue that only Elect infants are heaven bound. Without unconditional election no infant nor adult is heaven bound. Problem is, we do not know which adults as well as infants are elect.

You could ask them, and wait until they ask to be baptized ... after all, the ELECT will still be elect and the REPROBATE will still be reprobate.

[just kidding] 🙂

Edited by atpollard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

Mar 10:13  And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. 
Mar 10:14  But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 

 

The above passage is important enough to be repeated  3 times. 
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, William said:

", and there were added that day around three thousand souls". 

 

Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, hear these words:

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. 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.

Acts 2:41 "So those who received his word were baptized[1], and there were added that day about three thousand souls."

 

 

The promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is for “you and your children and all who are far off”. 

 

Anyone who repents and is baptized, can indeed receive the Holy Spirit.

 

 

 

 

F

15 hours ago, Becky said:

Mar 10:13  And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. 
Mar 10:14  But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 

 

The above passage is important enough to be repeated  3 times. 
 

 

 

Yes it is important, however it has nothing to do with believing and being baptized. What good does it do to baptize an unbeliever?

 

 

 

 

F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
4 hours ago, Follow The Truth said:

Yes it is important, however it has nothing to do with believing and being baptized. What good does it do to baptize an unbeliever?

 

Unbeliever? Do you believe children/babies are condemned as unbelievers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
45 minutes ago, Follow The Truth said:

 

No. I believe they are innocent until they know good from evil. 

 

 

 

 

F

What do the Scriptures say about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
6 hours ago, Follow The Truth said:

 

No. I believe they are innocent until they know good from evil. 

 

 

 

 

F

107932431_FullBlownPelagian.jpg.45c5c070e912583be0b9cca47c96c330.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2019 at 7:54 AM, Becky said:

What do the Scriptures say about that?

 

Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it. Deuteronomy 1:39

 

 

 

 

At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me. Matthew 18:1-5

 

 

Jesus see’s little children as innocent.

 

 

 

 

F

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
2 hours ago, Follow The Truth said:

Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it. Deuteronomy 1:39

Does Deuteronomy 1:39 pertain to original sin? 

 

Deuteronomy 1:39 addresses the rebellion of the stiff necked generation before them [the children of that day] that God had brought out of Egypt. They were innocent of such a violation [they did not participate in the rebellion] which resulted in the condemnation that they should wander in the wilderness aimlessly until the guilty generation should come to pass. 

 

2 hours ago, Follow The Truth said:

At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me. Matthew 18:1-5

 

 

Jesus see’s little children as innocent.

So you're suggesting that the children have no need for Jesus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2019 at 6:16 AM, Knotical said:

And their entire household.  The example for this goes back to when God commanded all males within a household be circumcised.  Baptism replaced circumcision, as did the requirements, though baptism is now extended to everyone in the household, not just the males.

This assumes though that the entire household did not get saved. We don't know that.

On 10/12/2019 at 7:08 AM, Follow The Truth said:

 

No. I believe they are innocent until they know good from evil. 

 

 

 

 

F

All have sinned. Not All above a certain age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, William said:

So you're suggesting that the children have no need for Jesus?

 

Im suggesting little children have no need of water baptism, until they reach the age of knowing good from evil, and can believe the Gospel. 

 

 

 

 

F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

All have sinned. Not All above a certain age.

 

At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me. Matthew 18:1-5

 

 

Does Jesus view little children as being lost or found?

 

 

 

 

 

 

F

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Follow The Truth said:

 

At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me. Matthew 18:1-5

 

 

Does Jesus view little children as being lost or found?

 

 

 

 

 

 

F

 

 

Where in that verse does it say the children are not lost? Where does it say they are innocent of sin?

9 minutes ago, Follow The Truth said:

 

Im suggesting little children have no need of water baptism, until they reach the age of knowing good from evil, and can believe the Gospel. 

 

 

 

 

F

I hold against Infant Baptism in favor of Believer's Baptism but this comment makes no sense and has no biblical basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
4 hours ago, Follow The Truth said:

Jesus see’s little children as innocent.

 

But not worthy of baptism? 

Act_16:15  And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us. 

1Co_1:16  And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 
Act 16:33  And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. 
1Co_10:2  And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 

 

Which of the above excludes the kids? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Becky said:

But not worthy of baptism? 

Act_16:15  And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us. 

1Co_1:16  And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 
Act 16:33  And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. 
1Co_10:2  And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 

 

Which of the above excludes the kids? 

While I don't think these verses have anything to do with Infant Baptism, they do show kids can be saved and should be baptized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, davidtaylorjr said:

Where in that verse does it say the children are not lost? Where does it say they are innocent of sin?

 

Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 18:2-3

 

Unless you become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. 

 

 

Jesus is urging His disciples to become as little children, so that they will enter the kingdom of heaven. 

 

 

Are are you telling me, that you believe this means little children are lost?

 

 

 

12 hours ago, davidtaylorjr said:

I hold against Infant Baptism in favor of Believer's Baptism but this comment makes no sense and has no biblical basis.

 

 

If you hold against infant baptism in favor of baptizing those who believe, then you are in favor of what the Bible teaches.

 

 

 

 

 

F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Becky said:

But not worthy of baptism? 

 

Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 18:2-3

 

 

His disciples had been baptized at this point, yet Jesus told them to become as little children, so that they would enter the kingdom of heaven. 

 

 

 

What what do you believe His disciples were still lacking?

 

 

 

 

 

F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
6 minutes ago, Follow The Truth said:

 

Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 18:2-3

 

 

His disciples had been baptized at this point, yet Jesus told them to become as little children, so that they would enter the kingdom of heaven. 

 

 

 

What what do you believe His disciples were still lacking?

 

 

 

 

 

F

Pelagian,

 

What in Matthew 18:2-3 makes you think innocence is an attribute of a child in which Jesus prescribes to adults?

 

As far as what His disciples may of been lacking look no further than here towards the lack of humility and teachableness.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Follow The Truth said:

Jesus is urging His disciples to become as little children, so that they will enter the kingdom of heaven. 

Notice this is a comparison. Have you ever heard of a childlike faith. It in no way says they are innocent and not lost.  Not to mention that view would contradict the rest of Scripture.

 

1 hour ago, Follow The Truth said:

Are are you telling me, that you believe this means little children are lost?

 

Scripture is clear that ALL are lost.

 

1 hour ago, Follow The Truth said:

His disciples had been baptized at this point, yet Jesus told them to become as little children, so that they would enter the kingdom of heaven. 

 

 

 

What what do you believe His disciples were still lacking?

What does this have to do with children being baptized?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2019 at 5:58 PM, atpollard said:

 😉

  God had every opportunity to settle the question when He was inspiring the written acounts, but God seems to have deliberately avoided doing so.

 

 

I have been thinking this way, too. I mean, God DID arrange The Council of Jerusalem and before that, let the question about judaism arise. But they didn't have a question about baptism at that time and so we don't have a decision about baptism to read in our Bible.

 

I don't consider baptism to be non-essential, and I do think the credo-baptists have it wrong, but maybe having a wrong belief about baptism isn't as bad as returning to Mosaic law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...