Gabriel _Arch
Well-Known Member
Immanuel is the water of life . Baptism is an outward sign and ritual of an inward transformation.
The False Doctrine of Infant Baptism
- Thread starter Hobie
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Bob Estey
Well-Known Member
I don't argue your point. I'm just telling you why some people want to have their babies baptized.
Gabriel _Arch
Well-Known Member
I know. I didn't think you were arguing the point. I was just adding too.
Rella ~ I am a woman
Well-Known Member
That is a true statement. But one needs to understand the born of water, which in this case
is not immersion. It is not speaking of baptism at all even though it has often been thought that as you seem to believe.
Used here being born of water is referencing a spiritual cleansing.
Are you familiar with Ezekiel 36:25-27 . Nicodemus was . We know he should have been because even Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?"
Ezekiel 36:25-27 says...25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.
The most important point about this passage is the repeated statement of “I will.” Notice that we are told God will “sprinkle clean water on you,” “cleanse you from all,” “give you a new heart,” “put a new spirit within in you,” “remove the heart of stone,” “put My Spirit within you” and “cause you to walk in My statues.
Can you understand the application of this to John 3:5?
Sprinkling clean water symbolizes forgiveness of sins. Washing with water was commonly associated with purification among the Jews . (This begs of a discussion of its own, but due to size restrictions that shall wait)
Therefore, we should understand Ezekiel 36:25-27 as the work of God. God the Father forgives and the Holy Spirit regenerates and renews every true Christian. The Holy Spirit dwells within each believer. Who will cause this to happen? The answer is our God above!
Remember that Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be born “from above.” John 1:13 repeats the same truth that salvation is the work of God and not something that we perform.
What was Jesus trying to tell Nicodemus? It was that salvation is the work of God and not the work of man. Salvation comes from above and involves human choice through human will.
We should conclude that a second birth, cleansing, and transformation by the Holy Spirit are necessary before someone can enter the kingdom of God. This experience is not something we earn from anything we do rather it is made available through Jesus’ redemptive work on the cross, by the undeserved grace of the Father.
Water baptism is the outward ~ for all to see ~ sign and seal of the covenant and as such since the coming of Jesus replaces circumcision, which was, per God’s directive, administered to male infants in the eighth day after their birth. Paul says as much in Colossians 2:11-12…
“In Him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the powerful working of God, Who raised Him from the dead.”
Baptism is to be administered to all children of believing parents as early as possible. Peter called on all the men of Israel in Acts 2 to repent and for them and all their households to be baptized, for the promise is for all, including children. There was no minimum age of accountability. It would be quite silly to not presume that at least some of the men present had infants in their households, and no exception was made for any reason by Peter in his exhortation. And Paul says that very same thing ~ “you and all your household” ~ to the Philippian jailer, and he and all his family were baptized (Acts 16:33).
The baptism of infants is really about the faith of the parents in trusting in God to draw their child to Himself at the time He appoints… and their promise to bring the child up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. In that way it is a covenant entered into with God by the parents.
Finally: No, water baptism does not save. Only God, by His Spirit, through faith (which is worked in us by God and therefore His free gift to us by His grace), can save, and it is the baptism administered by the Holy Spirit that is effectual in conferring this upon us. However, water baptism is a sacrament given to us by God ~ as communion also is ~ to strengthen our faith, further our sanctification, and assure us of the Lord's unwavering faithfulness to us ~ His forgetful and often unfaithful people.
Grace and peace to you all!
“In Him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the powerful working of God, Who raised Him from the dead.”
Baptism is to be administered to all children of believing parents as early as possible. Peter called on all the men of Israel in Acts 2 to repent and for them and all their households to be baptized, for the promise is for all, including children. There was no minimum age of accountability. It would be quite silly to not presume that at least some of the men present had infants in their households, and no exception was made for any reason by Peter in his exhortation. And Paul says that very same thing ~ “you and all your household” ~ to the Philippian jailer, and he and all his family were baptized (Acts 16:33).
The baptism of infants is really about the faith of the parents in trusting in God to draw their child to Himself at the time He appoints… and their promise to bring the child up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. In that way it is a covenant entered into with God by the parents.
Finally: No, water baptism does not save. Only God, by His Spirit, through faith (which is worked in us by God and therefore His free gift to us by His grace), can save, and it is the baptism administered by the Holy Spirit that is effectual in conferring this upon us. However, water baptism is a sacrament given to us by God ~ as communion also is ~ to strengthen our faith, further our sanctification, and assure us of the Lord's unwavering faithfulness to us ~ His forgetful and often unfaithful people.
