JFJ Forums

Sugarman – I’m not sure who “beresfordjob” is but he/she doesn’t sound like a very reliable source.  And I searched all of Tertullians writings on line and couldn’t find the quote this “scholar” provided.  Maybe you could e-mail him/her because I’m not even sure I can find an e-mail address.

Evidence for infant baptism is straight from scripture.  Jewish “households” were very large in that time (including extended relatives) and there are at least two instances in scripture of “entire households” being baptized.  There are NO exclusions made in either of these instances nor would the Jewish people be accustomed to denying a family member God’s graces because of age.

Furthermore, there are ABSOLUTELY NO writings that ever refute infant baptism.  AND all of the writings about infant baptism use language as if it had always been in practice.  Here is a noteworthy quote:

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Origen, Commentaries on Romans 5:9).

Today’s scripture reading in the Catholic Liturgy is another very profound foreshadowing of the healing waters of baptism.  It is 2 Kings 5.  In this account, Naaman, an honorable army captain used by the Lord, suffers from leprosy (v 1).  A captured Israeli servant girl suggests Naaman goes to see Elisha to be cured from his leprosy.  Elisha instructs Naaman to wash himself 7 times in the Jordan.  Naaman is angered because he doesn’t believe the waters of the Jordan have the power to cleanse him.  Instead, he was expecting miraculous healing from some other means.  He is finally persuaded, immerses himself in the healing waters and “his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean” (v. 14)  Despite Naamans disbelief, the waters cleanse him and give him new life.  What is Naamans response?  “Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel” (v 15).  Naaman offers to pay for this gift of healing and new life but Elisha refuses.  It is a free gift!

Here we have the account of a person suffering from a disease that symbolizes sin.  He is a pagan outside of the Jewish covenant family but is still open to receive healing.  He doubts that God can use water to heal but ultimately immerses himself in the river Jordan and is saved through water.  He is cleansed from his disease and made new again.  By God’s grace received through water, Naaman acknowledges the one true God of Israel.  It is a gift given freely.

Baptism is indeed a free gift.  It has the power to cleanse from sin, to give new life, and to give one the graces to acknowledge the God of Israel and enter into a covenant relationship with Him.  Are you like Naaman and the subset of Protestants who deny the regenerative nature of baptism?

"...if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed."  
John 8:36

I started reading this thread from the beginning but got bogged down in all the "wordiness" and "big thoughts"...

this is my first post...found this site last night as I am looking for the answer to a question, which I will post when I find the right place for it....  until then...  simply said...

Is it really that hard to understand the simple message of the New Testament writers (prompted by the Holy Spirit) that says in MANY places... "believeand be baptized"....  what is it that an infant believes???????  Just curious.  It seems to me that the NT scriptures clearly state that baptism (especially after the Cross of Christ) does NOT precede belief in the Christ and the reconciliation He provides for us with our Father in Heaven through His humble and willing sacrifice.

Thank you for letting me share. And if this was already referenced in this thread, I apologize....there were tons of pages to read on this post and it seemed that most of the arguments were not that uplifting.  My Savior, although very complex.... is really so simple, so easy... "Follow Me".  When His time had come, He was baptized by John, received the Holy Spirit at that point and began His mission.  May we do likewise.  I believed, was baptized, received the gift of the Holy Spirit and in that power will do my best to fulfill the mission that my Heavenly Father has laid out for me.  Not perfect here...but grateful to be forgiven and accepted as beloved.



Blessings,
lori

Lori – welcome to the forum.  You picked an interesting thread to “jump in to”.

The topic has come up in many threads.  The focus was originally on what happens when a person is baptized.  Some argue that true graces are received while others argue that it is only something symbolic, or that it is a “work”, or that it is optional, etc.

We were unable to come to agreement using scripture alone and so I started this thread which was intended to explore what was handed down by the Apostles and how the early church interpreted scripture.

For an adult coming into the faith, “believe and be baptized” is pretty straightforward.  We are exploring this more deeply: e.g. Why be baptized?  What happens in baptism?  What does this mean?  What did the early church believe?  What has changed? Etc….

So yeah, some of the posts are a bit wordy and get heated and some do and some don’t find them uplifting.  This thread isn’t for everyone.  Not sure if you’re just “passing by” or if you are interested in joining in the discussion.

