ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Is Infant Baptism Biblical

Is infant baptism in the Bible? Is it biblical?

Join Our Christian Singles and Take The Baptism Bible Quiz
 ---mima on 1/31/11
     Helpful Blog Vote (4)

Post a New Blog



Bringing an infant, a child for prayer that they may serve God when they are of age, & baptism will also come to their knowledge at the appointed time
if they are to serve God. God will not force Himself.
---Lawrence on 2/8/11


\\Ignacious--Is it unbiblical for parents to bring a baby before the congregation for prayer?\\

What I'm asking is where "baby dedication", as practiced in many Protestant Churches, is shown in the New Testament. After all, THEIR rule is "sola Scriptura." I'm just asking for them to live up to it.

\\Is your objection Biblical?...or just that your church doesn't do it?\\

Who do you think invented it? We have all sorts of prayers and blessings for new mothers and babies, on the first day, third day, eighth day, and 40th day.

But these are not substitutes for BAPTISM.
---Cluny on 2/8/11


Ignacious--Is it unbiblical for parents to bring a baby before the congregation for prayer? Is there Scripture that says they should not have the church pray for them as parents to bring up the child in the "nurture and admonition of the Lord"?

Is your objection Biblical?...or just that your church doesn't do it?
---Donna66 on 2/8/11


I do not agree that infant baptism is Biblical. We did not read that John the Baptist and the early Apostles baptised any infant. It is impossible for an infant to make a decision of repentance from sins(essence of baptism). He/she has not even grasped what constitute sinning.
---Adetunji on 2/8/11


Its not. a person is baptized after they get saved its a symbol, that we have believed in Jesus and follow him. Its an act of Obedience which a person decides for themselves.
---lincolin on 2/8/11




"Neither "Infant christening-dedication" nor" infant baptism" is scriptural.
---mima on 2/7/11"

Neither is the man made doctrines of "Sinner's Prayer" and "Sola Scriptura".

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 2/7/11


Harold-

Not necessary. Saint John the Forerunner had faith, even before he was born (Luke 1:41). The word for "faith and "belief" comes from the same Greek word (pistis), and in most cases can be equally and accurately translated as "trust" or "confidence", neither of which require full knowledge (a infant/toddler "trust" it's parents/surrounding).

Faith is NOT restricted only to those with a adult intellect (Psalm 22:9, Matthew 18:6).

Why should communion with God be given to those who have the ability to reason as an adult? What happened to Christians who grown senile in old age? What will happen to those who mentally challenge and are unable to comprehend?

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 2/7/11


If you do not understand that you are a sinner, you think you have no need of a savior. If you do not understand that Jesus died for your sins then what are you going to put your faith in. Understanding the very basic is necessary for faith in Christ.
---Harold on 2/7/11


\\Neither "Infant christening-dedication" nor" infant baptism" is scriptural.
---mima on 2/7/11\\

Yes, they are.

It's the "sinner's prayer" that is nowhere in the Bible--much less thinking that doing this WORK saves you.
---Cluny on 2/7/11


".... infant baptism" is scriptural.
---mima on 2/7/11"

While they are no direct reference to a infant being baptized, several Scriptures can be seen as supporting the Apostolic Tradition. Direct evidence of such a practice being done by Christians dates to early-mid 2nd century.

Mima, not every aspect of Judaism/Christianity was written down in books. Both written and oral Apostolic Traditions was transmitted to the Bishops, Presbyters, & Deacons (John 21:25+Acts 20:35, 2 Thes 2:15, 1Cor.11:1, 1 Thess. 2:13, etc.

Sola Scriptura is not biblical Mima. I will pray that you will be able to be free from the ways of mortal men and embrace the Apostolic Faith in it's fullness.

In IC.XC.
---Ignatius on 2/7/11




Neither "Infant christening-dedication" nor" infant baptism" is scriptural.
---mima on 2/7/11


\\Infant christening-dedication is appropriate, baptism is when they are of age to know.
---Sissy8493 on 2/5/11\\

"Christening" is an expression used for infant baptism.

