Is infant baptism from the Bible?

BreadOfLife · Jun 5, 2019

Jon Mathews said:
Don't you know that not every baby who was circumcised was Born from Above? Not everyone who passed thru the Red Sea was a Child of God. Or do you think as the Pharisees of Paul's day that anyone who has their foreskin removed has been circumcised in the heart and has God as their Father? No. Neither is everyone who is baptized in water baptized in the Holy Spirit, just as were some of John's disciples who Paul met. They were baptized in water and had still never received the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:2-6).

We get our idea of "Baby Dedications" from 1 Samuel 1:27-28. But we are not saying that every baby we dedicate to the Lord is thereby Born of God! Baby Dedication is not being Born Again. Only Jesus Christ can give the One Baptism of the Holy Spirit. And that is the only Spiritual Birth from God, the One Baptism.

NONSENSE.

First of all - the ones you speak of in Acts 19:2-6 were baptized in to JOHN the Baptist's Baptism - NOT the Baptism of Christ.
If you just read verses 4-6, you see that once they were Baptized in to CHRIST'S Baptism, they received the Holy Spirit:
Acts 19:4-6
Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

Secondly - I never said that those who were circumcised were Born Again. This is a ridiculous prospect as we can ONLY be born again in CHRIST. I simply stated that an 8-day-old baby didn't make the decision to enter into the Covenant with God - ANY MORE than an infant makes a statement of belief at Baptism.

In BOTH cases - the Parents/Guardians of the child raise that child in the faith of the Covenant. I also made the connection between Circumcision and Baptism as Paul CLEARLY does in Col. 2:10-12.

BreadOfLife · Jun 5, 2019

Triumph1300 said:
Yes, and one can only do that after the born again experience.

Unbelievers, non - Christians, cannot cooperate with His grace, unless they are born again.
That can only be done by the Holy Spirit.

It's so simple.

WRONG.

Tell that too the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8. It NEVER speaks of him having ANY sort of "born again" experience before he is Baptized by Philip. It simply states that he listened to Philip and heard what he was saying regarding the Scriptures.

Our initial grace that we are given when we FIRST come to belief is the work of the Holy Spirit - and this happens BEFORE we are born again. We make a decision to cooperate with this grace or to ignore it.

illini1959 · Jun 6, 2019

BreadOfLife said:
NONSENSE.

First of all - the Water in John 3:5 is talking about the water of Baptism.
The first 3 chapters of John's Gospel are literally DRENCHED with the renewing waters of Baptism.

Chapter One - We read about the Baptism of Christ. What do we see? WATER and SPIRIT.
Chapter Two - Jesus turns Water into wine at the Wedding at Cana.
Chapter Three - Jesus tells Nicodemus that in order to be born again, one must be born or Water and Spirit (Baptism).
Right after this, Jesus and the Apostles spend time BAPTIZING people.

As for your comment that we all have a sin nature - you are correct. That doesn't mean that everybody sins.
Infants are incapable of sinning as are the severely retarded who don't have full use of their faculties.

As for Romans 3:10 - you are cherry-picking like MOST anti-Catholics do.
This entire passage refers to Psalm 14 where it says:
Psalm 14:1-3
The fool says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
Their deeds are loathsome and corrupt;
not one does what is good.

This is NOT talking about EVERY person. it is talking about the FOOLISH.
Verse 7 goers on to say:
"They have good reason, then, to fear;
God is with the company of the RIGHTEOUS."

As to your comment that Scripture identifies only one Person as sinless - please show me where it says this.
Chapter and Verse please . . .

Finally - there is NOTHING wrong with the term "mentally retarded". It is a clinical term that is still used by the medical profession. My brother is mentally retarded - so keep your PC opinions about it to yourself.

So, you're one of those posters. Ok. Well, I'll wipe the dust off of my feet now and move on.

It won't matter what scripture I post because you'll make sure to dismiss it without a thought.

ps....I specifically said I wasn't much of a 'pc' person; I also have a family member who would fall under that "clinical" term.

Only those living under a rock miss the fact that it's considered a derogatory term when used outside the medical profession. If I missed your medical credentials please let me know.

Wishing you the best.

BreadOfLife · Jun 7, 2019

illini1959 said:
So, you're one of those posters. Ok. Well, I'll wipe the dust off of my feet now and move on.

It won't matter what scripture I post because you'll make sure to dismiss it without a thought.

ps....I specifically said I wasn't much of a 'pc' person; I also have a family member who would fall under that "clinical" term.

Only those living under a rock miss the fact that it's considered a derogatory term when used outside the medical profession. If I missed your medical credentials please let me know.

Wishing you the best.

No - it's only "derogatory" when used as a noun.
When ignoramuses go around calling people "retards" - THAT'S when it becomes derogatory.

