Infant Baptism?

[GenghisKhan44]

There is no way to justify infant baptism via the Bible. You can add your own "interpretation", however, I think we've made it clear that the Bible does not specifically mention infant baptism. If it isn't specifically mentioned, then you can't justify it. If you want to use the "early church" for your justification, that's one thing. But please, lets stop trying to add our own "interpretation" and claim that infant baptism is biblically supported.

I'll give you that.

But while it may or may not be explicitly in the Bible that infants were baptised, it's not explicitly in there that they weren't, either.

So, I propose we know one thing.

Scripture alone is insufficient in answering this question.

 

[Wolfeman]

I take it then that you're of the camp that Acts 8:37 should not be in the Bible?

 

[Pheonix28]

Putting aside any potential theological discussions in relation to Acts 8:37, (a lot of arguments I find are pointless in this regards), No I do not see that 8:37 should be in the Bible. Purely from the standpoint of Biblical Accuracy.

 

[Lloren]

The word trinity doesn't appear in the scriptures anywhere and yet it is a major tenet of western Christian theology. Hermeneutics shows us the trinity is real because it demands a look at scripture as a whole and not just disjointed verses.

As stated before, there are many brilliant scholars who fall on both sides of this. So we can all agree to disagree because ultimately its faith in Christ that brings us together.

I struggle when people say "That's IMPOSSIBUR!" and thus putting themselves as smarter than scholars before them. It works both ways.

 

[GenghisKhan44]

The word trinity doesn't appear in the scriptures anywhere and yet it is a major tenet of western Christian theology. Hermeneutics shows us the trinity is real because it demands a look at scripture as a whole and not just disjointed verses.

Definitely, that is part of it. But you must also look at the culture and history of the culture what WROTE the Bible, or you will not interpret it correctly, either. Part of that is what Christians after the Apostolic Age held as true. If you like, history.

We must remember the Bible was written around 50-100 AD in various parts of the Ancient Roman Empire, by Jewish Christians writing to other Jewish Christians , Gentile Christians, and the new generation of Christians (in the case of John's works), as well as to presbyters and bishops (in the case of the Pastoral Letters). It is a part of history. It didn't just fall out of the sky like to Qu'Ran or the Book of Mor(m)on. It's an historical text, written for certain people at a certain time.

I can't emphasise this enough: we must read the Bible in context of history, or we will miss a LOT of important stuff.

As stated before, there are many brilliant scholars who fall on both sides of this. So we can all agree to disagree because ultimately its faith in Christ that brings us together.

Only to have some Christians give "real" baptisms to Christians they don't think have been properly baptised, and some to die without ever being baptised.

No. This will not work. It's absurd to say baptism is both necessary and unnecessary, or that it is both invalid and valid to baptise an infant. It's absurd to say God is three persons in one, to say He is also only one and not three, and also to say He is only three and not one. That is one reason why we don't consider Mormons, Jews, or JWs Christians.

It would be absurd to just say "it doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you believe in Jesus", because then we must also believe Jesus contradicted Himself.

I struggle when people say "That's IMPOSSIBUR!" and thus putting themselves as smarter than scholars before them. It works both ways.

If two equally intelligent scholars contradict themselves, though, one of them is wrong. And if one of them is wrong, however intelligent they are, what is wrong with simply pointing out they are not correct? Maybe it's not something we can solve for all Christians everywhere, but maybe we can come to some kind of consensus. So far, I think we can all agree it is not explicit that infant baptism was either granted or forbidden according to the Bible as we've read it so far.

 

[Wolfeman]

If two equally intelligent scholars contradict themselves, though, one of them is wrong. And if one of them is wrong, however intelligent they are, what is wrong with simply pointing out they are not correct?

Proverbs 12:15a The way of a fool is right in his own eyes

The wrong scholar will always believe they are right. We see this in almost every area of life. The wrong scholar will read the same facts and come to different conclusions. You can argue all you want and you will not usually convince them. The problem is you can never tell who is truly right and who is not.

