The Apostles taught Infant Baptism!

[SeaBass]

Amen.

Here's "the great commission" as recorded by Matthew, Mark and Luke:

Matthew chapter 28

[18] And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
[19] Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
[20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Again:

Mark chapter 16

[15] And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
[16] He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Again:

Luke chapter 24

[45] Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
[46] And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
[47] And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
[48] And ye are witnesses of these things.

By combining these gospel records, we can see that "teaching all nations", "preaching the gospel to every creature", "believing" and "repentance and remission of sins" all need to precede/accompany "baptism".

Yes,
Infants do not have the intellectual, cognitive, language skills to be taught the bible to understand what is being said, cannot be taught to "observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded", cannot go forth and preach what they cannot understand to lost nations/every creature therefore are not candidates for baptism. Also Acts 2:38 baptism is for the remission of sins and infants have no sins to be remitted. Rom 7:8,9 infants are in a safe, innocent state where sin is dead to them not knowing right from wrong, Isa 7:15,16.

 

[SeaBass]

for sure.

then it is faith, not H[SUB]2[/SUB]O immersion, which is effective unto remission of sins and salvation. physical baptism is a 'like figure' of the actual baptism that remits sin.

i only wish you would not be double-minded about this, because i am quite familiar with how you falsely argue on the same subject in other threads.

Jesus said 'he that believeth AND is baptized shall be saved". Belief without baptism is dead being alone. Since infants are not capable of believing they are not candidates for baptism. Those people who are capable of believing ARE candidates for baptism and remain lost in their belief only until they are baptized.

 

[phil112]

.........................Here we see historical evidence for infant baptism. If the Apostles thought it was ok I think it's ok aswell!....................................

Son, you should study more before you speak. Baptism is an outer show of an inner cleansing. What is that cleansing? Getting saved. You must choose to be saved.
Infants understand none of that. Before you can be saved you must reach the age of accountability, the age where you know the difference between right and wrong and you choose right.

 

[posthuman]

Yes,
Infants do not have the intellectual, cognitive, language skills to be taught the bible to understand what is being said, cannot be taught to "observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded", cannot go forth and preach what they heard/understood to lost nations/every creature therefore are not candidates for baptism. Also Acts 2:38 baptism is for the remission of sins and infants have no sins to be remitted. Rom 7:8,9 infants are in a safe, innocent state where sin is dead to them not knowing right from wrong, Isa 7:15,16.

isn't this a contradiction again?

if baptism with H[SUB]2[/SUB]O is what remits sins, then cognitive skills are superfluous.

the obedient, outward ritual act signifying faith is not taught in the scripture apart from or as a precursor to belief and subsequent repentance.
the Lord remits sin; H[SUB]2[/SUB]O does not. He forgives those who believe in Him and confess their sin. a public declaration of these two cognitive actions is an effect, not a cause, in order to confess the Lord before men, and completely ineffectual but to testify to those who witness it as a demonstration of effectual faith of the one who submits himself.

yes, a 5 year old can believe.
Christ never said "by your bath-taking you have been healed" -- but "your faith"

infant baptism is not salvific because baptism by H[SUB]2[/SUB]O is not what remits sin.
if H[SUB]2[/SUB]O baptism remits sin, then infant baptism is sufficient to save.

 

[kennethcadwell]

isn't this a contradiction again?

if baptism with H[SUB]2[/SUB]O is what remits sins, then cognitive skills are superfluous.

the obedient, outward ritual act signifying faith is not taught in the scripture apart from or as a precursor to belief and subsequent repentance.
the Lord remits sin; H[SUB]2[/SUB]O does not. He forgives those who believe in Him and confess their sin. a public declaration of these two cognitive actions is an effect, not a cause, in order to confess the Lord before men, and completely ineffectual but to testify to those who witness it as a demonstration of effectual faith of the one who submits himself.

yes, a 5 year old can believe.
Christ never said "by your bath-taking you have been healed" -- but "your faith"

infant baptism is not salvific because baptism by H[SUB]2[/SUB]O is not what remits sin.
if H[SUB]2[/SUB]O baptism remits sin, then infant baptism is sufficient to save.

But then again the reverse can be said back;
Does one truly believe and love Him if they deny to obey His commands ? (Baptism was one of His commands.)

 

[JesusistheChrist]

Son, you should study more before you speak. Baptism is an outer show of an inner cleansing. What is that cleansing? Getting saved. You must choose to be saved.
Infants understand none of that. Before you can be saved you must reach the age of accountability, the age where you know the difference between right and wrong and you choose right.

Amen.

