Should babies be baptized?

[lilymc]

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.

It's not about a specific age. Water baptism is an act of obedience that symbolizes our identification with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We die to ourselves and are raised with Christ. (That's why it's a full immersion in water, not a sprinkling of a few drops) It's a public declaration of an inner change that has taken place, and that we are now followers of Christ. So unless the person who is being baptized is a genuine believer who has repented (had a very real change of mind/heart) and understands what is actually happening, then it is just an empty ceremony. A baby obviously does not have the ability to believe and understand any of this.

My niece got water baptized when she was 9. It wasn't anything that someone made her do, she wanted to do it, she has a strong faith and she's very smart and mature for her age. The cool thing was, my sister (a born again Christian) who is in her 40's got water baptized on the same day, so it was a very special day and a big celebration for both of them.

As JM already pointed out, there IS biblical support for baby dedication, and Jesus blessed babies. But there is no biblical support for baby baptism, that is a man-made tradition.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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)



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.

This reminds me of an earlier point. If infants cannot be baptized because they lack sufficient cognitive ability, are severely retarded adults also precluded from baptism? Why or why not?

 

[Kevin007]

This reminds me of an earlier point. If infants cannot be baptized because they lack sufficient cognitive ability, are severely retarded adults also precluded from baptism? Why or why not?

yes, same reason.

 

[Theocrat]

Back to the Basics

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, your last post is based on a logical fallacy of a false analogy because Constantine's marching of his soldiers through a river is nothing like the Israelites crossing through the Red Sea. In the former case, the soldiers would be touching water as they passed through a river, whereas, in the latter case, Israel walked on dry ground with the sea divided on either side of them. Also, we're told in Psalm 77:17 that "the clouds poured out water" on Israel as she passed through the Red Sea, which is what the apostle Paul calls "baptism" in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4. So, the passing through a river by Constantine's soldiers can hardly be called a "baptism," given Paul's illustration and comparative use of baptism in 1 Corinthians 10, which he references the Exodus of Israel under Moses.

Another problem with your post is that you fail to understand that though the Egyptians were in the Red Sea, they were not at all baptized; they were drowned. In fact, all examples of water immersion in Scripture are pictures of God's judgment (including the global Flood of Noah's day), which means that baptism cannot be by immersion (since Israel was baptized by the clouds above, not by being immersed in water as the Egyptians were).

As the apostle Paul alludes to, the Exodus through the Red Sea included men, women, and children in Israel, and they were all baptized during that event. Paul does not make a disclaimer by telling us that there were no children being baptized during the Exodus, for he takes it for granted, given the details of that event in Exodus 10:1-11. Then Paul uses that baptism by comparing it to baptized Christians in the New Covenant in his warning to them about not falling away into lusts, unbelief, etc. as some of the Old Covenant believers did during the Exodus (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:1-13).

So, if anyone's position lacks merit, it is yours because if you are suggesting that infants should not be baptized, then you must show in the Scriptures where God forbids such a thing, explicitly. Otherwise, you are just making conjectures.

 

[Theocrat]

Anthrocentrism in Baptism

yes, same reason.

Kevin, I'm sorry to say, but you have a man-centered view of baptism. Baptism is not contingent on one's cognitive ability to understand what baptism means before receiving it because baptism does not point to itself--it points to Christ. Such reasoning is the folly of Baptist theology because it is inherently inconsistent. Baptists do not require infants to have a cognitive ability to understand what a worship service is before the parents take their kids through the doors of a church on Sunday, nor do Baptists require some level of cognition from their infants before reading them the Scriptures, singing them songs like "Jesus Loves Me," or praying with their growing infants.

Baptism is God's sign, and through it, God is making a declaration about something and doing something through the sacrament (by faith). Thus, the focus of baptism is not about one's act of obedience, outward expression of faith, nor public declaration of submission to God; baptism is about God making a claim on the recipient, by His Triune name, to be His disciple and to be faithful to Him all of one's days, because God has reconciled the recipient to Himself by the cleansing blood of Jesus and by the renewal of the Holy Spirit.

 

[jmdrake]

Jmdrake, your last post is based on a logical fallacy of a false analogy because Constantine's marching of his soldiers through a river is nothing like the Israelites crossing through the Red Sea.

LOL. Actually your analogy is the false one and the fallacy is yours. Paul was not trying to make the point of baptismal equivalence that your argument requires.

In the former case, the soldiers would be touching water as they passed through a river, whereas, in the latter case, Israel walked on dry ground with the sea divided on either side of them.

And in baptism by immersion the person being baptized actually touches the water. Thus Constantine's forced march is closer to actual baptism.