As for infant baptism, scripture talks about “entire households” being baptized and we know based on Jewish culture that it would be very unlikely for “entire households” to be without infants.  I’ve asked for scriptural proof that anyone was ever denied baptism because of age. None has been provided so far.  Since we could not come to a conclusion from scripture alone, I provided numerous extra-biblical writings from the early church showing what was believed about baptism and that infant baptism was handed down by the Apostles.  I’ve asked numerous times for someone to provide pre-reformation evidence of infants ever being denied baptism.  None has been provided so far.  I’ve also shown that it is not only Catholics and Eastern Orthodox that practice infant baptism but that it is also held by many Protestants and the Westminster Confession of Faith even exhorts believers to do so.

So that’s pretty much a summary of this thread up to this time (at least with regards to infant baptism).

But wk I asked and you haven't answered me...if baptism of infants was so common, then why wasn't Jesus baptized as an infant???

The short and simple answer to your question is because his time “to fulfill all righteousness” had not yet come.   When Jesus was baptized, the skies opened, the Holy Spirit came upon him, and God announced Jesus as his beloved son.  This was done for OUR sake, not for his.   Jesus baptism radically changed what John was doing and turned it from a ceremonial ritual to an instrument of God’s grace.  There is prophecy of this in Ezekiel (I believe but I don't have the verses - something about water flowing from the temple) From Pentecost on, adults coming into faith were baptized along with their “entire houselholds” and received this free gift of God's abundant grace.

I think you mean 'you' are unable to come to agreement using scripture alone.

Bible believing born again Christians are in full agreement using scripture alone.

This is what Scripture says about Infant Baptism .......

                 "                                              "

David

Assuming your referring to Acts 16:32-34, actually, no. The fact that a whole household of people were baptized does not mean infants were automatically present. Millions of people around the world live in households where there are no infants present. You use this passage in vain attempt to justify the unbiblical practice of infant baptism. But if you actually reads the passage carefully, you will see that this passage actually tells us no infants were present! Look at the passage closer:
"Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God--he and his whole family."

What this passage says regarding infant baptism:
1. Paul and Silas spoke the Word of the Lord to all those in the jailer’s household.
2. All members of the jailer’s family were baptized.
3.The whole family of the jailer came to BELIEVE in God.

Conclusion: Since every member of the jailer’s family came to BELIEVE after having heard the Word preached to them) there could not possibly have been even a single infant present because infants cannot BELIEVE in God.

Infants are not capable of understanding the “Word of the Lord”, nor can infants be described as “having come to believe in God.” Therefore, everyone in the household of the jailer was old enough that they could hear and understand the gospel being taught to them, and come to a personal faith in Christ. Only when an individual is old enough to believe the gospel do they become a valid candidate for baptism.

David

DavidJ -  Are you saying that the authors of the Westminster Confession of Faith are not bible believing Christians?  This confession exhorts believers to baptize infants just as the early church did.  Are Presbyterians not “born again bible believing Christians”?  Are Lutherans and Methodists not bible believeing Christians?  Are Baptists and American Evangelical Protestants the only Christians you believe to be “bible believing”?

The fact of the matter is that Protestants are not in agreement on baptism.   All Protestants claim to be “sola-scirpturists” yet they do not agree on baptism.  Some see it as a sacrament of God’s grace.  Some see it as only symbolic.  Some believe it is appropriate to baptize infants.  Some believe it isn’t.  What you are saying implying is that Christians who baptize infants are not “bible believing born again Christians”.  You are also saying that ALL of the church fathers who wrote about baptism were not “bible believing born again Christians”.

If scripture says absolutely nothing for or against baptizing infants, what authority do you have to deny this grace to infants?  What do you know that the early church didn’t know?  What do you know that the authors of the Westminster Confession of Faith didn’t know?

“Entire households” being baptized is not my only evidence of infant baptism.  I also turn to circumcision, one of the shadows of baptism, the salvation of Israel without exclusion due to age, and the fact that nowhere in scripture is anyone ever denied baptism because of age all as evidence of infant baptism.  I also turn to the fact that nowhere in the pre-Reformation history of the church is infant baptism ever refuted.  Do you have ANY evidence prior to the Reformation that supports your view?  I haven’t been able to find any and NO ONE in this forum has provided any.