Please show me "infant dedication" in the New Testament in a clearly Christian (not Jewish) context, giving Book, Chapter, and Verse.
---Cluny on 2/6/11


\\ Show me an infant whith this kind of belief and scriptural understanding and they too may be baptized.\\

Two things wrong with this statement:

1. Faith is not about "scriptural understanding," because, to be honest NONE of us have it completely. Faith is not a mental exercise, but a RELATIONSHIP in which God takes the initiative--and we know from diverse places in Scripture that's it's a relationship that can start before we are even born.

2. To say we must have "understanding" (Scriptural or otherwise) for God to act in our lives is to embrace the heresy of gnosticism.
---Cluny on 2/5/11


Infant christening-dedication is appropriate, baptism is when they are of age to know.
---Sissy8493 on 2/5/11


"The RCC has continued making up doctrine..."

What exactly does this have to do with the ORTHODOX Church?
---Cluny on 2/5/11


"But jerry sure has asked loaded questions that imply that!" (Cluny)

Yup! But such is the case of those who think they are wise, but are rather full of ignorance and lack of mental maturity.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 2/5/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Holidays


In the book of Acts when the Ethiopian eunuch: "...What doth hinder me to be baptized?" Phillip answered: "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." Show me an infant whith this kind of belief and scriptural understanding and they too may be baptized.
Baptism is for believers, those who already know Jesus as their saviour, not to impart salvation or any other 'spiritual' gifts.
---Harold on 2/5/11


To me, it looks like a number of people who were infant baptized have had nothing or little to do with God and loving all people. They have not become new creations as is guaranteed to "anyone" who "is in Christ" (2 Corinthians 5:17). They do not grow up loving any and all people, but so often have favoritism only for family members, one or two friends, and some romantic favorite > "if you love those who love you, what reward have you?" (in Matthew 5:46) These results are not scriptural!
---Bill_willa6989 on 2/5/11


\\I have never said that the Early Church Fathers believed that traditions and decision by councils can over-rule what Scriptures teach\\

But jerry sure has asked loaded questions that imply that!

**It is not in the bible nor biblical.We shouldn't stop children from learning scripture, but they should be at an age to understand baptisim.Infants donot understand, nor can they speak for themselves.**

Can Jewish male babies speak for themselves when they are circumcised?

To say that we must "understand" for God to full work in our lives is to embrace the heresy of gnosticism.
---Cluny on 2/5/11


"[Jesus]pointed out false traditions made by councils." (Samuel)

Which councils? Date and Place, please. While Christ and the Apostles pointed out the false traditions and false interpretations of the Law given by the Pharisees, they did not believed that everything was contained in the Written Torah. They openly defended orthodox traditions that was found in the Oral Torah.

For example, Jesus condemned traditions of man, but he held certain Jewish Traditions (i.e., John 10:22, Luke 16:19-31, "Abraham' Bosom"). Saint Paul condemned traditions of man (Col 2:8) but he also relied on certain Jewish Traditions (2 Tim 2:8). Saint Jude relied on extra biblical traditions as well (Jude 1:9,13).

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 2/4/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Insurance


"Please start a new blog and post your early church father sources who say that the Bible is not the final authority that Traditions and decisions by councils are a greater authority." (Samuel)

Please do not put words in my mouth. I have never said that the Early Church Fathers believed that traditions and decision by councils can over-rule what Scriptures teach. A rejection of Sola Scriptura does not mean one believe traditions can over-rule Scriptures.

If we are going to have a discussion, let's play fair. Stop the red-herring arguments.

In IC.XC.,
---IGNAtius on 2/4/11


No. It is not in the bible nor biblical.We shouldn't stop children from learning scripture, but they should be at an age to understand baptisim.Infants donot understand, nor can they speak for themselves.
---candice on 2/4/11


"The earliest extra-biblical directions for baptism, occurs in the Didache first century speaks to the baptism of adults only. " (Samuel)

Silence does not equal rejection.

"I do not follow councils that contridict the Bible. "

You do not follow councils that contradict your personal interpretations of the Bible.

"The only argument for it that holds water is that it replace circumcsion. But then you get the teaching that rites save a person not grace."

Rites themselves does not save, but according to the Bible and the Fathers, God works through them.