 

[Patriot]

I have nothing really important to add that hasn't already been stated earlier. However, I did want to clarify a couple things:

We must remember the Bible was written around 50-100 AD in various parts of the Ancient Roman Empire, by Jewish Christians writing to other Jewish Christians , Gentile Christians, and the new generation of Christians (in the case of John's works), as well as to presbyters and bishops (in the case of the Pastoral Letters).

Technically, you are referencing the New Testament, not the Bible as a whole. I'm pretty sure you know this as do most here. Just saying it in case someone doesn't know.

If two equally intelligent scholars contradict themselves, though, one of them is wrong.

I believe this is a "False Dilemma". There exists a third option. They could both be wrong.

 

[Wolfeman]

Putting aside any potential theological discussions in relation to Acts 8:37, (a lot of arguments I find are pointless in this regards), No I do not see that 8:37 should be in the Bible. Purely from the standpoint of Biblical Accuracy.

Actually, the question was for GenghisKhan and his statement that the Bible does not explicitly say babies were not baptized. I'm already well aware of most everyone else's opinion on new translations.

 

[Lloren]

I can't emphasise this enough: we must read the Bible in context of history, or we will miss a LOT of important stuff.

Totally agree. Part of the hermeneutic process is historical context for both the author and audience.

It's absurd to say baptism is both necessary and unnecessary, or that it is both invalid and valid to baptise an infant...
It would be absurd to just say "it doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you believe in Jesus", because then we must also believe Jesus contradicted Himself.

Depends on your definition of absurd. Some people find the trinity absurd (Calvin burned people at the stake for their wrong view of the trinity). This is where I'm going to pull in the God Paradox and veer off the path a bit. Christianity is a divine paradox. Free will / Predestination. Die to Christ to Live for God. Mourn to be happy. Followers to be a Leader. Must become poor to become rich.

It's a pattern.

To say something is required, but unobtainable is a certain fact. The law of God is required, but not not obtainable to fulfill on our own. Christ fulfilled the law and we fulfill the law in Him through His Spirit living in us. Is baptism commanded in the Bible? Yes, but it's not required for salvation (see thief on the cross). If a soul dies in faith (whether the faith of a baby or an infant child or adult) then it dies to Christ. Is the Lord's table commanded in the Bible? Yes, but it's not required. Sacraments are mysterious (and some would say paradoxical) dispensations of His grace. They are required, but not required. And that... strangely enough... is not absurd.

I believe this is a "False Dilemma". There exists a third option. They could both be wrong.

+1 Love this.

 

[rev. Jim]

The blood of Christ is the only thing which can save a person... if we do not agree on this, then reading the rest of what is below will not do any good.

Reverend, slogans clear up nothing. I still do not know what you mean by "the blood of Christ", nor any attributes you give to it. So I still do not know your position (although I can guess).

Mr. Khan, you are correct that in order to have any meaningful discussion between us, you must understand my intent and my views.

I admit that I do not understand your use of the word “slogan” here. The Blood of Christ is certainly more than a slogan; but to clarify what I meant:

When I use the phrase Blood of Christ, I am referring to His shedding of blood on the cross at Mt. Calvary; and that our belief on His divine sacrifice is the only thing that can save and redeem a human soul. My scriptural basis for this is many, but for the sake of brevity and to keep this post from becoming a wall of text, I will simply list Hebrews 9:22-28 as a good source.

Our belief on His divine exchange for us is the very core, and nothing else, no earthly ritual or other name can accomplish any salvation beyond what He has already done. He fulfilled the law by becoming a sacrifice in our place, and we need not add anything to it, nor supplement it with anything.

Oh, really? (snipped for space)

As I attempted to explain in my earlier post... I believe baptizing an infant has no real purpose. People are free to disagree with me without feeling any condemnation. I believe that each person should make the choice for themselves to be baptized as they wish to proclaim their faith in Christ.

I believe that participating in baptism (as any other ritual) is a fruit of salvation stemming from a right relationship with Jesus Christ. Neither Baptism, nor any other ritual has the power to save a soul, but Christ alone, through the shedding of His blood and our faith in His completed work.

...to them gave [H]e power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

So, clearly, the blood of Christ is not the source of new birth?