"Mentally retarded" is a valid clinical term.
You only object to it to draw attention away from the original argument about "ALL" have sinned - when "ALL" haven't . . .

Triumph1300 · Jun 7, 2019

BreadOfLife said:
Tell that too the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8. It NEVER speaks of him having ANY sort of "born again" experience before he is Baptized by Philip. It simply states that he listened to Philip and heard what he was saying regarding the Scriptures.

The Spirit convinced this man when he listened to Philip.
He became born again listening to Philip, and was water baptized.

Not very hard to figure that one out, BOL!

(non Christians don't give a hoot about water baptism.)

BreadOfLife · Jun 8, 2019

Triumph1300 said:
The Spirit convinced this man when he listened to Philip.
He became born again listening to Philip, and was water baptized.

Not very hard to figure that one out, BOL!

(non Christians don't give a hoot about water baptism.)

RUBBISH.

The story of the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8 never even alludes to the idea that he was "born again" before being Baptized.
It simply states that he HEARD Philip explain the prophecy from Isaiah of the Suffering Servant to him because he didn't understand it and he made the decision to be Baptized.

Knowledge and the INITIAL grace to believe is ALL that was present.
The same is true for the households of Stephanas and the Philippian Jailer. ALL of the households were Baptized but it only speaks of a few people actually coming to faith. the rest were Baptized on the faith of the Head of the household.

Triumph1300 · Jun 8, 2019

BreadOfLife said:
Knowledge and the INITIAL grace to believe is ALL that was present.

Hey BOL, I think you don't have a clue about what "born again" actually stands for.
The Catholic Church is more or less at the same level as the United Pentecostals: Works...works....and more works....
There was a time they even wanted people to pay money for their salvation......some might still think in that direction with works.

Anyhow, BOL, continue, I will be reading and shaking my head some more I guess.

I like you though, you are a nice fellow.
Bless you, man!

Triumph1300 · Jun 10, 2019

Quote I saw somewhere:

I remember reading a story about how D.L. Moody was preparing to lead a revival throughout England to which an elderly pastor protested and said, "Why do we need this 'Mr. Moody'? He's uneducated, inexperienced, etc. Who does he think he is anyway? Does he think he has a monopoly on the Holy Spirit?"

A younger, yet wiser pastor stood up and responded, "No, but the Holy Spirit has a monopoly on Mr. Moody."

Do you truly want to be monopolized by the Holy Spirit? Let's face it -- the degree of fullness of the Spirit of God is in direct proportion to the intensity of our true desire. The reality of the spirit-filled life is -- we have as much of God as we truly want. Praise God!

BreadOfLife · Jun 10, 2019

Triumph1300 said:
Hey BOL, I think you don't have a clue about what "born again" actually stands for.
The Catholic Church is more or less at the same level as the United Pentecostals: Works...works....and more works....
There was a time they even wanted people to pay money for their salvation......some might still think in that direction with works.

Anyhow, BOL, continue, I will be reading and shaking my head some more I guess.

I like you though, you are a nice fellow.
Bless you, man!

I like you too - although your "facts" are a little screwed up.

First of all - the Catholic Church NEVER taught that you could "buy" your salvation. This was an abuse - NOT a doctrine.
It has NEVER been taught. I suggest you re-check your sources . . .

As for works - the Catholic Church teaches as the Bible does - that works are an essential element of faith (James 2:14-26, 1 Cor. 13:13).
You cannot have true faith without belief or works. True Faith = Belief + Works.

Triumph1300 · Jun 11, 2019

BreadOfLife said:
You cannot have true faith without belief or works. True Faith = Belief + Works.

That's true.
But that's not what I disagreed on.

I disagreed that "works will earn you your salvation".

I guess a slight misunderstanding on your part

BreadOfLife · Jun 12, 2019

Triumph1300 said:
That's true.
But that's not what I disagreed on.

I disagreed that "works will earn you your salvation".

I guess a slight misunderstanding on your part

Wrong.

YOU said specifically about the Catholic Church:
"There was a time they even wanted people to pay money for their salvation"

This is a gigantic falsehood.

As for "earning" our salvation - the Church has never taught this either.
NOT sure where you're getting your "facts" - but you're dead wrong . . .

aspen · Jun 12, 2019

BOL would you leave the Catholic Church if indulgences happened, Jesus had full blooded siblings, and sexual abuse has occurred on a ginormous scale in the church? No necessarily in that order?

Earburner · Jun 13, 2019

Hobie said:
Some may say, what is wrong with baptizing an infant? Well we need to go to the word of God and to the requirements for baptism.

Baptism is for those that hear the Gospel message, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and repent of their sins. This must be done before a person can be baptized.

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 2:38.

"Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." Acts 20:21.