In IC.XC.,
---IGnatius on 2/4/11


"Please start a new blog and post your early church father sources who say that the Bible is not the final authority that Traditions and decisions by councils are a greater authority. " (Samuel)

I will not be able to since I could not fit all the quotation in less than 50 words. Would you like me to post citation and you and others go online and read them? Will you like me to list some books written by Protestant Scholars/Historians saying the same thing I have repeating said?

Please let me know and I will provide the references in this blog. After that, I can start a blog and discuss a Father's or several Fathers specific quotation and overall teaching, if you want.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 2/4/11


Send a Free Get Well Ecard


"one Council said that Iconography was wrong....contridictions in councils rulings. So why should we consider tradition be a greater authority then scripture? " (Samuel)

This is the reason why Orthodoxy follow the consensus patrum, and we do not follow a single Father's interpretation or belief. Nor do we believe one specific Father is infallible.

While it is true that one specific council condemn Iconography (the Council of Hiera 754AD), it is also worth nothing that in that same council, no patriarchs or representatives of the five patriarchs were present. Thus, such a council can not be deemed as teaching "the mind of the Church". It was headed by a iconoclast's emperor and local bishops.

In IC.XC.,
---IGnatius on 2/4/11


"tradition....greater authority then scripture? " (Samuel)

You are not understanding Orthodoxy. Scriptures is part of Tradition. The written Scriptures came out of Holy Tradition. Oral teachings of the Patriarchs and Apostles came first, and Scriptures later. In Orthodoxy, there is just Holy Tradition, which includes: Holy Scriptures, the Fathers, the Divine Liturgies, the Holy Ecumenical Synods and certain Local Councils, Holy Icons, and the Living Voice of the Church.

By the way, Baptism by Immersion was not abandoned. You got your history upside down, minister Samuel. I'll suggest that you read the books I posted below, written by Protestant scholars. Are you a well known Scholar/Historian?

In IC.XC.,
---IGNatius on 2/4/11


Dear Ignatius's

Please start a new blog and post your early church father sources who say that the Bible is not the final authority that Traditions and decisions by councils are a greater authority.

By the way one Council said that Iconography was wrong. Also there were contridictions in councils rulings. So why should we consider tradition be a greater authority then scripture?

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them.

JESUS answered it is written from scripture not tradition. He pointed out false traditions made by councils.
---Samuel on 2/4/11


The earliest extra-biblical directions for baptism, occurs in the Didache first century speaks to the baptism of adults only. Writings of the second and early 3rd century indicate that Christians baptized infants. Irenaeus of infants being "born again to God, three passages of Origen (185c. 254)[14] mention infant baptism as traditional and customary.

So when the custom of Baptism by Immersion was abandoned and false baptisms came in then infants were baptized. All councils were latter and I do not follow councils that contridict the Bible.

The only argument for it that holds water is that it replace circumcsion. But then you get the teaching that rites save a person not grace.
---Samuel on 2/4/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Dating


"Also the Apostles are all dead." (Samuel)

True. On the other hand, we have the witness of those who came after the Apostles (1 Tim. 5:22, 2 Tim. 4:1-6, 2 Tim 2:2, & Titus 1:5) that Infant Baptism was indeed an Apostolic Tradition, and not surprising, they did not believe in Sola Scriptura.

"The RCC has continued making up doctrine..."

What the RCC teach or do not teach has no place in the subject at hand.

What is important is whether a tradition can be traced backed to the Apostles, through the witness of Scriptures, the Fathers, Ancient Liturgical Texts, Local/Ecumenical Councils, and Ancient Icons. Infant Baptism pass the test in all five areas.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 2/3/11


If an Apostle taught a tradition it would not contridict what he also wrote. Also the Apostles are all dead. The RCC has continued making up doctrine even today. They place traditons above scripture and then use a single Bible verse to say it is okay. But which is the final authority A thus saith the Lord or we say so of men?
---Samuel on 2/3/11


Xavier,
It may not have come through in my words, but I agree with you.

I do believe that men are subject to error, but I aslo see in Acts where spiritual matters were decided by a church council, lots were cast to determine a replacement for Judas Iscariot.