Also, we're told in Psalm 77:17 that "the clouds poured out water" on Israel as she passed through the Red Sea, which is what the apostle Paul calls "baptism" in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4. So, the passing through a river by Constantine's soldiers can hardly be called a "baptism," given Paul's illustration and comparative use of baptism in 1 Corinthians 10, which he references the Exodus of Israel under Moses.

You're assuming that it wasn't raining. You have no reason to make such an assumption.

Another problem with your post is that you fail to understand that though the Egyptians were in the Red Sea, they were not at all baptized; they were drowned.

Ridiculous! I made no argument about the Egyptians. And Constantine's soldiers did not drowned. You're grasping for air here.

In fact, all examples of water immersion in Scripture are pictures of God's judgment (including the global Flood of Noah's day), which means that baptism cannot be by immersion (since Israel was baptized by the clouds above, not by being immersed in water as the Egyptians were).

As. So when Jesus was baptized by immersion that was God's judgement on Him. More grasping.

So, if anyone's position lacks merit, it is yours because if you are suggesting that infants should not be baptized, then you must show in the Scriptures where God forbids such a thing, explicitly. Otherwise, you are just making conjectures.

So infants should be made deacons because the Bible doesn't forbid that. Jesus blessed infants. That's the biblical model.

 

[jmdrake]

Kevin, I'm sorry to say, but you have a man-centered view of baptism. Baptism is not contingent on one's cognitive ability to understand what baptism means before receiving it because baptism does not point to itself--it points to Christ. Such reasoning is the folly of Baptist theology because it is inherently inconsistent. Baptists do not require infants to have a cognitive ability to understand what a worship service is before the parents take their kids through the doors of a church on Sunday, nor do Baptists require some level of cognition from their infants before reading them the Scriptures, singing them songs like "Jesus Loves Me," or praying with their growing infants.

Baptism is God's sign, and through it, God is making a declaration about something and doing something through the sacrament (by faith). Thus, the focus of baptism is not about one's act of obedience, outward expression of faith, nor public declaration of submission to God; baptism is about God making a claim on the recipient, by His Triune name, to be His disciple and to be faithful to Him all of one's days, because God has reconciled the recipient to Himself by the cleansing blood of Jesus and by the renewal of the Holy Spirit.

Then the baptism by Constantine of unwitting soldiers is valid. And if you need water falling on them from the sky then as long as Constantine did it while it was raining it is valid. Your position is the man centered one because man is doing the baptizing and you are having God's blessing dependent on what a man does.

 

[jmdrake]

This reminds me of an earlier point. If infants cannot be baptized because they lack sufficient cognitive ability, are severely retarded adults also precluded from baptism? Why or why not?

Note that I've never said "infants cannot be baptized" or even "should not be baptized." You can do what you want. Is baptism of infants or people so retarded that they've never progressed beyond an infant level of understanding a requirement of their salvation? I say no. You seem to say no too. So I don't know what we are arguing about?

 

[Kevin007]

Kevin, I'm sorry to say, but you have a man-centered view of baptism. Baptism is not contingent on one's cognitive ability to understand what baptism means before receiving it because baptism does not point to itself--it points to Christ. Such reasoning is the folly of Baptist theology because it is inherently inconsistent. Baptists do not require infants to have a cognitive ability to understand what a worship service is before the parents take their kids through the doors of a church on Sunday, nor do Baptists require some level of cognition from their infants before reading them the Scriptures, singing them songs like "Jesus Loves Me," or praying with their growing infants. Baptism is God's sign, and through it, God is making a declaration about something and doing something through the sacrament (by faith). Thus, the focus of baptism is not about one's act of obedience, outward expression of faith, nor public declaration of submission to God; baptism is about God making a claim on the recipient, by His Triune name, to be His disciple and to be faithful to Him all of one's days, because God has reconciled the recipient to Himself by the cleansing blood of Jesus and by the renewal of the Holy Spirit.

baptism is an outward sign of an inward change friend. A baby or mentally retarded person cannot comprehend what Jesus did on Calvary and their need for a personal Savior.

 

[Theocrat]

Putting the Baby Back in With the Bathwater

LOL. Actually your analogy is the false one and the fallacy is yours. Paul was not trying to make the point of baptismal equivalence that your argument requires.

Yes, Paul was making a baptismal comparison between the Old Covenant community and the New Covenant community, specifically, because of what he says in 1 Corinthians 10:1: "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea [emphasis mine]."

And in baptism by immersion the person being baptized actually touches the water. Thus Constantine's forced march is closer to actual baptism.

Baptism is not by immersion because then you would have to say that the entire world was baptized during the global Flood, which was God's judgment on the world. Baptism is not a sign of judgment, though.