Of course Christ's death and resurrection are the source of our birth to new life. But what, then, does this passage mean?

The word "blood" there means blood of men or of animals. What the passage is saying that we are not made sons of God through our own self-effort or human resources, but through Christ alone.

I say this to you as someone who is willing to die for you: Christ commanded us to baptise in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, then to teach them. Follow His commandments. As a pastor, you have been charged, rightly or wrongly, with care for Christian children and adults. If you do not baptise them, you disobey the Lord's explicit commands to your own peril, if not theirs. Do you not trust Our Lord enough to believe that whatever baptism does, it is enough that you do it, and in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

Mr. Khan, I do appreciate your dedication to making sure that I fulfill my duties as a minister of the Gospel. Please understand though that I never said that I refuse baptisms as a whole.

This is a topic about infant baptisms, and I have stated that regarding infant baptisms, I do not personally agree with them. Now if someone -- a child or adult comes to me and expresses their desire to be baptized, I most certainly will honor that.

But this is one and the same baptism. John described a baptism in the Holy Spirit, and Jesus also described a baptism, and only one: in water, in His, the Father's, and the Holy Ghost's name. In the New Testament, there is no other baptism than the one Jesus tells His disciples, and John's baptism of repentance.

No sir, they are different baptisms, Acts 11:14-17 describes the Holy Spirit baptism experience quite nicely.
John baptized in water for repentance based on a faith in the coming Christ (who once He had come then offered to us the greater baptism, as John said himself).
People are still free to immerse themselves in physical water if they wish, but it should be born out of their desire and love and trust in Christ.

Now as for this new greater baptism in Christ we are still immersed in something, but it is not physical water, it is the Holy Spirit and the “water of the Word of Christ”. That is what we are immersed in now.

** Final Words **

I have tried to be as detailed as I could be in the time and space allotted here. In closing I would just like to say that I do appreciate all of your comments and questions.

I value your study of history, and we both agree that the Bible should be studied in context; in that we will agree. I also feel that I should point out that I am not against using extra texts to study the Bible. However I believe that the Bible should be the final authority over all, and not the extra texts.

I hope this has clarified my position.

 

[cadeyrn]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenghisKhan44 View Post
If two equally intelligent scholars contradict themselves, though, one of them is wrong.
I believe this is a "False Dilemma". There exists a third option. They could both be wrong.

There also is a fourth option: they could both be right. This is actually very common in theological matters. For instance, in the early church some theologians argued that God is One while others argued that God is Three. It turns out that both sides were right.

Of course, I don't think this fourth options applies in this case.

 

[GenghisKhan44]

What a deluge! I'm not seriously the only one who supports infant baptism on this forum, am I?

In any case, I'm gonna need time to reply to all this. Many hours. oooh...

But we've all got to agree on this. You ultimately should not bother about what one pastor, bishop, or person says.

You should care about the interpretation Christ left with His Church.

THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!

Because Christ's teaching is "The Way, the Truth, and the Life". There is only one God, and therefore only one Truth.

I'll get back to you individually later.

I take it then that you're of the camp that Acts 8:37 should not be in the Bible?

Does it matter? One verse does not change the fact that Christians have been baptising, chrismating, and giving Eucharist to infants in the East for centuries. Who am I to defy what has been a part of history for centuries?

Infant baptism doesn't contradict the Bible, to be sure. It carries out Christ's mandate in the latter parts of Matthew. And it fits in with a running theme in the entire Bible: that of being saved through water. It was through water the Earth was made in Genesis. It was through water the human race and all the Earth was saved in the Ark. It was by a basket floating in the Nile that Moses was saved in Exodus. And when God cursed AEgypt, the first thing to go was the water of the Nile. Israel was saved by the waters of the Red Sea, and the waters of the springs in the desert. It was at a spring that the calf was melted, and the people of Israel were made repent by drinking the waters made bitter by the molten gold. The Psalms and Prophets speak constantly of being washed and cleansed of sin, and of the power of water to clean and to nourish. Naaman was cleansed of leprosy by dunking in the River Jordan seven times. And therefore it hardly seems out of continuity that John the Baptist offered a dunking in water for repentance, that Christ offered a baptism in water to give people the power of God and the remission of sins - rebirth, if you will - and that for the past 2000 years converts and infants have been given God's power in the form of baptism in water, as every previous generation since the flood has been also "baptised".