I also see that some of the most inconsistent and unbiblical doctrine comes from some who espouse Sola Scriptura
---James_L on 2/2/11


James_L: that is fine with me. If Sola only means inerrant, that is fine with me

My concern is that OUR interpretation is subject to error, so we STILL need councils, teachings, Bible study, etc to clear OUR interpretation!
---Xavier on 2/2/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Treatments


\\mima: Your answer would be fine if the question was 'Is all scripture correct'

But that is not the meaning of Sola Scriptura (incorrect speling, I know): the meaning is that you need nothing else\\
---xavier on 2/2/11

That isn't what Sola Scriptura means. It means that only scripture is without error, and only scripture can bear authority in ALL spiritual matters.

It was aimed at the RCC, which the Reformers believed had replaced scripture with the notion that only ROME was without error, and only ROME can bear authority on ALL scriptural matters.

In fairness, if ALL is to mean ONLY in 2Tim 3:16 then we are to believe nothing a pastor says, we should not be subject to church councils, etc
---James_L on 2/2/11


\\The reason I believe in Sola Scriptora is found in---

Second Timothy 3:16,

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
---mima on 2/2/11\\

mima, Scripture itself also says, "Keep the TRADITIONS you have been taught, whether by our word or epistle."
---Cluny on 2/2/11


"The reason I believe in Sola Scriptora is found in---

Second Timothy 3:16," (Mima)

It doesn't. It only said that the written Scriptures (according to the context, Saint Paul was referring to the Old Testament Scriptures) are profitable (not sufficient) for doctrine, instruction and reproof. It does not say that everything that is part of Holy Tradition is contained therein.

Please comment on the Scriptures I posted which disproves your man-made dogma of Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura is a man-made tradition. I feel very sorry that you are in bondage to the ways of men Mima.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 2/2/11


mima: Your answer would be fine if the question was 'Is all scripture correct'

But that is not the meaning of Sola Scriptura (incorrect speling, I know): the meaning is that you need nothing else
---xavier on 2/2/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Affiliate Program


The reason I believe in Sola Scriptora is found in---

Second Timothy 3:16,

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
---mima on 2/2/11


If you're talking about the Didache, it also says that immersion is not possible, to pour three times in the Name of the FAther, Son, and Holy Spirit. Cluny

True. So the exception has been declared to be the rule and the only way to be baptized. Is that not false reasoning?
---Samuel on 2/2/11


Ignatius: '"I keep hearing that Sola Scriptora is a man made doctrine."

That is because it is.'

I have not fully understood, when they talk about Sola Scriptora, whether they mean we need nothing apart from scripture to guide us (no asking others, not listening to others interpret scripture) or if they mean (as I think they do) that all we need to know for scripture is CONTAINED in Scripture

That I agree with
---James on 2/2/11


If i were making a case for infant baptism, i would agrue that although there is no direct command to baptize infants, the principle of being born into the family of God and participating in the nessesary ritual even as an infant is clearly biblical.

When children are eight days old, they are circumcised and welcomed into the family of God. They never give cosent to be in the family of God, but as adults they can choose to leave.

i would agrue the same thing for infant bapotism. We do not have a choice to get into the family of God if our parents are christian, we have the choice to leave.
---francis on 2/2/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Abortion Facts


\\"....the very first church manual every written says to baptize by immersion. It was written before your sources at least all the ones I know of. So why is it wrong?" (Samuel)\\

If you're talking about the Didache, it also says that immersion is not possible, to pour three times in the Name of the FAther, Son, and Holy Spirit.
---Cluny on 2/2/11


Everyone here is considered a heretic by someone. So we're all heretics.
---John.usa on 2/1/11


"....the very first church manual every written says to baptize by immersion. It was written before your sources at least all the ones I know of. So why is it wrong?" (Samuel)

Who said that it is wrong? You? Certanity not I.

"By the way in all the oldest churces are baptismal areas set up for immersion of adults. Why are they there if they were not used?"

How do you know they were not used? I suggest you read Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries by Everett Ferguson, and Ancient And Medieval Baptismal Fonts by Daniel Kerran.