You're assuming that it wasn't raining. You have no reason to make such an assumption.

In Psalm 77:17, it doesn't say that it rained on them because it doesn't use the Hebrew word matar. It says, "The clouds poured [Heb. zaram] out water." So, going to the original language, we can see exactly what God is saying, without making assumptions.

Ridiculous! I made no argument about the Egyptians. And Constantine's soldiers did not drowned. You're grasping for air here.

The Egyptians drowned, which was God's judgment upon them. They were the ones immersed in the Red Sea, not Israel, who were baptized "in the cloud" (which poured down water on them from above) and "in the sea" (as they were passing through on dry ground), just as Paul says in his epistle. I'm not grasping for air; I'm just sticking to the language of Scripture.

[/QUOTE]As. So when Jesus was baptized by immersion that was God's judgement on Him. More grasping.[/QUOTE]

Jesus wasn't baptized by immersion because all water immersions in Scripture are signs of God's judgment. Therefore, Jesus was not judged by the Father in His baptism.

[/QUOTE]So infants should be made deacons because the Bible doesn't forbid that. Jesus blessed infants. That's the biblical model.[/QUOTE]

We have the qualifications listed for what a person who wants to be a deacon ought to be, so there is no need to suggest that infants should be made deacons just because it's not explicitly forbidden. The qualifications are for male heads of households. But, once again, your statement is another logical fallacy, based on a red herring fallacy.

Yes, Jesus blessed infants, and He said, "Of such is the Kingdom of God." He told adults that they must become like infants to enter into His Kingdom, not the other way around. Therefore, how much more ought infants of believers be welcomed into the community of Christian disciples and be brought under the Kingship of Jesus as His disciple, since Jesus Himself used infants as an illustration of what one must become to be with Him. Baptism is linked to that idea of "kingdom entry" because the Great Commission tells us that we make disciples by baptizing them into the Triune name and teaching them to observe all that Jesus commanded (Matthew 28:19-20). That includes infants, which is exactly what Paul commands parents to do later on in Ephesians 6.

 

[Theocrat]

I Smell Gnosticism...

baptism is an outward sign of an inward change friend. A baby or mentally retarded person cannot comprehend what Jesus did on Calvary and their need for a personal Savior.

Show me where that is taught in Scripture, Kevin.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I was baptized at a very young age. I didn't have any idea what was going on and took nothing from it that I know of. That's really all that I can say about it.

 

[Theocrat]

What Lies Beneath

Then the baptism by Constantine of unwitting soldiers is valid. And if you need water falling on them from the sky then as long as Constantine did it while it was raining it is valid. Your position is the man centered one because man is doing the baptizing and you are having God's blessing dependent on what a man does.

Jmdrake, this post just sounds like you're arguing for the sake of arguing. What you're forgetting is that God uses physical means to accomplish His spiritual blessings. He used men to write His word, and He ordains men to be governors of their homes, local churches, and civil magistrates. But just because God uses men to bring about His blessings does not mean that the blessing which is communicated through the instrument of those men is contingent on anything in them. That's why I said baptism points to God; it does not point to the persons who administer it, for it is not their sacrament but the Lord's.

I'm not going to respond to your Constantine example because I've already made myself clear on the fallacy in which your example is based.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Note that I've never said "infants cannot be baptized" or even "should not be baptized." You can do what you want. Is baptism of infants or people so retarded that they've never progressed beyond an infant level of understanding a requirement of their salvation? I say no. You seem to say no too. So I don't know what we are arguing about?

Plz accept my +rep with sincere apologies. :o

 

[lilymc]

Jesus wasn't baptized by immersion because all water immersions in Scripture are signs of God's judgment. Therefore, Jesus was not judged by the Father in His baptism.

And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Matthew 3:16-17​

Here are a few points you seem to be ignoring:

1) It took place in the Jordan River. (Matt 3:6, Matt 3:13) - Not a church with a bowl of water, and there is no mention of sprinkling a few drops on his forehead.
2) He came up out of the water. - The words "up" and "out of the water" indicate that he was down or submerged, even if only for a moment.
3) The Greek word for baptism itself (Baptizo) means to immerse, dip or submerge.


Another example is in Acts 8, the Ethiopian eunuch who became a believer. I'm going to bold some important parts to pay attention to:

As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him. ​

So as you can see, belief with all one's heart is a prerequisite. And as you can see, for them to both be standing in the water clearly shows that it wasn't like a church baby baptism were the priest is dry and there is a bowl of water and a few drops are sprinkled.

