Should Churches Baptize Children?

[XavierJesusLovesIndia]

So, this was touched upon briefly in the thread about Baptism and the Resurrection. Should children be baptized? Most Traditional Churches, Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists etc answer yes. Baptists, most Evangelicals and Pentecostals etc answer no. Let's study the question Scripturally and historically. Let's start with Acts 2:

"38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2:38-39)

These are very well known verses, but one implication of them is often overlooked. St. Peter says "the gift of the Holy Spirit" (the promise) is "for you and your children". So, given original sin, and the fact that once Adam and Eve were exiled from Paradise, children are now born without the Holy Spirit, how are children to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, if not in Baptism? That's 1 reason I hold this verse supports Baptism of Children/Infants.

For those who say that this is against faith, remember children were circumcised in the Old Covenant based on the Faith of their Parents, and the Promise of the Parents to raise their Children in the Jewish faith. Likewise, Parents now baptize their Children and raise them in the Christian Faith.

Please share your thoughts. Let's Debate/Discuss this issue.

God Bless,
N. Xavier.

 

[Artios1]

So, this was touched upon briefly in the thread about Baptism and the Resurrection. Should children be baptized? Most Traditional Churches, Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists etc answer yes. Baptists, most Evangelicals and Pentecostals etc answer no. Let's study the question Scripturally and historically. Let's start with Acts 2:

"38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2:38-39)

These are very well known verses, but one implication of them is often overlooked. St. Peter says "the gift of the Holy Spirit" (the promise) is "for you and your children". So, given original sin, and the fact that once Adam and Eve were exiled from Paradise, children are now born without the Holy Spirit, how are children to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, if not in Baptism? That's 1 reason I hold this verse supports Baptism of Children/Infants.

For those who say that this is against faith, remember children were circumcised in the Old Covenant based on the Faith of their Parents, and the Promise of the Parents to raise their Children in the Jewish faith. Likewise, Parents now baptize their Children and raise them in the Christian Faith.

Please share your thoughts. Let's Debate/Discuss this issue.

God Bless,
N. Xavier.

The word used for children → (teknon) in Act 2:39 is not that of an infant child → (brephos) Children, in verse 39, is in the terms of offspring…

Infants (brephos) and beyond are sanctified by their believing parents until the age of accountability 1Co 7:14


The OT covenant is a bit different from todays new covenant …there was a good reason God stated they should be circumcised on the 8th day. And it wasn’t signification as much as it was biological.

The human body has 2 blood clotting elements….. Vitamin K. which is not formed in the body until the 5th to the 7th day. The other is a protein… Prothrombin which is at it’s highest peak (110%) on the 8th day before it levels off at 100%. I don’t know when science discovered this…. but God knew what He was doing.

Today… we are of the circumcision made without hands

Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

Now… I could make the argument that water baptism of babies…. is made with hands …right. I mean you have someone else (not yourself) performing a ceremonial act on you, with hands…..but I’ll let that be.

What is unsettling is those who want to put water in the Bible where it’s not supposed to be…
God was not limited on the use of words….If He had wanted water in there… it would say that…But Jesus was clear in Act 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

In the vernacular that would read – When the greater comes, the lesser is done away with.

 

[ResidentAlien]

So, this was touched upon briefly in the thread about Baptism and the Resurrection. Should children be baptized? Most Traditional Churches, Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists etc answer yes. Baptists, most Evangelicals and Pentecostals etc answer no. Let's study the question Scripturally and historically. Let's start with Acts 2:

"38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2:38-39)

These are very well known verses, but one implication of them is often overlooked. St. Peter says "the gift of the Holy Spirit" (the promise) is "for you and your children". So, given original sin, and the fact that once Adam and Eve were exiled from Paradise, children are now born without the Holy Spirit, how are children to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, if not in Baptism? That's 1 reason I hold this verse supports Baptism of Children/Infants.

For those who say that this is against faith, remember children were circumcised in the Old Covenant based on the Faith of their Parents, and the Promise of the Parents to raise their Children in the Jewish faith. Likewise, Parents now baptize their Children and raise them in the Christian Faith.

Please share your thoughts. Let's Debate/Discuss this issue.

God Bless,
N. Xavier.

If somebody wants to have their child baptized then go for it. But it won't wash away original sin and it can't take the place of baptism once the child reaches the age of accountability.

If someone wants their children to grow up in the fear and admonition of the Lord, a better way is to make sure, as parents, you set a good example.

"For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy."—1 Corinthians 7:14

"Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it."—Proverbs 22:6

 

[JesusFreak1992]

I believe that babies shouldn't be baptized because they don't even consciously know what's going on. But younger children, say 8-10 and older it seems to be okay. That's just my opinion.