If there's any place in scripture where infants were water baptized, at least "in type", then it is here:

I Corinthians chapter 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;
[2] And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

When the children of Israel all passed through the Red Sea, "in type", they were all water baptized. Were any of the infants who would have "passed through the sea" positively affected by the same? You tell me. For starters, we know that God overthrew IN HIS WRATH the entire first generation of Israelite males who were 20 years old and upward who came out of Egypt except for Joshua and Caleb because "they wholly followed the LORD". We also know that God thought to wipe out the entire second generation of Israelites, but that He withheld from doing the same simply for His Own Name's sake (Ezekiel 20:21-22). IOW, not only was no infant spared because of their "baptism", but this is the actual reason why they were spared:

Deuteronomy chapter 1

[34] And the LORD heard the voice of your words, and was wroth, and sware, saying,
[35] Surely there shall not one of these men of this evil generation see that good land, which I sware to give unto your fathers,
[36] Save Caleb the son of Jephunneh; he shall see it, and to him will I give the land that he hath trodden upon, and to his children, because he hath wholly followed the LORD.
[37] Also the LORD was angry with me for your sakes, saying, Thou also shalt not go in thither.
[38] But Joshua the son of Nun, which standeth before thee, he shall go in thither: encourage him: for he shall cause Israel to inherit it.
[39] Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

Israel's "little ones" were spared because "IN THAT DAY THEY HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL". IOW, we're held accountable to God for what we know and when we do know the difference between good and evil, then we can be taught to believe and repent and not before then.

 

[SeaBass]

isn't this a contradiction again?

if baptism with H[SUB]2[/SUB]O is what remits sins, then cognitive skills are superfluous.

the obedient, outward ritual act signifying faith is not taught in the scripture apart from or as a precursor to belief and subsequent repentance.
the Lord remits sin; H[SUB]2[/SUB]O does not. He forgives those who believe in Him and confess their sin. a public declaration of these two cognitive actions is an effect, not a cause, in order to confess the Lord before men, and completely ineffectual but to testify to those who witness it as a demonstration of effectual faith of the one who submits himself.

yes, a 5 year old can believe.
Christ never said "by your bath-taking you have been healed" -- but "your faith"

infant baptism is not salvific because baptism by H[SUB]2[/SUB]O is not what remits sin.
if H[SUB]2[/SUB]O baptism remits sin, then infant baptism is sufficient to save.

Evidently you keep seeing contradictions where none exist.

In Mk 16:16 Jesus made having belief necessary before one can be baptized.
Infants cannot belief therefore are not candidates for baptism.
Where is the contradiction?

The OP was referring to infants. Children do not know right from wrong, Isa 7:15,16. Sin therefore is dead to them, Rom 7:8,9 until they mature to such an age where they can understand the bible and right from wrong THEN sin springs up in them. There is no set age when a child reaches this point of being able to understand the bible and know right from wrong for each person intellectually matures at different rates/ages.

Acts 2:38 baptism (NOT "faith only) is for remission of sins and infants have no sins to remit.

 

[notuptome]

Son, you should study more before you speak. Baptism is an outer show of an inner cleansing. What is that cleansing? Getting saved. You must choose to be saved.
Infants understand none of that. Before you can be saved you must reach the age of accountability, the age where you know the difference between right and wrong and you choose right.

If this thread is coming from the RCC view point and I believe it is then there is no intellectual element involved. It is sacramental worship due to obedience to the authorities of the RCC.

Biblical Christians know that salvation is by grace and that through faith coming from Gods word.

Now I believe that infants are saved in that they are innocent but fall like all of mankind when they are old enough to understand right from wrong and make conscience decisions in that respect.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[posthuman]

But then again the reverse can be said back;
Does one truly believe and love Him if they deny to obey His commands ? (Baptism was one of His commands.)

for sure.

but

A implies B (if A, then B)​

does not mean

B implies A (if B, then A).​

you cannot believe infant baptism is effectual unless you believe water baptism is what remits sin & saves.
you cannot deny infant baptism unless you believe baptism is not what saves, but faith.

it's intimately tied to this 'baptismal regeneration' works-based heresy.

 

[Utah]

Many people are baptized as infants then confirm their baptism at the age of accountability.

Thoughts?

 

[kennethcadwell]

for sure.

but

A implies B (if A, then B)​

does not mean

B implies A (if B, then A).​

you cannot believe infant baptism is effectual unless you believe water baptism is what remits sin & saves.
you cannot deny infant baptism unless you believe baptism is not what saves, but faith.

it's intimately tied to this 'baptismal regeneration' works-based heresy.

I don't believe or side with infant baptism, but I will defend Baptizo (Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38) which is immersion in water because it was commanded by our Lord.
And to me those who deny it, and speak against do not show true love in the Lord or else they would defend all of His teachings and commands. Not try and do away with them, and even Peter said clearly no man can forbid water. He said this because the Lord commanded it. We are as born again believers in Him to continue to carry out His commands...