Grace and peace to you all!
Last edited:
No, they would dedicate children in the Bible and it had nothing to do with Baptism..
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
I'm not at all saying children weren't dedicated in different ways in history. I'm saying that *to me* Infant Baptism is a form of Dedication Ceremony--not an actual Baptism.
Actual Baptisms were done by those who wished to repent. Infants don't repent! Infant Baptism is therefore a Dedication Ceremony, regardless of how it is done in other places and in other times.
Infant Baptism is *not* an actual baptism, as I've been pointed out. Yet I must acknowledge that it is *called that!* It is called a "Baptism." I would be reckless to deny that. It's just a name that lacks the relevant meaning.
I might call Easter "Christmas." Maybe my whole family, people, and nation may wish to call Easter "Christmas." But if the celebration has nothing to do with the nativity, and is all about the resurrection of Christ from the dead, then that "Christmas" is not really "Christmas," but in reality, "Easter."
People call Infant Dedication a "Baptism." But if it is really a Dedication, and not a Baptism, then in reality it is a Dedication--not an actual Baptism.
Circumcision in the Old Testament was the outward sign and seal of the covenant, and as such was the fore-runner of baptism, which, since the coming of Jesus, is now the outward sign and seal of the covenant. It should not be withheld from any child of any age of believing parents, just as circumcision was to be administered to every male child in the Israelite covenant community of old. Again, one should be able to see this association of the two sacraments in Colossians 2:11-12.
Grace and peace to all.
No, baptism is a change to ones life and sprinkling a infant does nothing but get him wet.
In the case of folks who have already come to belief, their lives have already been changed. Water baptism does not confer salvation. The baptism administered by the Holy Spirit actually "sprinkles clean" and thus confers salvation. It is possible for the two to coincide, but still, the only baptism effectual unto salvation is by the Holy Spirit. Salvation is of the Lord. And, with man, this is impossible, but with God, nothing is impossible.
Regarding salvation, this is true of water baptism of any kind administered to a person of any age. But as I said, the sprinkling of the infant does have positive effects ~ not salvific, of course, but positive none the less ~ on those present and witnessing. God made it to be so; this is what the sacraments do.
Grace and peace to you.
Last edited:
Rella ~ I am a woman
Well-Known Member
Hi Hobie,
You possibly missed this so I am going to post my reply #24 that I made to Bob Estey...
Bob Estey said:
Because you really need to address this sprinkling hang up you have. It is not new. It is not Pagan. and it originated with God the Father.
My reply: I added some emphasis.
That is a true statement. But one needs to understand the born of water, which in this case
is not immersion. It is not speaking of baptism at all even though it has often been thought that as you seem to believe.
Used here being born of water is referencing a spiritual cleansing.
Are you familiar with Ezekiel 36:25-27 . Nicodemus was . We know he should have been because even Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?"
Ezekiel 36:25-27 says...25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.
The most important point about this passage is the repeated statement of “I will.” Notice that we are told God will “sprinkle clean water on you,” “cleanse you from all,” “give you a new heart,” “put a new spirit within in you,” “remove the heart of stone,” “put My Spirit within you” and “cause you to walk in My statues.
Can you understand the application of this to John 3:5?
Sprinkling clean water symbolizes forgiveness of sins. Washing with water was commonly associated with purification among the Jews . (This begs of a discussion of its own, but due to size restrictions that shall wait)
Therefore, we should understand Ezekiel 36:25-27 as the work of God. God the Father forgives and the Holy Spirit regenerates and renews every true Christian. The Holy Spirit dwells within each believer. Who will cause this to happen? The answer is our God above!
Remember that Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be born “from above.” John 1:13 repeats the same truth that salvation is the work of God and not something that we perform.
What was Jesus trying to tell Nicodemus? It was that salvation is the work of God and not the work of man. Salvation comes from above and involves human choice through human will.
We should conclude that a second birth, cleansing, and transformation by the Holy Spirit are necessary before someone can enter the kingdom of God. This experience is not something we earn from anything we do rather it is made available through Jesus’ redemptive work on the cross, by the undeserved grace of the Father.