"I keep hearing that Sola Scriptora is a man made doctrine."

That is because it is.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 2/1/11


G-d Bless you Peter!
---John on 2/1/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Acne Treatment


-John: You commented on my comment about the jailer in Acts

You are correct in stating that the cildren did not have to be infants

I welcome you comments, so that I can mature in Christ

I will [sorry] say that the important part is actually not what I said but that the members of the household BELEIVED as a result of one member beleiving

If we look at the order, we are told (Acts 16:33) that all were baptised, and then that all beleived (Acts 16:34)

My concern is that, like infant baptism, the decision was not made by the same person who was baptised

I may, of course, be wrong

I am willing to hear if I make mistakes - i have mande enoug in my life

Blessings, John
---Peter on 2/1/11


I keep hearing that Sola Scriptora is a man made doctrine. Yet all the so called proof that it is come from traditions written by men. Now Ignatious you did not comment on the fact that the very first church manual every written says to baptize by immersion. It was written before your sources at least all the ones I know of. So why is it wrong?

By the way in all the oldest churces are baptismal areas set up for immersion of adults. Why are they there if they were not used?
---Samuel on 2/1/11


"Some churches speak a great deal about the Early church Fathers. In the Didache it says to baptise by immersion. So why is that ignored?
---Samuel on 2/1/11"

That is not ignored in Orthodoxy. Both Adults and Infants are baptized by [triple] immersion in Eastern Christianity.

In IC.XC.,
---IGnatius on 2/1/11


The jailer in Acts did have all his household baptised, including children
So it did occur in scripture!
---Peter on 2/1/11

NO IT DIDN"T!

My Children are 21 and 24 yrs old.

NOTE: It did NOT say Infants. Did it? (Open your eyes)

Again, as I posted before, ALL Heretics draw imaginary lines in scripture that are NOT there. They assume things in their own imagination and then make them Traditions of Men from these Phantoms of Scripture that DON'T exist. These traditions then get preached as "Doctrines of G-d" and become accepted as truth by the DEMONnation. (Same with Pre-trib)
---John on 2/1/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Bad Credit Loans


Samuel: you are correct in that it does not say how old they were.

The question, though, is a bit different - it seems that the children (and likely the wife as well) were baptised by the order of the father, without their agreement being considered necessary (at least, that is how I took it)

The point is that in that case, one believed, and then the whole household was baptised. Did they preach the Gospel to all and all believed? Maybe, but it is not stated. It is only stated that all were baptised
---Peter on 2/1/11


\\St. Augustine said unbaptized babies burn in hell. So I guess that settles it.\\
---John.usa on 1/31/11

He did teach that. What he did, to his credit, was keep his philosphy consistent even if it was unscriptural.

Unfortunately, he based this erroneous belief on the unscriptural notion that people are born spiritually dead.

If we are born spiritually dead, and if faith in Christ is the only means of salvation, then babies are doomed because they do not have the capacity to believe in Christ.

Problem is, though, the bible doesn't say we're bron spiritually dead. Physical, not spiritual, death comes to all men because of Adam.

Otherwise, how does Jesus escape, since he is "fully man"
---James_L on 2/1/11


"all recorded baptisms in the Bible always followed after believing.-mima "

And the Scriptures themselves teach that not everything are recorded in Scriptures, but many were handed through the Oral Teachings of the Apostles (Holy Tradition), which were safeguarded by the Holy Apostles' Successors (the Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, etc) (John 21:25+Acts 20:35, 2 Thes 2:15, 1Cor.11:1, 1 Thess. 2:13, etc).

In fact, there are several examples when either Christ or the Holy Apostles relied on Old Testament Jewish Oral Tradition (such as 2:Tim 3:8 where Saint Paul alluded to the commonly accepted tradition of his day).

Sorry Mima, but Sola Scriptura is man-made dogma. Do you accept God's word or men?

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 2/1/11


St. Augustine said unbaptized babies burn in hell......

I understand WHERE Augustine was coming from - his view was that if ANYONE did not either BELIEVE or BE BAPTISED he/she would end in hell

What do we think about that - what is our view of that - if an infant dies at the age of 2, where does its soul go?