More to come. Next in line: whoever comes after wolfeman.

 

[Abba San]

But we've all got to agree on this. You ultimately should not bother about what one pastor, bishop, or person says.

You should care about the interpretation Christ left with His Church.

Because Christ's teaching is "The Way, the Truth, and the Life".

This gets to the heart of where we differ. What we care about is Christ - his life, death and resurrection, and the eternal life his sacrifice brings - not "the interpretation Christ left with His Church." Christ IS the way, the truth and the life - NOT his teaching - but his shed blood brings us salvation.

Most of us here are fine with you trusting your church, as you understand it. I don't understand why you are not fine with us trusting God's word, as we understand it.

 

[Dimederwin]

What a deluge! I'm not seriously the only one who supports infant baptism on this forum, am I?

You are probably not the only one who believes in infant baptism, but you might be the only one commenting. There might be many reasons why they have not commented maybe they are hesitant of debating fellow Christians worrying about it turning into an argument, or they might just not like debating at all.

Personally, like you seem to, I enjoy debating with others; I find I learn and grow a lot from them, but I am very careful about who I debate and for how long I will discuss something. It is why I will typically not go too far on the forums, I really do not know how the person on the other side will take it, and I do not want others to stumble in their Christian walk. I am not saying that debating on these forums is not healthy; I think it is, and most likely those that are reading the "What Does God Say About..." threads are probably expecting some healthy debate. What I am saying is, do not feel you need to respond to everyone here, and also pray and think about when it is time to conclude the debate, accept that you have made you case well, and that others have different views. I think we all can agree that we do not need to all agree to be brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[cadeyrn]

Genghis, I would like to repeat something that I said earlier that it seems has been missed. You seem to be saying that you hold to infant baptism because that is what the church has done (yes, I know that is oversimplified). However, from the beginning the church has also held the opposite position. Men that the Roman Catholic church (and I suspect also the Eastern Orthodox churches) considers saints (Tertullian and Chrysostom, for example) opposed infant baptism. Just as Christians have supported infant baptism from almost the beginning,so they have also opposed it.

Part of the issue here is a fundamental difference on how each of us understands authority; though based on this thread and another I think you already understand this.

If I have time in the next few days (GW2 launches tonight and my wife is due with our first child on Sunday....) I might play "devil's advocate" and give infant baptism some support from a reformed perspective (not my position, but I think in these discussions it is important to interact with multiple views). I do think you have been hit a little hard since you are the only one defending the position.

 

[Dimederwin]

(GW2 launches tonight and my wife is due with our first child on Sunday....)

Congratulations, I pray everything goes well. I have to kind of laugh that you put GW2 in that sentence as well. Please do tell us how everything goes.

 

[cadeyrn]

Will do. My wife is planning on playing tonight or tomorrow as well. That is, of course, assuming Little One doesn't come tonight

 

[GenghisKhan44]

Part of the issue here is a fundamental difference on how each of us understands authority; though based on this thread and another I think you already understand this.

Yes... I think that's good enough reason to abandon this thread.

That plus I am too overwhelmed - and lazy, can't forget lazy - to address all of these objections. Besides this, their objections - all of them - have already been addressed by Catholics (and probably other Christians, too) all across the interwebs.

I think, rather than trying to hack off branches and twigs, might be best to attack this at the root of the problem: who has the authority to declare this teaching or that to be correct?

That's a topic for another thread, though.

 

[Wolfeman]

Bah. I was just getting ready to jump in on the difference between authority and it's source as understood by Catholics and Independent Baptist too. Ah well. Good discussion either way.

 

[cadeyrn]

Well, the baby came almost 2 weeks ago now. I haven't really had the time to put together a good post supporting infant baptism. If you want, I can still put something together, but it doesn't seem very useful at this point.