Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Acts 16:33 and infant baptism. | Acts 16:33 | Huron | 110046 | ||
I'm trying to settle in my own mind whether or not the NT gives any credence to infant baptism. If the word "household" includes babies in this verse, it is a small amount of evidence for infant baptism. I realize that there are no direct stories in the NT where the Apostles clearly and directly baptized infants, but I want to make sure I research the topic completely. I had thought that Philip's statement to the Ethopian Enuch (Acts 8:37) was airtight against infant baptism, but I see in Metzgers'Commentary on the New Testament Greek that the verse was likely added to the original text. No arguing please, but I'm hoping that those of you out there who have considered both sides of this issue will lend your thoughts! Regards and Thanks! Huron |
||||||
2 | Acts 16:33 and infant baptism. | Acts 16:33 | Searcher56 | 110057 | ||
Scripture ... Acts 2:37-38, 10:44-48, 16:30-33 ... It doesn't matter what tradition or the current (or past) trend is when the truth is trashed. I see salvation MUST preceed baptism ... and salvation requires calling on the Lord. Since infants cannot do this ... infant baptism is not Biblical. Note that the Catholic church believes that baptism saves. Searcher |
||||||
3 | Acts 16:33 and infant baptism. | Acts 16:33 | Huron | 110114 | ||
Searcher, Thanks for the input. I'm seeing merit in both sides of this issue: Pro infant baptism: The fact that Lydia's and the Philippian jailer's whole households were baptized introduces the possibility of infants being baptized. The New Testament was written at a time when all Christians were adult converts from Judism, or paganism. It makes sense for these to be baptized. The NT makes no reference to the procedure for baptizing those who were born to Christian parents. Should they not be baptized till they are old enough to chose to do so on their own? Baptized immediately? Should those be rebaptized once they reached a certain age? The NT doesn't say. Evidence against infant baptism: There are no clear and direct accounts were Christ or the Apostles engaged in the water baptism of infants, nor do they command us to do so. There are verses that talk about permitting Children to come to Christ (Mark 10:14 But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, "Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.), BUT there is no mention of baptism in this verse. When you see believing and baptism in the same sentence, believe comes first. (Mark 16:16 "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.) Based on that word order it seems that belief should proceed baptism, and it seems obvious that infants can't believe. At this point it seems that the evidence is inconclusive. I guess that the best strategy in dealing with questions like this is to not take a dogmatic position either for or against. Anyone else have any thoughts or points of view? Huron |
||||||
4 | Acts 16:33 and infant baptism. | Acts 16:33 | Searcher56 | 110172 | ||
"The fact that Lydia's and the Philippian jailer's whole households were baptized introduces the possibility of infants being baptized." ... There is no edvidence there were infants in either case (Acts 16:15, 33) ... nor is there anything that says there weren't, if we only look at these verses "The New Testament was written at a time when all Christians were adult converts from Judism, or paganism. It makes sense for these to be baptized." ... Is there Biblical evidence for this? The NT makes no reference to the procedure for baptizing those who were born to Christian parents. Should they not be baptized till they are old enough to chose to do so on their own? Baptized immediately? Should those be rebaptized once they reached a certain age? The NT doesn't say." ... Some may use the fact the children are called holy if one parent is a Christian (1 Cor 7:14) as saying they should be baptized or are saved. However, the spouse is sactified, the children can become unclean, by no act of their own (vs 14) and verse 16 mentions being saved. Evidence against infant baptism: There are no clear and direct accounts were Christ or the Apostles engaged in the water baptism of infants, nor do they command us to do so. There are verses that talk about permitting Children to come to Christ (Mark 10:14 But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, "Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.), BUT there is no mention of baptism in this verse. ... This verse is also not about salvation. When you see believing and baptism in the same sentence, believe comes first. (Mark 16:16 "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.) Based on that word order it seems that belief should proceed baptism, and it seems obvious that infants can't believe. ... The passages I pointed out, as well as others, prove salvation first, then baptism. |
||||||