 

[JesusistheChrist]

Many people are baptized as infants then confirm their baptism at the age of accountability.

Thoughts?

That only introduces more error into the mix:

Confirmation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Confirmation is a rite of initiation in several Christian denominations,[SUP][1][/SUP] normally carried out through anointing, the laying on of hands, and prayer, for the purpose of bestowing the Gift of the Holy Spirit.

In Christianity, confirmation is seen as the sealing of the covenant created in Holy Baptism. In some denominations, confirmation also bestows full membership in a local congregation upon the recipient. In others, such as the Roman Catholic Church, confirmation "renders the bond with the Church more perfect",[SUP][2][/SUP] because, while a baptized person is already a member,[SUP][3][/SUP] "reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace".[SUP][4][/SUP]

"The gift of the Holy Spirit" comes at salvation and not at some "confirmation service".

 

[Jabberjaw]

for sure.

but

A implies B (if A, then B)​

does not mean

B implies A (if B, then A).​

you cannot believe infant baptism is effectual unless you believe water baptism is what remits sin & saves.
you cannot deny infant baptism unless you believe baptism is not what saves, but faith.

it's intimately tied to this 'baptismal regeneration' works-based heresy.

It is A "and" B then C

Mark 16:16 (KJV)
He that (believeth <--A) and is (baptized <--B) shall be (saved <--C); but he that believeth not shall be damned.

no one thing saves, what is so difficult with this?

 

[posthuman]

I don't believe or side with infant baptism, but I will defend Baptizo (Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38) which is immersion in water because it was commanded by our Lord.
And to me those who deny it, and speak against do not show true love in the Lord or else they would defend all of His teachings and commands. Not try and do away with them, and even Peter said clearly no man can forbid water. He said this because the Lord commanded it. We are as born again believers in Him to continue to carry out His commands...

i never have and never will tell anyone they should not be baptized in H[SUB]2[/SUB]O.

but i always will maintain that just as it is not circumcision of the flesh, by humans hands, but circumcision of the heart, by the hand of God, it is not baptism of the flesh, in H[SUB]2[/SUB]O, by human hands - it is baptism of the Spirit, by the hand of our Lord.

i'm not trying to 'do away' with anything except false teaching and false faith in our own works.
there is only one baptism that saves. the one who receives this will certainly be moved to perform the like figure of it and should never be prevented, but even if he were, who can separate us?

 

[posthuman]

It is A "and" B then C

Mark 16:16 (KJV)
He that (believeth <--A) and is (baptized <--B) shall be (saved <--C); but he that believeth not shall be damned.

no one thing saves, what is so difficult with this?

keep reading. it is not written that the one who is not baptized is condemned, because the one who believes is baptized by Christ​.

only One saves - Jesus Christ.

what is so difficult about THAT ??

 

[Utah]

That only introduces more error into the mix:

Confirmation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"The gift of the Holy Spirit" comes at salvation and not at some "confirmation service".

When is the moment of salvation? At the moment someone proclaims Jesus as Lord and Savior or baptism, be it infant or believers?

 

[Utah]

keep reading. it is not written that the one who is not baptized is condemned, because the one who believes is baptized by Christ​.

only One saves - Jesus Christ.

what is so difficult about THAT ??

Thank you, Brother!

What's with people always shutting out the Kingdom of Heaven against man. Unbelievable!

 

[kennethcadwell]

keep reading. it is not written that the one who is not baptized is condemned, because the one who believes is baptized by Christ​.

only One saves - Jesus Christ.

what is so difficult about THAT ??

We are saved by God's grace through our faith in Jesus Christ.
A true faith is an obedient faith, and if there is no obedience than that person is not born again and walking properly. Denying to be water baptized (Baptizo) would be denying a direct command of the Lord, and the Lord clearly says you deny Him He will deny you.
People have watered that down to just belief and unbelief, however the bible lists disobedience as unbelief and also not doing for others is denying Him as well; Matthew 25. People have a watered down mere easy-believism gospel they have been taught that is not biblical. Nowhere does the bible teach believe He existed only, and you have salvation.

 

[SeaBass]

Many people are baptized as infants then confirm their baptism at the age of accountability.

Thoughts?

Baptized as an infant meant nothing, they only got wet nothing more.

 

[kennethcadwell]

When is the moment of salvation? At the moment someone proclaims Jesus as Lord and Savior or baptism, be it infant or believers?

Neither as salvation is a mental possession of assurance and not a physical one until we receive our immortal spiritual bodies at the resurrection, gathering, rapture; However you want to look at it, and we can see that by multiple scriptures.