 

[Jocund]

Infants (brephos) and beyond are sanctified by their believing parents until the age of accountability 1Co 7:14

Very interesting

 

[mustaphadrink]

What I am more concerned about is churches and Christians who deny the validity of baptism by immersion for the believer.

 

[TheLearner]

I witnessed Catholic baby baptism, it is no different than Protestant baby dedication to Our Lord.

 

[arthurfleminger]

So, this was touched upon briefly in the thread about Baptism and the Resurrection. Should children be baptized? Most Traditional Churches, Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists etc answer yes. Baptists, most Evangelicals and Pentecostals etc answer no. Let's study the question Scripturally and historically. Let's start with Acts 2:

"38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2:38-39)

These are very well known verses, but one implication of them is often overlooked. St. Peter says "the gift of the Holy Spirit" (the promise) is "for you and your children". So, given original sin, and the fact that once Adam and Eve were exiled from Paradise, children are now born without the Holy Spirit, how are children to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, if not in Baptism? That's 1 reason I hold this verse supports Baptism of Children/Infants.

For those who say that this is against faith, remember children were circumcised in the Old Covenant based on the Faith of their Parents, and the Promise of the Parents to raise their Children in the Jewish faith. Likewise, Parents now baptize their Children and raise them in the Christian Faith.

Please share your thoughts. Let's Debate/Discuss this issue.

God Bless,
N. Xavier.

Acts 2 , “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

Also:

"The practice of infant baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Apostolic Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole 'households' received baptism, infants may also have been baptized. [Cf. Acts 16:15, 33; Acts 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16

In his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas." (I Corinthians 1:16). (An angel spoke to Cornelius saying) "Send to Joppa, and have Simon, who is called Peter, brought here; and he shall speak words to you by which thou and all thy house shall be saved " (Later, when Peter arrived at (Cornelius' household) "... he ordered them to be baptized."(Acts 11:13b, 14; Acts 10:48a)

"And when she (Lydia of Thyatira) was converted by Paul's preaching. "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith, who had been about to commit suicide when they were miraculously freed from their imprisonment, was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. (1 Cor. 1:16, also, Acts 18:8).

The Greek word oikos, translated "house" or "household," has traditionally included infants and children in its meaning for several reasons. There is no evidence of this word being used either in secular Greek, Biblical Greek,or in the writing of Hellenistic Judaism in a way which would restrict its meaning only to adults. The Old Testament parallel for "house" carries the sense of the entire family. The Greek translation of the original Hebrew manuscripts (completed in 250 B.C.) uses this word when translating the Hebrew word meaning the complete family (men, women, children, infants). Similarly, we know that the phrase "he and his house" refers to the total family; the Old Testament use of this phrase clearly demonstrates this by specifically mentioning the presence of children and infants at times. Furthermore, if given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be spelled out.”

 

[mustaphadrink]

I witnessed Catholic baby baptism, it is no different than Protestant baby dedication to Our Lord.

That is like saying "I saw you driving a car so you must own one."

 

[TheLearner]

That is like saying "I saw you driving a car so you must own one."

Ah Not related. We depend on witnesses to the Resurrection of Christ. I wrote about what I have witnessed thus it does apply to the topic. God Bless Brother, Daniel

 

[JaumeJ]

It seems when children, babes, were taken to the Temple it was in the Spirit of dedicating them to our Father Thinking on this, perhaps you will find comfort in your quest to know.

 

[p_rehbein]

So, this was touched upon briefly in the thread about Baptism and the Resurrection. Should children be baptized?

Are you speaking of infant children such as the Catholics sprinkle with water and declare the child to be "saved"?

The answer is NO!

The Scripture is clear about this.............

REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED....

An infant child can not repent/confess it's sins and ask God to forgive it and accept Jesus as Lord and Savior of its life..........IMOPSSIBLE.

If people want to "DEDICATE" their child, that's fine, but it is not baptizing. The Catholic Church is so very wrong in their tradition of infant baptism. I fear for the millions who have been duped by the old men in Rome into believing they are "saved."

 

[XavierJesusLovesIndia]

Acts 2 , “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

Also:

"The practice of infant baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Apostolic Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole 'households' received baptism, infants may also have been baptized. [Cf. Acts 16:15, 33; Acts 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16

In his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas." (I Corinthians 1:16). (An angel spoke to Cornelius saying) "Send to Joppa, and have Simon, who is called Peter, brought here; and he shall speak words to you by which thou and all thy house shall be saved " (Later, when Peter arrived at (Cornelius' household) "... he ordered them to be baptized."(Acts 11:13b, 14; Acts 10:48a)

"And when she (Lydia of Thyatira) was converted by Paul's preaching. "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith, who had been about to commit suicide when they were miraculously freed from their imprisonment, was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. (1 Cor. 1:16, also, Acts 18:8).