Why do we need to repent to God?

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:23.

Only those that receive the Word of God and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ are fit for baptism.

"Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." Acts 2:41

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

"But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." Acts 8:12.

"And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Acts 8:36, 37.

The question must now be asked, ‘Can an infant understand the Gospel, accept the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour, and repent of their sins?’ Of course they cannot, so therefore according to the Bible they cannot be baptized and any church that condones infant baptism is not following the Word of God.

Before I begin, know this: infant baptism is NOT a made up doctrine of any particular Church!!
.
Jesus invited the little children to come to Him, through THEIR PARENTS.
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.
The word "suffer" in the KJV means to "permit/allow" them to come to Jesus.
The word "little" means "infants".
This is sound biblical doctrine for "infants" TO COME, or be brought by the parent(s) to Jesus.
Therefore, all believing parents especially, should comply with the desire/will of Jesus!!
.
OT scripture supports this, but it is applied erroneously to the FALSE doctrine of a "one thousand year reign on the earth, AFTER Christ returns", aka by the "religious" term, "THE" Millennium.
Isa. 65[20] There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.
> for a better understanding, of the application and meaning of Isa. 65:20, see Isa. 55:8-9 and John 16:13.
This should help you to also better understand WHEN and HOW the period of WHAT "a thousand years" IS or means. See 2 Peter 3[8] But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
IT MEANS NOW, ever since The Day of Pentecost!!

Pearl · Jun 13, 2019

I agree in so far as little children can come to him. I did myself as a ten year old, and little children can be baptised as long as they have first received Jesus and have a good solid understanding of what they are doing. But infants - no as they do not have that understanding.

Earburner · Jun 13, 2019

Pearl said:
I agree in so far as little children can come to him. I did myself as a ten year old, and little children can be baptised as long as they have first received Jesus and have a good solid understanding of what they are doing. But infants - no as they do not have that understanding.

I did also at 7 yrs old. I have no memory of that, except for my Mom telling me that I raised my hand to receive Jesus as my Savior, and that was all.
.
It was at that time, through finding a dead squirrel in my back yard, that God reaffirmed that I did not have to think, fear or worry about my death any longer, remembering the song: "Jesus Loves Me, This I Know".
.
Looking back over the years, now 69 yrs old, I can and do attest to the fact that He has never left me or forsaken me, and have always had "faith as that of a little child".
Though there have bumps, stalls and anguishing moments/times in my life, He has grown my faith into His Faith, being far more deeply than "raising my hand", but just as rewarding-
He DID SAVE Me, "this I KNOW".
Thank You Jesus!!

Earburner · Jun 13, 2019

So then, shall I say that "infants" (a little child) is not recognized by God, when believing parent(s) present/ bring forth their "babies" before God, in faith believing of His Salvation for them?

Shall you say that parents of faith, and through faith, are not pleasing to God, in that God ignores such simple faith in His Son?
I doubt it not!!
What did I know of sin at 7 yrs old?
NOTHING!
However, I DID know what death was!!

Pearl · Jun 13, 2019

Earburner said:
Looking back over the years, now 69 yrs old, I can and do attest to the fact that He has never left me or forsaken me, and have always had "faith as that of a little child".
Though there have bumps, stalls and anguishing moments/times in my life, He has grown my faith into His Faith, being far more deeply than "raising my hand", but just as rewarding-
He DID SAVE Me, "this I KNOW".
Thank You Jesus!!

Yes looking back over my life I can see that from that time on when I was ten, God had his hand on me even though after my initial response there was no nurturing either at home or in Sunday school. I was allowed to go my own way until I was 35 and came back to Jesus.

farouk · Jun 13, 2019

Pearl said:
Definitely not in my mother's womb. But I was baptised properly after I was born again. I was also 'Christened' as a baby but I don't count that as baptism, just as my parents doing the 'right thing'.

I like the way the order is clearly stated in Acts 2.41-42.

Earburner · Jun 13, 2019

BreadOfLife said:
I like you too - although your "facts" are a little screwed up.

First of all - the Catholic Church NEVER taught that you could "buy" your salvation. This was an abuse - NOT a doctrine.
It has NEVER been taught. I suggest you re-check your sources . . .

As for works - the Catholic Church teaches as the Bible does - that works are an essential element of faith (James 2:14-26, 1 Cor. 13:13).
You cannot have true faith without belief or works. True Faith = Belief + Works.

Exactly!! As if there are no Protestant churches out there, "abusing" biblical doctrines!!
LOL

Pearl · Jun 13, 2019

Earburner said:
Exactly!! As if there are no Protestant churches out there, "abusing" biblical doctrines!!
LOL

I had to leave the C of E in order to get baptised after I was saved. It took me about seven years but I did it.

Is infant baptism from the Bible?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads