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

1 hour ago, hanna said:

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.

There is no example of infant baptism in Scripture. But there is example of Believer's baptism. So why do you think we don't have a decision in the Bible?

Share this post


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

There is no example of infant baptism in Scripture. But there is example of Believer's baptism. So why do you think we don't have a decision in the Bible?

Likewise, there's no example of women partaking of communion. So why do you think we don't have a decision in the Bible? And, how do you come to the conclusion that they may partake of communion?

Share this post


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

Likewise, there's no example of women partaking of communion. So why do you think we don't have a decision in the Bible?

Actually there is an example of women taking communion. See Paul's letter to the Corinthians. 1 Corinthians 11:33 specifically addresses the entire church male and female. The Greek in that verse can also be rendered in English as brothers and sisters in the way it is used (see ESV footnote).

Share this post


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

Actually there is an example of women taking communion. See Paul's letter to the Corinthians. 1 Corinthians 11:33 specifically addresses the entire church male and female. The Greek in that verse can also be rendered in English as brothers and sisters in the way it is used (see ESV footnote).

So the answer lies in the Greek. And your same reasoning to withhold household baptism as commanded in Acts 2 is because the Greek disqualifies children? 

Share this post


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

So the answer lies in the Greek. And your same reasoning to withhold household baptism as commanded in Acts 2 is because the Greek disqualifies children? 

So you can't interchange children and infants. The only example of baptism in the NT is believer's baptism.

Edited by davidtaylorjr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
Just now, davidtaylorjr said:

So you can't interchange children and infants.

Are you suggesting that the Greek word for children in Acts disqualifies infants? I want to be perfectly clear. 

Share this post


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

Are you suggesting that the Greek word for children in Acts disqualifies infants? I want to be perfectly clear. 

An infant isn't going to be believing so they wouldnt' be qualified anyway. Acts is dealing with new believers. Not some inference of a replacement of circumcision that is read into the text.

Share this post


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

An infant isn't going to be believing so they wouldnt' be qualified anyway. Acts is dealing with new believers. Not some inference of a replacement of circumcision that is read into the text.

So the Greek word used for children in Acts 2 abrogated children of age which were to receive the sign and seal of the OT covenant? Again I want to be perfectly clear that there is no allusion made to the same reciepents when Peter addresses the house of Israel. You are basing this entirely on the Greek?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, William said:

So the Greek word used for children in Acts 2 abrogated children of age which were to receive the sign and seal of the OT covenant. Again I want to be perfectly clear that there is no allusion made to the same reciepents when Peter addresses the house of Israel. You are basing this entirely on the Greek. 

William you can play word games all you want. But it is not infant baptism. It is believer's baptism.  By the way, those children would have already been circumcised so obviously baptism wasn't a continuation with a new method of the Old Covenant. We are no longer under the Old Covenant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

Baptism also deals with households

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. 

Act 16:31  And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house
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_1:16  And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 
1Co 10:2  And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 
 

Share this post


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

William you can play word games all you want. But it is not infant baptism. It is believer's baptism.  By the way, those children would have already been circumcised so obviously baptism wasn't a continuation with a new method of the Old Covenant. We are no longer under the Old Covenant.

You are accusing me of playing word games, wasn't it you that brought up the Greek and said children and infants are not interchangeable? 

 

You are reasoning that the Greek addressed both men and women despite no example of women partaking of communion, therefore women may partake . And I want to be perfectly clear that that very argument is not a basis to include infants in household baptism 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

 

6 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

By the way, those children would have already been circumcised ........

Some children were girls 

Share this post


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

You are accusing me of playing word games, wasn't it you that brought up the Greek and said children and infants are not interchangeable? 

Yes, in the context that the context of the passage is clearly believer's baptism and not some covenant children symbolism replacing circumcision.  Since infants have no capacity to believe it obviously is not including them in the passage. The instruction for baptism is clearly upon the basis that everyone in the household believed.

Just now, Becky said:

 

Some children were girls 

So do you baptize infant girls? If so I guess that isn't biblical since girls couldn't be circumcised.

Share this post


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

Yes, in the context that the context of the passage is clearly believer's baptism and not some covenant children symbolism replacing circumcision.  Since infants have no capacity to believe it obviously is not including them in the passage. The instruction for baptism is clearly upon the basis that everyone in the household believed.

Again, the Greek does not allow for the infants of a household? The very argument you make goes against the sign and seal of a covenant which was to be administered to children in covenants predicated on faith?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, William said:

The very argument you make goes against the sign and seal of a covenant which was to be administered in covenants predicated on faith?