The Greek word oikos, translated "house" or "household," has traditionally included infants and children in its meaning for several reasons. There is no evidence of this word being used either in secular Greek, Biblical Greek,or in the writing of Hellenistic Judaism in a way which would restrict its meaning only to adults. The Old Testament parallel for "house" carries the sense of the entire family. The Greek translation of the original Hebrew manuscripts (completed in 250 B.C.) uses this word when translating the Hebrew word meaning the complete family (men, women, children, infants). Similarly, we know that the phrase "he and his house" refers to the total family; the Old Testament use of this phrase clearly demonstrates this by specifically mentioning the presence of children and infants at times. Furthermore, if given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be spelled out.”

Very Informative Post. Thank you. Reading some of the Scriptures you quoted, it is clear the Apostles baptized "households"

Acts 16:15 "When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us."

Compare: Gen 17:27 "And every male in Abraham’s household, including those born in his household or bought from a foreigner, was circumcised with him." We know that this included 8 day infants in household.

The Greek word in Acts 16 is οἶκος (oikos), roughly synonymous with the Hebrew word in Gen 17, בַּיִת (bayit). Strongs gives it as "house, household" in both instances.

Hi Artios, Regarding this:

Today… we are of the circumcision made without hands

Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

Now… I could make the argument that water baptism of babies…. is made with hands …right. I mean you have someone else (not yourself) performing a ceremonial act on you, with hands…..but I’ll let that be.

Well, Churches that practice Infant Baptism, both Catholic and Reformed, have always seen Col 2:11-12 as supportive of the idea that Baptism in the New Covenant has replaced Circumcision. "Circumcision without hands" seems to be referring to the fact that the child whose foreskin was cut off had to be physically in his private parts, whereas baptism is just a washing of the child in water.

Here is an article: "Most Baptists have heard of Reformed and Presbyterian churches who baptize babies, because “the practice of circumcision in the Old Testament (OT) is replaced by infant baptism in the New.” Verses cited in support of this analogy include Gen. 17:7–8; Gal. 3:9, 14; Col. 2:11–12; Acts 2:38–39; Rom. 4:11–12; 1 Cor. 7:14; Matt. 28:19; Mark 10:13–16; and Luke 18:15.1 The challenge for those who use this analogy is that these passages either mention circumcision (Gen. 17:7–8; Rom. 4:11–12) or baptism (Acts 2:38–39; Matt. 28:19) or neither circumcision nor baptism (Gal. 3:9, 14; 1 Cor. 7:14; Mark 10:13–16; and Luke 18:15). What is required for this analogy to work is a link between circumcision and baptism.

There is only one text in the Bible that mentions both. That passage is Col. 2:11–12. Is this the missing link that connects circumcision to baptism and therefore justifies infant baptism? Before addressing this, it remains of vital importance to understand that the analogy has always been and can only be between physical circumcision (involving a literal cutting of the flesh) and water baptism. Those who use this analogy connect it to Abraham’s participation in God’s covenant with physical circumcision as the sign of this covenant (Gen. 17:1–16)." https://faith.edu/faith-news/colossians-211-12-circumcision-infant-baptism-analogy/

I will respond to other posts and cite the views of the Early Church Fathers on the subject (they were Pro-Infant Baptism) subsequently. God Bless.

 

[Magenta]

I witnessed Catholic baby baptism, it is no different than Protestant baby dedication to Our Lord.

It seems to me that intent matters. After all...

1 Samuel 16:7b

 

[CS1]

So, this was touched upon briefly in the thread about Baptism and the Resurrection. Should children be baptized? Most Traditional Churches, Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists etc answer yes. Baptists, most Evangelicals and Pentecostals etc answer no. Let's study the question Scripturally and historically. Let's start with Acts 2:

"38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2:38-39)

These are very well known verses, but one implication of them is often overlooked. St. Peter says "the gift of the Holy Spirit" (the promise) is "for you and your children". So, given original sin, and the fact that once Adam and Eve were exiled from Paradise, children are now born without the Holy Spirit, how are children to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, if not in Baptism? That's 1 reason I hold this verse supports Baptism of Children/Infants.

For those who say that this is against faith, remember children were circumcised in the Old Covenant based on the Faith of their Parents, and the Promise of the Parents to raise their Children in the Jewish faith. Likewise, Parents now baptize their Children and raise them in the Christian Faith.

Please share your thoughts. Let's Debate/Discuss this issue.

God Bless,
N. Xavier.

people do many things out of traditions and they are also praised worthy. YET the shortfall of the problem is after this has been done to the child and the parents and church fail to disciple the child because they were dip or had dedication service. "I'm good to go I was baptized as a child. NO, you are not. That personal relationship did not happen at child baptism but when one comes to the understanding of their need to be forgiven and repent.