Last edited:
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
I was Infant Baptized. It was, in fact, a Child Dedication. My parents dedicated me to Christ and promised to raise me a Christian. Though it was not a baptism in the sense of adult repentance, it was a form of initiation ceremony into the Church. You can call it "baptism" or you may deny that. I don't care.
Rella ~ I am a woman
Well-Known Member
@Hobie
As for me...
Well, I was baby "baptised". what was said during the service I have no idea. And whether I was sprinkled or had water poured on my head or the minister dipped his han in the water and touched me I also do not know.
My dad is gone and so is my birth mom so no one to ask.
I do know I was given an actual certificate of Baptism from the church, dated and signed by the minister.
In my denomination babies are baptised IF and only if one or both parents are full believers in Christ Jesus.
As a child we go to Sunday school to learn things being taught rather then a regular church service, then when about the age of 12 we start with communicants classes in preparation to be able to physically join the church and then have our first holy communion.
As I recall I think the classes were around 6 months of learning all about our faith and making our decisions if we were ready and wanted to join. We do not participate in communion until we complete the classes , then become members in a ceremony in the church with all the members present and then we receive our first communion.
Simply stated....
My denomination Presbyterian Evangelical Church regards baptism as a sacrament.
NOW... Presbyterians do not consider this baby baptism to be the end but the beginning. Presbyterians believe in the practice of infant baptism, considering it as a means of grace for children born into Christian families. The ceremony is conducted by ordained ministers and typically involves the pouring or sprinkling of water on the child’s forehead, along with prayers and blessings.
THEN...Through this act, parents and the church community affirm their responsibility to nurture and guide the child in faith, while also recognizing the child’s eventual confirmation of their baptismal vows when they reach an age of understanding.
IOW The baby baptism is the start in growth and is consumated when one reached the age of understanding........
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
I very much appreciate your account of Presbyterian Infant Baptism. It was very similar in our Lutheran denomination. Thanks much!
Why should parents wait until some subjective "age of accountability" to begin to treat their children like Christians? Should they wait until they are 21 to get Baptized before they start living the Christian life?
Well, good question.
I was pretty clear in post number 25 above, I think. Grace and peace to you, Hobie.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
If infant baptism is so wrong, why did Luther and Calvin baptize infants? Why was there no objection to infant baptism for 1700 years??? You've invented a new unbiblical doctrine.
Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 – these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant – Col 2:11-12 – however, baptism is the new “circumcision” for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.
Job 14:1-4 – man that is born of woman is full of trouble and unclean. Baptism is required for all human beings because of our sinful human nature.
Psalm 51:5 – we are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the necessity of baptism from conception.
Matt. 18:2-5 – Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?
Matt 19:14 – Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.
Mark 10:14 – Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. Jesus says nothing about being too young to come into the kingdom of God.
Mark 16:16 – Jesus says to the crowd, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with “He who does not believe will be condemned.” This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a “believer’s baptism.”
Luke 18:15 – Jesus says, “Let the children come to me.” The people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This demonstrates that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason.
Acts 2:38 – Peter says to the multitude, “Repent and be baptized..” Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, “If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) This, contrary to what Protestants argue, actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith. This is confirmed in the next verse.
Acts 2:39 – Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). God’s covenant family includes children. The word “children” that Peter used comes from the Greek word “teknon” which also includes infants.
Luke 1:59 – this proves that “teknon” includes infants. Here, John as a “teknon” (infant) was circumcised. See also Acts 21:21 which uses “teknon” for eight-day old babies. So baptism is for infants as well as adults.
Acts 10:47-48 – Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults.
Acts 16:15 – Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word “household” comes from the Greek word “oikos” which is a household that includes infants and children.
Acts 16:15 – further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia’s faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents’ faith, not the children’s faith.
Acts 16:30-33 – it was only the adults who were candidates for baptism that had to profess a belief in Jesus. This is consistent with the Church’s practice of instructing catechumens before baptism. But this verse does not support a “believer’s baptism” requirement for everyone. See Acts 16:15,33. The earlier one comes to baptism, the better. For those who come to baptism as adults, the Church has always required them to profess their belief in Christ. For babies who come to baptism, the Church has always required the parents to profess the belief in Christ on behalf of the baby. But there is nothing in the Scriptures about a requirement for ALL baptism candidates to profess their own belief in Christ (because the Church has baptized babies for 2,000 years).