I dont even know what you are trying to say here.

1 minute ago, William said:

Again, the Greek does not allow for the infants of a household?

The context does not allow for infants because they do not have the capacity to believe.

Share this post


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

I dont even know what you are trying to say here.

I have no idea why you're abandoning your reasoning. Households include children but not infants?

Share this post


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

I have no idea why you're abandoning your reasoning. 

What reasoning did I abandon?  You are trying to force a reasoning that I did not actually make. So I'm not abandoning anything. The context of baptism in the New Testament is always believer's baptism and therefore does not allow for infant baptism since they do not have the capacity to believe.

 

I do have a question for you, same comment I posed to @Becky if this is supposed to be the continuation of circumcision in the New Covenant, why do you baptize infant girls?

Share this post


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

What reasoning did I abandon?  You are trying to force a reasoning that I did not actually make. So I'm not abandoning anything. The context of baptism in the New Testament is always believer's baptism and therefore does not allow for infant baptism since they do not have the capacity to believe.

The reasoning you allow women to partake of communion. Do you think it wrong to parallel two things such as Covenants or Sacraments? You are reasoning that the Greek addressed both men and women despite no example of women partaking of communion therefore women may partake.

 

And you're saying that infants don't have the capacity to believe therefore they should not have received the sign and seal of a covenant based on faith?

Share this post


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

There is no example of infant baptism in Scripture. But there is example of Believer's baptism. So why do you think we don't have a decision in the Bible?

There are household baptisms in the NT, and some OT prefigurations, for example crossing of the Red Sea, includes infants. And the whole idea of a Covenant in the Bible includes infants.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

The context of baptism in the New Testament is always believer's baptism and therefore does not allow for infant baptism since they do not have the capacity to believe.

Always?  . always? then you have knowledge that there were no infants in the folks listed  in these verses .

Baptism also deals with households

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. 

Act 16:31  And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. 
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_1:16  And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 
1Co 10:2  And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 
 

Share this post


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

The reasoning you allow women to partake of communion. Do you think it wrong to parallel two things such as Covenants or Sacraments? 

The context is the reasoning I allow. Corinthians was written to the whole church which included women.

 

7 minutes ago, William said:

And you're saying that infants don't have the capacity to believe therefore they should not have received the sign and seal of a covenant based on faith?

Under the New Covenant? That is correct. There is no sign and seal except for belief. The Old Covenant is done. It no longer exists. There is now a new covenant. It is not an extension of the Old Covenant.  That being said, you still did not address the major issue in your parallel of female infants.

 

5 minutes ago, hanna said:

There are household baptisms in the NT, and some OT prefigurations, for example crossing of the Red Sea, includes infants. And the whole idea of a Covenant in the Bible includes infants.

Household baptisms after belief. Not to mention you assume there were infants in these households. It doesn't state that. Also, specific covenants involved infants. Not all covenants.  When it says in Acts 16:31 Belive and you will be saved, you and your household. Do you think that means that if the head of house believes, and is the only one that believes, that all in the household are now saved? NO. It is saying each person must believe. You do this, and also everyone in your household must do this to be saved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

1Co 7:13  And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 
1Co 7:14  For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 
 

Share this post


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

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. 

And there is no indication that they were infants. Also no indication that they were baptized because she was and they were without belief. So this does not support your claim.

 

4 minutes ago, Becky said:

Act 16:31  And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. 

So if someone believes their whole house is automatically saved? Is that really how you read this?

 

5 minutes ago, Becky said:

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. 

Correct, they obviously all believed based on the command from verse 31.

 

5 minutes ago, Becky said:

1Co_1:16  And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 

Again, no indication that there were children and no indication that everyone did not believe.

 

 

Just now, Becky said:

1Co 7:13  And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 
1Co 7:14  For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 
 

Ah so now people don't have to have faith in Christ to be saved? Wow. Just wow.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
Just now, davidtaylorjr said:

The context is the reasoning I allow. Corinthians was written to the whole church which included women.

Acts 2 was written to the entire house of Israel.

1 minute ago, davidtaylorjr said:

Household baptisms after belief. Not to mention you assume there were infants in these households. It doesn't state that. Also, specific covenants involved infants. Not all covenants.  When it says in Acts 16:31 Belive and you will be saved, you and your household. Do you think that means that if the head of house believes, and is the only one that believes, that all in the household are now saved? NO. It is saying each person must believe. You do this, and also everyone in your household must do this to be saved.

Are you assuming infants are not included in households? 

 

And as far as what I think I cannot bear to repeat again.

 

  • Yay 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

That goes both ways .. 

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...