Should babies be baptized?

[moostraks]

That's an odd thing to say to HB from someone who claims to know the Orthodox faith. What do you believe that Baptism is?

Hey I am going by the questions y'all are asking of others. I am not an Orthodox. So what says you? Are folks excluded for not being properly doused since y'all ask what questions you do which leads one to believe it is of primary necessity?

 

[RJB]

Hey I am going by the questions y'all are asking of others. I am not an Orthodox. So what says you?

I know you're not, and I'm fine with that. I just didn't follow how your question was relevant to what HB posted based on what you know of the Orthodox Church.

Are folks excluded for not being properly doused since y'all ask what questions you do which leads one to believe it is of primary necessity?

There are many baptisms. The baptism of blood for martyrs. The baptism of desire for those who desire, but for some reason were unable. There are many more. God knows the heart, not me nor any bishop, if you are going in that direction.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Jesus. That's what He did when the mothers brought the babies to Him. It's interesting that this is the same passage where Jesus said "Let the little children come to Me and don't forbid them for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Then, according to the Bible, He placed his hand on their heads and blessed them! Note that Jesus was already baptizing people at this time so this would be the perfect place to introduce infant baptism. He didn't do that. I keep bringing this up and you and other EOC/RCC Christians keep ignoring it like this story isn't even in the Bible. Worse you misuse the quote from Jesus in this story to support infant baptism.

This wouldn't be so irritating if you took the position "Well our church does infant baptism and other churches bless babies so it's all good." But no. You on the one hand act like "Oh it's no big deal" when people point out that fallacy of believing that baptism is a requirement for a baby to go to heaven, but then you try and turn around and act like infant baptism is a requirement when you have absolutely no biblical basis to make that claim.

/rant

You're right. I should've just posted the information (like #47 above) and let it stand for itself. Forgive my rudeness, plz. ~hugs~

 

[Kevin007]

Kevin, I'd like to see the Scriptural support that affirms what you've said above as true that "a baby does not know they are in need of a Savior." For example, contrary to your notion above, King David, who was "a man after God's heart" and one who was filled with the Holy Spirit as he wrote his Psalms, penned these words in Psalm 22:9-10: And, again, David wrote in Psalm 71:5-6 (by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost): Faith is a gift from God, as we're told in several places in Scripture, and since God is the Author and Finisher of our faith (cf. Hebrews 12:2), then it should not be thought impossible that God can give faith to infants, even while they are inside their mother's womb (as King David told us). So, given what I've presented above, I would say that you are coming from a perspective about infant faith which people like King David would have disagreed with you about, Kevin.

nothing said here proves anything about infant baptism. You need to answer this; why would an infant need to be baptized?

 

[moostraks]

I know you're not, and I'm fine with that. I just didn't follow how your question was relevant to what HB posted based on what you know of the Orthodox Church.

There are many baptisms. The baptism of blood for martyrs. The baptism of desire for those who desire, but for some reason were unable. There are many more. God knows the heart, not me nor any bishop, if you are going in that direction.

It only followed that as an outsider that is what it sounds like to what was being said by the banter. Yeah, as if it were any way relevant what my opinion were on the subject, I'd agree God knows the heart.

 

[navy-vet]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwMXz-2Tu-k
Richard describes a baptism at 6:12.

 

[Ender]

Should babies be baptized?

No.

They are pure and we are to become as little children to inherit the Kingdom.

Matthew 18:3

And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Should babies be baptized?

No.

They are pure and we are to become as little children to inherit the Kingdom.

Matthew 18:3

And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

When do they become impure and in need of baptism?

 

[Ender]

When do they become impure and in need of baptism?

When they begin to partake of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and start judging others. JMHO

 

[Theocrat]

Why Should Babies Be Baptized?

nothing said here proves anything about infant baptism. You need to answer this; why would an infant need to be baptized?

If the infant is born of Christian parents, then that infant would need to be baptized because he is considered holy in God's sight (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:14), by virtue of his parents' faith in Christ (which encompasses the entire household - cf. Joshua 24:15). Thus, baptism is a picture of the Exodus, which the apostle Paul alludes to in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4, where Christ is our new Moses, and we pass through the waters of cleansing into "a new world" (or "Promised Land"). That includes adults and their children, for we never leave our children behind, just as the Old Testament Church did not leave their kids behind in Egypt before their baptism in the Red Sea.

 

[William Tell]

I truly doubt that John the Baptist asked to see your I.D before baptizing you.

 

[specsaregood]

..

 

[jmdrake]

If the infant is born of Christian parents, then that infant would need to be baptized because he is considered holy in God's sight (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:14), by virtue of his parents' faith in Christ (which encompasses the entire household - cf. Joshua 24:15). Thus, baptism is a picture of the Exodus, which the apostle Paul alludes to in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4, where Christ is our new Moses, and we pass through the waters of cleansing into "a new world" (or "Promised Land"). That includes adults and their children, for we never leave our children behind, just as the Old Testament Church did not leave their kids behind in Egypt before their baptism in the Red Sea.

Your argument lacks merit. Those "baptized in the sea" included the mixed multitude (Egyptians) who weren't believers at all. Taking your logic and applying it forward, when Constantine marched his soldiers through a river that counted as "baptism" even for soldiers that didn't believe. You're having to go through tortured mental gymnastics to apply this only to infants of Christian parents and not to anybody who happens to get caught out in the rain.

 

[jmdrake]

I truly doubt that John the Baptist asked to see your I.D before baptizing you.