Acts 16:33 – Paul baptized the jailer (an adult) and his entire household (which had to include children). Baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason. See also Luke 19:9; John 4:53; Acts 11:14; 1 Cor. 1:16; and 1 Tim. 3:12; Gen. 31:41; 36:6; 41:51; Joshua 24:15; 2 Sam. 7:11, 1 Chron. 10:6 which shows “oikos” generally includes children.
Rom. 5:12 – sin came through Adam and death through sin. Babies’ souls are affected by Adam’s sin and need baptism just like adult souls.
Rom. 5:15 – the grace of Jesus Christ surpasses that of the Old Covenant. So children can also enter the new Covenant in baptism. From a Jewish perspective, it would have been unthinkable to exclude infants and children from God’s Covenant kingdom.
1 Cor. 1:16 – Paul baptized the household (“oikos”) of Stephanus. Baptism is not limited to adults.
Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:2 – Paul addresses the “saints” of the Church, and these include the children he addresses in Eph. 6:1 and Col. 3:20. Children become saints of the Church only through baptism.
Eph. 2:3 – we are all by nature children of wrath, in sin, like all mankind. Infants are no exception. See also Psalm 51:5 and Job 14:1-4 which teach us we are conceived in sin and born unclean.
2 Thess. 3:10 – if anyone does not work let him not eat. But this implies that those who are unable to work should still be able to eat. Babies should not starve because they are unable to work, and should also not be denied baptism because they are unable to make a declaration of faith.
Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:3-5 – the faith of those who brought in the paralytic cured the paralytic’s sins. This is an example of the forgiveness of sins based on another’s faith, just like infant baptism. The infant child is forgiven of sin based on the parents’ faith.
Matt. 8:5-13 – the servant is healed based upon the centurion’s faith. This is another example of healing based on another’s faith. If Jesus can heal us based on someone else’s faith, then He can baptize us based on someone else’s faith as well.
Mark 9:22-25 – Jesus exercises the child’s unclean spirit based on the father’s faith. This healing is again based on another’s faith.
1 Cor. 7:14 – Paul says that children are sanctified by God through the belief of only one of their parents.
Exodus 12:24-28 – the Passover was based on the parent’s faith. If they did not kill and eat the lamb, their first-born child died.
Joshua 5:2-7 – God punished Israel because the people had not circumcised their children. This was based on the parent’s faith. The parents play a critical role in their child’s salvation.
Rella ~ I am a woman
Well-Known Member
Hobie, I had to cut your quote because of the length of my reply
Really..... hmmmm
@Hobie, you have heard me enough on this subject to know that my denomination will only baptise an infant or small child when one or both parents are believers in the faith and will train the infant or child, along with the church training until that infant is old enough to understand and accept. IT BASICALLY IS A 12 OR 13 YEAR OLD EDUCATION AND CULMINATES WITH THE PERSON'S FIRST HOLY COMMUNION ... without which you are unable to join the church and communion will be denied forever.
Of course that is a horrible thought as in my denomination communion is a sacrament. I dont care if you disagree it is what has been forever in my denomination
Webster defines sacrament as
1
a
: a Christian rite (such as baptism or the Eucharist) that is believed to have been ordained by Christ and that is held to be a means of divine grace or to be a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality
b
: a religious rite or observance comparable to a Christian sacrament
2
capitalized
a
: COMMUNION sense 2a
b
: BLESSED SACRAMENT
3
: something likened to a religious sacrament
saw voting as a sacrament of democracy
So seemingly Tertullian was correct though his thoughts lean more RCC and my church is basically polar opposite.
You or your link goes on with.........
" But overwhelmingly, the doctrine of baptism during the first three centuries of the church was adult believers baptism only"
Why does this say overwhelmingly and not exclusively?
"...Infant baptism is not a Scriptural doctrine. It is not found anywhere in the Bible. There is not one example in the Bible of one single baby ever being baptized and its origins are largely pagan." What are the origins of infant baptism, and is there any Scriptural basis for it?"
I present the following:
You are aware of the Jailor, Lydia, and Stephanus... all 3 had their households baptised.Their households. We often fail to mention....Acts 18:8 (NAS)8 Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.
Here is a question for you. .
Have you read anywhere in the bible or elsewhere that households did not include young children or infants.
I , on the other hand have the following...
Note what I emphasize below.
www.biblestudytools.com
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia - Household
HOUSEHOLDhous'-hold:Three words are usually found in the Bible where the family is indicated. These three are the Hebrew word bayith and the Greek words oikia and oikos. The unit of the national life of Israel, from the very beginning, was found in the family.