I, for one, do not know
---Peter on 2/1/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Bankruptcy


"Basing whether or not we should do something on what others have done in the past is following "tradition".
---CraigA"

Yes. Christ, the Holy Apostles, and the Early Christians all did it. Saint Paul instructed the Early Christians NOT to follow anybody if they do not follow after the traditions they were handed down either by him or the other Apostles (2 Thes 2:15, 2 Thes 3:6, KJV)

BTW, why do you believe that the New Testament only contained 27 books? That's following "after tradition" of the Ancients!

Infant Baptism is indeed an Apostolic Tradition, and the witness of the successors of the Holy Apostles, Ancient Liturgical Texts, and Ancient Icons are proofs enough!

In IC.XC.,
---IGnatius on 2/1/11


Oh my, now St. Augustine is spinning in his grave, you guys.
---John.usa on 2/1/11


\\They were forever expelled from Protestant Christianity as heretics and damned to perdition and their membership were drowned or burned at the stake," while the statement is very true. It hardly seems the work of Christians to drown or burn others for their beliefs.\\

How about beheading them, or subjecting them to being hanged, drawn, and quartered, like Elizabeth I did to Roman Catholics, mima?
---Cluny on 2/1/11


---St. Augustine said unbaptized babies burn in hell. So I guess that settles it.
---John.usa on 1/31/11


Hahaha yeah. If only the Son of God would have thought to teach on the matter.... darn
---CraigA on 2/1/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Cash Advance


Considering that immersion in the mikeveh was ALWAYS part of conversion to Judaism (as it still is today), even for Gentile babies a Jewish couple adopts and intends to raise in the Jewish faith (as it still is today), it's certainly not AGAINST the Bible.

1 Cor 10 says they ALL were baptized into Moses in the cloud and sea, and the ALL ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink.

What part of "all" omits babies?

"Now, these things are for our examples."
---Cluny on 2/1/11


John.usa:

Yes, of course - because, as we all know, St. Augustine was the end all and be all of authority about Christian doctrine, and was incapable of error.
---Strongaxe on 2/1/11


Here is a very strange statement-----

"No church or individual that practices Believers only Baptism is Christian and their membership will never be in the family of God, because the practice is still hy."
---Blogger9211

In light of the fact that we all recorded baptisms in the Bible always followed after believing.
---mima on 2/1/11


\\St. Augustine said unbaptized babies burn in hell. So I guess that settles it.
---John.usa on 1/31/11\\

Even Roman Catholics reject this idea.

And St. Augustine is NOT the universal solvent he became in the West.
---Cluny on 2/1/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Counseling


"During the protestant reformation in Switzerland there were those who rejected Infant baptism known as Anabaptist or re-baptizers. They were forever expelled from Protestant Christianity as heretics and damned to perdition and their membership were drowned or burned at the stake," while the statement is very true. It hardly seems the work of Christians to drown or burn others for their beliefs.
---mima on 2/1/11


Peter where does it mention how old the children were in that Passage. I mean could his children have been in their teens or older?

Some churches speak a great deal about the Early church Fathers. In the Didache it says to baptise by immersion. So why is that ignored?
---Samuel on 2/1/11


Eloy, giving Acts 2:38-on, you are implying that the children were given salvation without faith in the gospel but v, 39 says, "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call" Only those God calls, was the promise made. V. 41 goes on to say,
"Then those who gladly received his word (gospel) were baptized, and that day about three thousand souls were added to them" Also to be baptized in the Gk. means to "be dipped or immersed" in water. The promise was for the children if they also were called by God and believed the gospel message. There is no other way into heaven but through faith in Jesus Christ.
---Mark_V. on 2/1/11


John: If you ignore all implication, you will not understand anything

The jailer in Acts did have all his household baptised, including children

So it did occur in scripture!
---Peter on 2/1/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Relief


St. Augustine said unbaptized babies burn in hell. So I guess that settles it.
---John.usa on 1/31/11


---Infant Baptism is most defiantly Biblical as it was practiced by the early Christians from the first century forward.
---

Basing whether or not we should do something on what others have done in the past is following "tradition".
---CraigA on 1/31/11


Infant Baptism is indirectly applied
-Ignatius

BUT NEVER WRITTEN!