 

[Aaron56]

Taxation amounts correlated to Roman Church membership. That is why the Roman Church extended baptism to and counted infants as full members of the church: they could demand more money.

”..to you and your children…” is the language of a promise fully vested in a covenant. In practice, because they are priests of God within the covenant, believing parents may extend the grace of baptism to their children; and those children to their children and so on. Baptism is a grace for believers so children must be old enough to believe before they are baptized in water.

 

[XavierJesusLovesIndia]

I do agree that a Personal Relationship with Lord Jesus Christ, after one comes of age, is very important. Parents should train up a child in the way he should go, as the Bible says, and when he is old, he will not depart from it. Traditional Churches generally have "Confirmation", when Baptized Children come of age, where children themselves give their lives to Christ, and make acts of faith in Him, and then the Bishop etc lays hands on them. In Acts of the Apostles, we see the Apostles "laid hands" on converts after they baptized them.

Prov 22:6 "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."

Acts 19:5 "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. 7And all the men were about twelve."

 

[Beckie]

Did children/babies come across the Red Sea? Were there no children in ( we dont know) Act 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us. My guess is there were kids.
Babies and kids are people
Luk 3:21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
This passage is not about baptism although it gives us insight to the heart of the Lord
Mat 19:13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.

Pro 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

 

[Beckie]

Confirmation, can that be found in Scripture?

 

[TheLearner]

Are you speaking of infant children such as the Catholics sprinkle with water and declare the child to be "saved"?

The answer is NO!

The Scripture is clear about this.............

REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED....

An infant child can not repent/confess it's sins and ask God to forgive it and accept Jesus as Lord and Savior of its life..........IMOPSSIBLE.

If people want to "DEDICATE" their child, that's fine, but it is not baptizing. The Catholic Church is so very wrong in their tradition of infant baptism. I fear for the millions who have been duped by the old men in Rome into believing they are "saved."

In comparison to Church Fathers
3. Moreover, belief in divine Scripture declares to us, that among all, whether infants or those who are older, there is the same equality of the divine gift. Elisha, beseeching God, so laid himself upon the infant son of the widow, who was lying dead, that his head was applied to his head, and his face to his face, and the limbs of Elisha were spread over and joined to each of the limbs of the child, and his feet to his feet. If this thing be considered with respect to the inequality of our birth and our body, an infant could not be made equal with a person grown up and mature, nor could its little limbs fit and be equal to the larger limbs of a man. But in that is expressed the divine and spiritual equality, that all men are like and equal, since they have once been made by God; and our age may have a difference in the increase of our bodies, according to the world, but not according to God; unless that very grace also which is given to the baptized is given either less or more, according to the age of the receivers, whereas the Holy Spirit is not given with measure, but by the love and mercy of the Father alike to all. For God, as He does not accept the person, so does not accept the age; since He shows Himself Father to all with well-weighed equality for the attainment of heavenly grace.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050658.htm

8. Afterwards I began to laugh — at first in sleep, then when waking. For this I have heard mentioned of myself, and I believe it (though I cannot remember it), for we see the same in other infants. And now little by little I realized where I was, and wished to tell my wishes to those who might satisfy them, but I could not; for my wants were within me, while they were without, and could not by any faculty of theirs enter into my soul. So I cast about limbs and voice, making the few and feeble signs I could, like, though indeed not much like, unto what I wished; and when I was not satisfied — either not being understood, or because it would have been injurious to me — I grew indignant that my elders were not subject unto me, and that those on whom I had no claim did not wait on me, and avenged myself on them by tears. That infants are such I have been able to learn by watching them; and they, though unknowing, have better shown me that I was such an one than my nurses who knew it.
12. You, therefore, O Lord my God, who gave life to the infant, and a frame which, as we see, You have endowed with senses, compacted with limbs, beautified with form, and, for its general good and safety, hast introduced all vital energies — You command me to praise You for these things, to give thanks unto the Lord, and to sing praise unto Your name, O Most High; for You are a God omnipotent and good, though You had done nought but these things, which none other can do but You, who alone made all things, O You most fair, who made all things fair, and orders all according to Your law. This period, then, of my life, O Lord, of which I have no remembrance, which I believe in the word of others, and which I guess from other infants, it chagrins me — true though the guess be — to reckon in this life of mine which I lead in this world; inasmuch as, in the darkness of my forgetfulness, it is like to that which I passed in my mother's womb. But if I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me, where, I pray you, O my God, where, Lord, or when was I, Your servant, innocent? But behold, I pass by that time, for what have I to do with that, the memories of which I cannot recall?
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/110101.htm