JFJ Forums - Baptism in Scripture and The Early Church

DavidJ Wrote:

wkirscher Wrote:

The short and simple answer to your question is .... adults coming into faith were baptized along with their “entire houselholds” and received this free gift of God's abundant grace.

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.

David

1)Where does it say there were no babies as you contend?...nowhere so since its his whole family it is possible there were babies..
2) same as above whole family was baptised including babies
3) who says a baby can't understand what is said to them? Just because they can't communicate doesn't mean they have no understanding of what is spoken to them.

Is there definitive proof one way or the other in scripture? No
Me I believe that an infant is under the umbrella of the believing parents until such time as they are of age...which woud be 13 years old.

wkirscher Wrote:

If scripture says absolutely nothing for or against baptizing infants, what authority do you have to deny this grace to infants?

That's the problem by the complexity of reading scriptures sometimes, the verses surrounding baptism are not 100% clear enough to provide only one certain interpretation. Otherwise everyone would believe the same thing.

Quote:

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.

Below is a small snip from a rather long article dealing with the subject in full

Baptism

Quote:

St. Polycarp, who was the disciple of the Apostle John himself (as well as an associate of the Apostle Philip). And, in AD 155, St. Polycarp said this at his execution:

"Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury. How can I blaspheme my King and Savior?" (Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp 9 c. AD 156)

Now, it is well documented that "The Martyrdom of Polycarp" was written the year after the saint's execution; and so the quote above is extremely reliable. It is also well documented that Polycarp was 86 years old at the time of his death. Therefore, if the saint claims to have served Jesus for 86 years, it therefore follows that he was Baptized as an infant. And, in another place, we are told that Polycarp was Baptized by none other than the Apostle John! :-) Therefore, at least in the case of St. John, we can show conclusively that the Apostles Baptized infants (Bonocore MJ. Infant Baptism. Apolonio’s Catholic Apologetics. http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a26.htm viewed 10/06/08 ).

Now while the above may sound plausible, the truth is that Polycarp never claimed to have been baptized as an infant. Nor did he claim he was 86 years old. An ancient manuscript called the Harris Fragments shows the following with one addition from me in {}:

Polycarp...He was… {an} old man, being one hundred and f[our] of age. He continued to walk n the canons which he had learned from his youth from John the a[p]ostle.(Weidman, Frederick W. Polycarp and John: The Harris Fragments and Their Challenge to Literary Traditions. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame (IL), 1999, pp. 43,44).

And as the author of that page concludes:

"[i]So, if Polycarp lived to be 104, then he was baptized at age 18, and thus was not baptized as an infant. Hence, the Harris Fragments are one other way to help disprove mythological traditions that are simply not biblical. No early true Christian advocated, nor practiced, infant baptism"

prophet Wrote:

1)Where does it say there were no babies as you contend?

Because it says, "they spoke the word of the Lord... he had come to believe in God--he and his whole family."

Yes, I do contend that a baby is not able to understand the word of the Lord and is incapable therefore able to believe in God.

Readers will have to decide for themselves if, as this scripture states, babies BELIEVED as a result of hearing and understanding the word of the LORD.

prophet Wrote:

I believe that an infant is under the umbrella of the believing parents until such time as they are of age...which woud be 13 years old.

I think I would agree with you on this point. However when they came to an age of understanding, say 13, then they must decide for themselves whether or not to BELIEVE. If they chose not to believe then they would be condemned viz., "...he who does not believe is condemned already..." (John 3:18 NKJV) In that event all the infant baptism would then result in is a baptised condemned unbeliever!

David

DavidJ – You are making some generalized claims but then failing to respond to questions about them.

In post #288 you make the claim that “Bible believing born again Christians are in full agreement [about baptism] using scripture alone”. But you deny infant baptism and many other Christians approve of it. Now it is my understanding that Presbyterians fully adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith which very clearly exhorts believers to baptize infants. Is it your assertion then that the authors and followers of the WCF (Presbyterians and others) are not bible believing born again Christians or do you still maintain that bible believing born again Christians are “in full agreement using scripture alone”?

And can you please provide evidence from scripture about this magical age of 13 where a young teenager must be put under the scrutiny of other fellow believers to determine if they believe or do not believe and are thus worthy of receiving baptism? Biblical support for infant baptism (entire households, circumcision/baptism 8th day/infant, saving of ALL of Israel, etc) is far stronger in both scripture and in the writings of the ECF than the Protestant tradition of an age of accountability.

wkirscher Wrote:

DavidJ – You are making some generalized claims but then failing to respond to questions about them.

I am doing nothing of the kind. I very specifically addressed your claim i.e. “The short and simple answer to your question is .... adults coming into faith were baptized along with their “entire households” and received this free gift of God's abundant grace” Which must be a direct reference to Acts 16:32-34.

I have specifically pointed out that the Bible clearly states that the whole household heard the word of the Lord and as a result BELIEVED. I have specifically stated that infants are not capable of “hearing the word of the Lord” and therefore are not capable of “BELIEVING”.