As with ALL heresies they are only "indirectly applied" by someones imagination or interpretation of some DEMONnation.

These Phantoms of scripture then become "Traditions of Men, preached as Doctrines of G-d."

For how moronic is it to believe a baby can choose to follow Christ. Since there is NO written samples of this occuring in scripture NONE!!!

AND SO THE HERETIC SAIDS "INDIRECTLY"!

Watch out for RED FLAGS of Heresy talk...(i.e. "The Greek means this" or "Here he is talking to them, but there its to us")

THE TRUTH IS NEVER EVER "INDIRECT". IT IS TOLD BOLDLY!!!
---John on 1/31/11


\\Baptism is an outward act of an inward decision\\
---wii on 1/31/11

Can you show in scripture where "salvation" is a decision?
---James_L on 1/31/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Settlement


Scripture does not teach infant baptism. Can an infant confess his/her belief in Jesus Christ? Rather, Scripture clearly declares,

"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

"...many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized." Acts 18:8
---christan on 2/1/11


---Ignatius I read these text ( in: Mark 10:14, Acts 2:29, Acts 10:47-48, 16:15, 16:30-33. Read Col 2:11)

Did not see infant baptism. SO help me out here where di dyou see it?
---francis on 2/1/11


Baptism is an outward act of an inward decision - salvation of the one being baptized. It's an act performed by the one who has accepted Christ as Savior indicating they have died to sin and are raised as a new creature in Christ. An infant can't make a decision, therefore there is no purpose of infant baptism. Most churches I've been associated with over the years have parent dedication but not infant baptism. Colossians 2:12 (KJV) Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
---wii on 1/31/11


Yes! Infant Baptism is indirectly applied in: Mark 10:14, Acts 2:29, Acts 10:47-48, 16:15, 16:30-33. Read Col 2:11-12, where Saint Paul called "Baptism" the New Circumcision (cf. Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3) (infants was entered in the Old Covenant through circumcision, so infants enter into the New Covenant through the Divine Waters).

We also have witness from the early God-Bearing Fathers, Ancient Liturgical Texts, and Ancient Icons, that Christians was baptizing Infants since the early 2nd century.

All the Ancient Apostolic Churches in the East (Eastern Orthodoxy, Non-chalcedonian churches, the Church of the East, etc), Roman Catholicism, and Confessional Protestants have retained this Apostolic Tradition.

In IC.XC
---Ignatius on 1/31/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Distance Learning


Yes indeed: "Righten and be baptized each of you onto the Name Jesus Christ, in forgiveness of sins, and you all will receive the gift who's Holy Spirit. For the promise is onto you, AND TO YOUR CHILDREN. Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Obey up to the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, AND YOUR HOUSEHOLD. And taking them in that which hour that night he washed off the stripes, and at once HE AND ALL THOSE OF HIM WAS BAPTIZED. And bringing them up into the house, he set forward a table, and rejoiced WITH ALL HIS HOUSEHOLD, HAVING OBEYED THAT GOD. Acts 2:38,39+ 16:30,31,33,34.
---Eloy on 1/31/11


Jesus said, "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved, but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned." Christians are to go out into the world and preach the gospel. People are told to repent and then be baptised. An infant cannot repent for the child has no understanding of repentance, faith, baptism, forgiveness, grace, Jesus died for our sins, resurrection, the gospel, etc. Infants and small children are not able to understand and accept the gospel of Christ.
---Steveng on 1/31/11


Infant Baptism is most defiantly Biblical as it was practiced by the early Christians from the first century forward. When n a head of household was converted all members of the house hold were baptized including slaves and children and infants. During the protestant reformation in Switzerland there were those who rejected Infant baptism known as Anabaptist or re-baptizers. They were forever expelled from Protestant Christianity as heretics and damned to perdition and their membership were drowned or burned at the stake, regrettably some escaped. No church or individual that practices Believers only Baptism is Christian and their membership will never be in the family of God, because the practice is still heresy.
---Blogger9211 on 1/31/11


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.