During a water baptism, the person who is doing the baptizing is also in the water, whether it's a river, ocean or pool....any place where a person can be immersed.

I've shared this a few times before, but I'll share it again. Towards the beginning of this video is a short clip of my water baptism. (you don't have to watch the whole thing... just the first 30 seconds or so)

 

[heavenlyboy34]

And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Matthew 3:16-17​

Here are a few points you seem to be ignoring:

1) It took place in the Jordan River. (Matt 3:6, Matt 3:13) - Not a church with a bowl of water, and there is no mention of sprinkling a few drops on his forehead.
2) He came up out of the water. - The words "up" and "out of the water" indicate that he was down or submerged, even if only for a moment.
3) The Greek word for baptism itself (Baptizo) means to immerse, dip or submerge.


Another example is in Acts 8, the Ethiopian eunuch who became a believer. I'm going to bold some important parts to pay attention to:

As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him. ​

So as you can see, belief with all one's heart is a prerequisite. And as you can see, for them to both be standing in the water clearly shows that it wasn't like a church baby baptism were the priest is dry and there is a bowl of water and a few drops are sprinkled.

During a water baptism, the person who is doing the baptizing is also in the water, whether it's a river, ocean or pool....any place where a person can be immersed.

I've shared this a few times before, but I'll share it again. Towards the beginning of this video is a short clip of my water baptism. (you don't have to watch the whole thing... just the first 30 seconds or so)

So, this scripture is literal to you, but the eucharist is figurative. Your picking and choosing seems very arbitrary to me. Explain, plz?

 

[Christian Liberty]

From what I understand of the Presbyterian position and how it would relate to Jesus blessing the children:

This event was prior to the writing of any of the New Testament, or the institution of baptism in Matthew 28. John's baptism was being done while the covenental sign of circumsision was still in place. Indeed, there's a passage where someone who was baptized with John's baptism was rebaptized. So I'm not sure that an event that occurred before the Great Commission (Jesus' blessing the little children) is really an argument one way or another here. I say that as someone who doesn't have a strong position yet, so take it with a grain of salt.

 

[Christian Liberty]

And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Matthew 3:16-17​

Here are a few points you seem to be ignoring:

1) It took place in the Jordan River. (Matt 3:6, Matt 3:13) - Not a church with a bowl of water, and there is no mention of sprinkling a few drops on his forehead.
2) He came up out of the water. - The words "up" and "out of the water" indicate that he was down or submerged, even if only for a moment.
3) The Greek word for baptism itself (Baptizo) means to immerse, dip or submerge.


Another example is in Acts 8, the Ethiopian eunuch who became a believer. I'm going to bold some important parts to pay attention to:

As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him. ​

So as you can see, belief with all one's heart is a prerequisite. And as you can see, for them to both be standing in the water clearly shows that it wasn't like a church baby baptism were the priest is dry and there is a bowl of water and a few drops are sprinkled.

During a water baptism, the person who is doing the baptizing is also in the water, whether it's a river, ocean or pool....any place where a person can be immersed.

I've shared this a few times before, but I'll share it again. Towards the beginning of this video is a short clip of my water baptism. (you don't have to watch the whole thing... just the first 30 seconds or so)

If I might play devil's advocate again...

Acts 8:37 isn't in all of the original manuscripts, but leaving that aside, it isn't dealing with the child of believers. Paedobaptists don't believe in baptizing everyone regardless of belief. They regard the children of believers as holy and covenentally connected.

 

[lilymc]

So, this scripture is literal to you, but the eucharist is figurative. Your picking and choosing seems very arbitrary to me. Explain, plz?

When anyone reads the bible (not just these particular verses, but in general) one must discern which verses are literal and which are figurative. It's not a matter of picking and choosing... but reading the bible prayerfully, with the Holy Spirit who teaches us and gives us understanding (John 14:26 John 16:13, 1 Cor. 2:10, 1 Cor. 2:13, etc.)

Jesus gives us examples to go by. We need to go by Jesus' example or what the scriptures teach. If we don't, we are adding to the bible or taking things away... which is a dangerous thing to do and goes directly goes against God's command.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

When anyone reads the bible (not just these particular verses, but in general) one must discern which verses are literal and which are figurative. It's not a matter of picking and choosing... but reading the bible prayerfully, with the Holy Spirit who teaches us and gives us understanding (John 14:26 John 16:13, 1 Cor. 2:10, 1 Cor. 2:13, etc.)

Jesus gives us examples to go by. We need to go by Jesus' example or what the scriptures teach. If we don't, we are adding to the bible or taking things away... which is a dangerous thing to do and goes directly goes against God's command.

There's already a name for that. Catholic Scholasticism.