In the old patriarchal days each family was complete within itself, the oldest living sire being the unquestioned head of the whole, possessed of almost arbitrary powers. The house and the household are practically synonymous.
God had called Abraham "that he might command his children and household after him" (Genesis 18:19). The Passover-lamb was to be eaten by the "household" (Exodus 12:3). The "households" of the rebels in the camp of Israel shared their doom (Numbers 16:31-33; Deuteronomy 11:6). David's household shares his humiliation (2 Samuel 15:16); the children everywhere in the Old Testament are the bearers of the sins of the fathers. Human life is not a conglomerate of individuals; the family is its center and unit.Nor is it different in the New Testament.
The curse and the blessing of the apostles are to abide on a house, according to its attitude (Matthew 10:13). A divided house falls (Mark 3:25).
The household believes with the head thereof (John 4:53; Acts 16:15,34).
Thus the households became the nuclei for the early life of the church, e.g. the house of Prisca and Aquila at Rome (Romans 16:5), of Stephanas (1 Corinthians 16:15), of Onesiphorus (2 Timothy 1:16), etc. No wonder that the early church made so much of the family life. And in the midst of all our modern, rampant individualism, the family is still the throbbing heart of the church as well as of the nation.
Henry E. Dosker
Further:
If family households did not consist of nuclear families in the modern understanding of a married couple and their children but were multigenerational (up to four generations... as history shows) and included the social arrangement of several families... related by blood and marriage... who lived in 2 or 3 connecting houses....
Inclusive of :
those who belong to the family household are mentioned a number of times in the Hebrew Bible
Gen 7 :1 Then the LORD said to Noah, “Enter the ark, you and all your household, for you alone I have seen to be righteous before Me in this time.
Gen 7:7 Then Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him entered the ark because of the water of the flood.
Gen 36:6 Then Esau took his wives and his sons and his daughters and all his household, and his livestock and all his cattle and all his goods which he had acquired in the land of Canaan, and went to another land away from his brother Jacob
Gen 45:10 “You shall live in the land of Goshen, and you shall be near me, you and your children and your children’s children and your flocks and your herds and all that you have.
Gen 46:26 All the persons belonging to Jacob, who came to Egypt, his direct descendants, not including the wives of Jacob’s sons, were sixty-six persons in all,
OKAY... I'll stop posting verses.... The last one shows how many people would be in Jacobs "inner circle" as it were. These texts indicate that the family household was primarily a kinship system that included lineal descent and lateral extension: grandparents, adult male children and their wives and children, unmarried children, and widowed and divorced adult daughters who may have had children.
Thus, it’s not just a matter of a nuclear family (which already may have included 4-8 children), but of extended family (involving even more children), which makes it all the more likely that children would typically be present in a biblical “household.”
It’s very difficult, highly improbable, logically and exegetically, and in light of relevant historical knowledge, to concludes that a biblical “household” could not possibly contain small children.
Conclusion: What I sought to do , without writing an entire book is to provide an understanding of the precise meaning of a biblical “household.”
And say with certainty If they usually contained children, then the Bible virtually describes infant baptism.
?????The earliest mention of infant baptism was by Tertullian around A.D. 220. Tertullian mentions the practice in conjunction with sponsors who would aid in the childs spiritual training (as Godparents today).
Really..... hmmmm
@Hobie, you have heard me enough on this subject to know that my denomination will only baptise an infant or small child when one or both parents are believers in the faith and will train the infant or child, along with the church training until that infant is old enough to understand and accept. IT BASICALLY IS A 12 OR 13 YEAR OLD EDUCATION AND CULMINATES WITH THE PERSON'S FIRST HOLY COMMUNION ... without which you are unable to join the church and communion will be denied forever.
Of course that is a horrible thought as in my denomination communion is a sacrament. I dont care if you disagree it is what has been forever in my denomination
Webster defines sacrament as
sacrament
noun
sac·ra·ment ˈsa-krə-mənt1
a
: a Christian rite (such as baptism or the Eucharist) that is believed to have been ordained by Christ and that is held to be a means of divine grace or to be a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality
b
: a religious rite or observance comparable to a Christian sacrament
2
capitalized
a
: COMMUNION sense 2a
b
: BLESSED SACRAMENT
3
: something likened to a religious sacrament
saw voting as a sacrament of democracy
So seemingly Tertullian was correct though his thoughts lean more RCC and my church is basically polar opposite.