He seemed to know the identity of the Pharisees. He refused to baptize them.

 

[jmdrake]

Personally, I find the root of this belief (as I understand it) disgusting; but to each their own.

On a somewhat related note, I recently learned that my aunt in law tried to talk my MIL into secretly having my kid baptized at their church. My MIL wisely refused saying she respected our beliefs too much to do that. I understand the AIL was quite insistent; saying if it was her grandchild she would do such and even offering to secret him away and get it done herself if she would allow it. This pissed me off so much; that I do not know if I should be able to hold my tongue when next we meet. I find her position and willingness to circumvent our authority as parents unsurprising considering her lifelong career in law enforcement...

Glad your MIL has a lot more sense then your AIL. Of course this really gets to the heart of the matter. If nobody teaches that infant baptism is required for salvation then there would be no reason for your AIL to feel the need to force it on you. On the other hand, if infant baptism IS required for salvation then your AIL was doing the right thing. How dare you as a parent risk your babies eternal soul by not baptizing him/her already!

 

[William Tell]

He seemed to know the identity of the Pharisees. He refused to baptize them.

Yes. I don't see any evidence that he refused to baptize children among the multitudes though.

 

[jmdrake]

Yes. I don't see any evidence that he refused to baptize children among the multitudes though.

Well I don't see any evidence that he didn't baptize pets either. John's command was "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins." Neither of those conditions applies to babies. When Jesus said "Bring the little children to me" He blessed them. That's the way children are brought to Jesus. Everyone on your side of the argument just ignores this as if it's not in the Bible. Anyway if you want to baptize infants I won't stand in your way. But to use "Well the Bible doesn't specifically say don't" as an excuse to turn infant baptism into a requirement simply does not hold water. (No pun intended).

 

[William Tell]

Well I don't see any evidence that he didn't baptize pets either.

John's command was "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins." Neither of those conditions applies to babies. When Jesus said "Bring the little children to me" He blessed them. That's the way children are brought to Jesus. Everyone on your side of the argument just ignores this as if it's not in the Bible.

I don't know whether or not John, Jesus, or anyone else back then baptized children, let alone infants. But the Bible mentions age requirements for things other times. I certainly don't ignore that being in the bible. But I don't think that's proof that children were never baptized. I also don't see any evidence that Jesus or his disciples baptized every person that he healed and forgave the sins of. Its possible though.

Anyway if you want to baptize infants I won't stand in your way. But to use "Well the Bible doesn't specifically say don't" as an excuse to turn infant baptism into a requirement simply does not hold water. (No pun intended).

No fear, I didn't say anything about a requirement. I don't see anything to suggest that it was a requirement for infants.

 

[jmdrake]

I don't know whether or not John, Jesus, or anyone else back then baptized children, let alone infants. But the Bible mentions age requirements for things other times. I certainly don't ignore that being in the bible. But I don't think that's proof that children were never baptized. I also don't see any evidence that Jesus or his disciples baptized every person that he healed and forgave the sins of. Its possible though.

Not everybody that Jesus healed became a disciple. Remember the story of the 10 lepers? Nine of them never came back to thank Jesus. The Bible records that Jesus baptized disciples. Now here's something to consider. The Bible never specifically said that Jesus never called an infant to be a disciple. Common sense said he probably didn't, but the Bible doesn't say that he didn't. The Bible never said that Jesus didn't give infants the power to heal the sick or cast out demons either. If the rule of thumb is "If the Bible doesn't specifically say that X didn't happen then X most likely happened" then there's a lot of peculiar outcomes as a result.

Also while the Bible doesn't mention an age requirement for baptism, it doesn't mention an age requirement for discipleship either. We do know the mental requirements for discipleship. "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross daily and follow me."

One other thing. I know people are falling back on the verse that says that the believing parent sanctifies the child. But it also says the believing spouse sanctifies the unbelieving spouse. Do we baptize unbelieving spouses? (1 Cor 7:14)

No fear, I didn't say anything about a requirement. I don't see anything to suggest that it was a requirement for infants.

There's no reason for "fear" either way. Anyway, the Bible record throughout the New Testament is that baptism was reserved for believers (disciples). The burden of proof is on those who say there's a special dispensation for babies who, by definition, are too young to make a decision to belief and follow Jesus. Nobody has ever claimed that the Bible specifically says "Don't baptize babies" just like nobody is making the claim that the Bible specifically says "Don't make babies deacons." But again, for those who want to baptize infants, go right ahead.

One more thing. The thread title is not "Can babies be baptized?" It is should babies be baptized. In other words, is it a requirement? The argument, that nobody is arguing against, that it's okay to baptize babies, really isn't the subject of this particular thread.

 

[William Tell]

Not everybody that Jesus healed became a disciple. Remember the story of the 10 lepers? Nine of them never came back to thank Jesus. The Bible records that Jesus baptized disciples. Now here's something to consider. The Bible never specifically said that Jesus never called an infant to be a disciple. Common sense said he probably didn't, but the Bible doesn't say that he didn't. The Bible never said that Jesus didn't give infants the power to heal the sick or cast out demons either. If the rule of thumb is "If the Bible doesn't specifically say that X didn't happen then X most likely happened" then there's a lot of peculiar outcomes as a result.

That's not what I'm saying at all. When the Bible says the multitudes came to be baptized, I just assume he baptized most all of the multitude. Maybe he didn't baptize babies, maybe he didn't baptize anyone under 20. I don't know.