My specific point is that when an infant is baptised the infant is totally incapable of consenting to the baptism. On coming to an age of understanding (which say could be age 13 or thereabouts) The now baptised child chooses to be an UNBELIEVER; in that event the child becomes a CONDEMNED BAPTISED UNBELIEVER! The infant baptism does not save the child from his/her unbelief; the child is condemned!

wkirscher Wrote:

Biblical support for infant baptism (entire households, circumcision/baptism 8th day/infant, saving of ALL of Israel, etc) is far stronger

Please support this claim with scripture; I can find no OT support to connect circumcision with infant baptism. Circumcision is the Abrahamic Covenant - Abraham did not baptise anyone!

David

DavidJ – Here is the question you have still failed to answer:

In post #288 you make the claim that “Bible believing born again Christians are in full agreement [about baptism] using scripture alone”. But you deny infant baptism even though many other Christians approve of it. Now it is my understanding that Presbyterians fully adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith which very clearly exhorts believers to baptize infants. Is it your assertion then that the authors and followers of the WCF (Presbyterians and others) are not bible believing born again Christians or do you still maintain that all bible believing born again Christians are “in full agreement using scripture alone”?

Also, you have failed to point out from scripture where any one was ever denied baptism because of age.

You have also failed to point out from scripture where any of God’s people N.T. or O.T. were ever denied his saving graces because of age. The 1st century Messianic Jews, based on the scriptures and their experiences, simply would not have denied their children God’s graces. …. Completely unheard of until after the Reformation, and then only by a small subset of Protestants.

As for the relationship between circumcision and baptism, you may not be able to see a relationship but St. Paul certainly did:

In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. (Colossians 2:11-12)

wkirscher Wrote:

As for the relationship between circumcision and baptism, you may not be able to see a relationship but St. Paul certainly did:

In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. (Colossians 2:11-12)

Paul is not referring to infant baptism in this passage you have quoted. Colossians 2:6 preceding and introducing your cited verses clearly states, "And now, just as you accepted Christ as your Lord ...." and goes on (verse 8) "Don't let anyone lead you astray with empty philosophy and high-sounding nonsencse that come from human thinking...." An infant cannot accept Christ as their Lord, neither can an infant be led astray; an infant has absolutely no comprehension of such things!

I am not engaging in your attempts to start rabbit runs on this topic, therefore, I revert to what I specifically and originally said in my post 295, "I can find no OT support to connect circumcision with infant baptism. Circumcision is the Abrahamic Covenant - Abraham did not baptise anyone!"

David

DavidJ - I never said Paul was specifically addressing infant baptism.  You said you could not find anything in scripture that relates circumcision and baptism.  I have shown you that there is a link, directly from sacred scripture.  And I haven’t even brought up issues related to covenant theology.

As I’ve said before, the Jewish people were not accustomed to denying the graces of God, or the establishment of a covenant relationship, because of age.  Denial of infant baptism is a post-Reformation tradition of man.  Again, that is why you will find no pre-Reformation evidence of it ever being practiced.

And why do you call my questions “rabbit runs”?  I’ve asked you to produce evidence from scripture that shows where God’s chosen people were ever denied his grace because of age.  How is this a “rabbit run”?  You have absolutely no evidence that shows infant baptism was ever refused.  Then you make the claim that “all born-again, bible-believing Christians” are in agreement on baptism, which is clearly a false statement.

You seem to be in denial of some important facts regarding infant baptism:
1) There IS biblical support for infant baptism
2) There IS NO instance in scripture where an infant is denied baptism
3) Protestant “born again, bible believing, Christians” are NOT in agreement on baptism
4) There IS NO pre-Reformation evidence of Christians accepting infants being denied baptism

wkirscher Wrote:

You seem to be in denial of some important facts regarding infant baptism: There IS biblical support for infant baptism

So far you have only cited two scriptures in a vain and failed attempt to show that scripture teaches infant baptism, i.e., Acts 16:32-34 and Colossians 2:11-12

The very first post I made on this thread, and which I am not going to let you 'rabbit run' me from with your points 2,3 and 4, was in response to your post 285, in which you cited your scriptural support of infant baptism you stated.....

wkirscher Wrote:

The short and simple answer to your question is .... adults coming into faith were baptized along with their “entire houselholds” and received this free gift of God's abundant grace.

Which is a reference to Acts 16:32-34 . My reply your post number 289 demonstrated your scriptural error; there were no infants present only persons who had the capability and comprehension to HEAR AND UNDERSTAND the Word of the Lord and were able to BELIEVE! Infants can do neither.

Your second vain attempt to justify infant baptism by scripture is found in your post number 297 viz:

wkirscher Wrote:

In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. (Colossians 2:11-12)

My post 289 again clearly pointed out your scriptural error i.e.,

DavidJ Wrote:

Therefore, the two scriptural citations you made in an attempt to support biblical doctrine of infant baptism have been fatally flawed I am afraid.

David

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32