You or your link goes on with.........
" But overwhelmingly, the doctrine of baptism during the first three centuries of the church was adult believers baptism only"
Why does this say overwhelmingly and not exclusively?
"...Infant baptism is not a Scriptural doctrine. It is not found anywhere in the Bible. There is not one example in the Bible of one single baby ever being baptized and its origins are largely pagan." What are the origins of infant baptism, and is there any Scriptural basis for it?"
I present the following:
You are aware of the Jailor, Lydia, and Stephanus... all 3 had their households baptised.Their households. We often fail to mention....Acts 18:8 (NAS)8 Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.
Here is a question for you. .
Have you read anywhere in the bible or elsewhere that households did not include young children or infants.
I , on the other hand have the following...
Note what I emphasize below.
Household - Bible Definition and Scripture References
Discover the meaning of Household in the Bible. Study the definition of Household with multiple Bible Dictionaries and Encyclopedias and find scripture references in the Old and New Testaments.
HOUSEHOLDhous'-hold:Three words are usually found in the Bible where the family is indicated. These three are the Hebrew word bayith and the Greek words oikia and oikos. The unit of the national life of Israel, from the very beginning, was found in the family.
In the old patriarchal days each family was complete within itself, the oldest living sire being the unquestioned head of the whole, possessed of almost arbitrary powers. The house and the household are practically synonymous.
God had called Abraham "that he might command his children and household after him" (Genesis 18:19). The Passover-lamb was to be eaten by the "household" (Exodus 12:3). The "households" of the rebels in the camp of Israel shared their doom (Numbers 16:31-33; Deuteronomy 11:6). David's household shares his humiliation (2 Samuel 15:16); the children everywhere in the Old Testament are the bearers of the sins of the fathers. Human life is not a conglomerate of individuals; the family is its center and unit.Nor is it different in the New Testament.
The curse and the blessing of the apostles are to abide on a house, according to its attitude (Matthew 10:13). A divided house falls (Mark 3:25).
The household believes with the head thereof (John 4:53; Acts 16:15,34).
Thus the households became the nuclei for the early life of the church, e.g. the house of Prisca and Aquila at Rome (Romans 16:5), of Stephanas (1 Corinthians 16:15), of Onesiphorus (2 Timothy 1:16), etc. No wonder that the early church made so much of the family life. And in the midst of all our modern, rampant individualism, the family is still the throbbing heart of the church as well as of the nation.
Henry E. Dosker
Further:
If family households did not consist of nuclear families in the modern understanding of a married couple and their children but were multigenerational (up to four generations... as history shows) and included the social arrangement of several families... related by blood and marriage... who lived in 2 or 3 connecting houses....
Inclusive of :
those who belong to the family household are mentioned a number of times in the Hebrew Bible
Gen 7 :1 Then the LORD said to Noah, “Enter the ark, you and all your household, for you alone I have seen to be righteous before Me in this time.
Gen 7:7 Then Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him entered the ark because of the water of the flood.
Gen 36:6 Then Esau took his wives and his sons and his daughters and all his household, and his livestock and all his cattle and all his goods which he had acquired in the land of Canaan, and went to another land away from his brother Jacob
Gen 45:10 “You shall live in the land of Goshen, and you shall be near me, you and your children and your children’s children and your flocks and your herds and all that you have.
Gen 46:26 All the persons belonging to Jacob, who came to Egypt, his direct descendants, not including the wives of Jacob’s sons, were sixty-six persons in all,
OKAY... I'll stop posting verses.... The last one shows how many people would be in Jacobs "inner circle" as it were. These texts indicate that the family household was primarily a kinship system that included lineal descent and lateral extension: grandparents, adult male children and their wives and children, unmarried children, and widowed and divorced adult daughters who may have had children.
Thus, it’s not just a matter of a nuclear family (which already may have included 4-8 children), but of extended family (involving even more children), which makes it all the more likely that children would typically be present in a biblical “household.”
It’s very difficult, highly improbable, logically and exegetically, and in light of relevant historical knowledge, to concludes that a biblical “household” could not possibly contain small children.
Conclusion: What I sought to do , without writing an entire book is to provide an understanding of the precise meaning of a biblical “household.”
And say with certainty If they usually contained children, then the Bible virtually describes infant baptism.
Well, why and what some people do, does not make it part of Gods truth. So have to go by Gods Word...
Bob Estey
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
