Babies without Baptism?

It does, however, record the apostles baptizing converts, but no one who didn't have faith first, and no infants.

 

It was a summing up of several stories, some I read, others I was told about by missionaries at prayer meetings. In fact just a couple weeks ago we had a missionary working in Indonesia tell us of a woman who became a Christian when Jesus appeared to her through a dream. the Jesus these muslims are encountering is the Christian Jesus, not the muslim one. It seems God is moving powerfully among muslims right now

 

I don't believe Jesus was a Christian or a Muslim he was a Jew... but I do get what you are saying.

 

yeah ok I could have worded it better lol Replace Christian Jesus with "the Jesus revealed in the gospels"

 

Good point Celtic1, but the new testament also records the apostles baptizing whole households into the church...
Acts 10 - Peter baptized the entire household of Cornelius.
Acts 16 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household.
Acts 16 - Paul baptized the jailer and his entire household.
1 Cor. 1:16 - Paul baptized the household of Stephanus.
From what I have read, in the cases where "household" is used, is comes from the Greek "oikos" which is inclusive of children. Also, in all these cases, the Apostles baptize the whole household on the basis of the faith of just one member of the household.

 

I did understand what you meant... but just had to say that one...

You mean the Saviour Jesus not the Prophet Jesus....

 

This article is by a former Presbyterian minister who came to embrace believer's baptism. I'll post the link and then an excerpt on NT household baptisms; this is the best thing I've ever read on the subject, and I've read a lot:

http://www.founders.org/library/malone1/malone_text.html


The "Household Baptism" Texts

The question of household baptisms has long been used to support paedobaptism. These are the baptisms of the households of Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian jailer, Stephanas, and Crispus.

Cornelius' Household (Acts 10:22; 11:12,14)

The account of Peter's preaching the gospel to Cornelius' household does not support infant baptism. Peter did preach the gospel to the whole household, and "all" the household was saved. How do we know that? Acts 10:44 and 11:15 state as much. The Holy Spirit fell upon them "all" and led them to repentance and faith (11:17,18). In fact, Peter explicitly stated in 10:47 that he baptized only those who "received the Holy Spirit as we did." This extension of Pentecost to the Gentiles clearly defined who was baptized. There is no mention of infants in the household, but only those who were "listening to the message" (10:44). Infants are capable of being regenerated by God (e.g., John the Baptist), and some may have been present. But they are not able to listen to the gospel and to "speak with tongues and magnify God" (Acts 10:46). Only the people who did this received baptism as a sign of the Abrahamic "promise" of the Spirit (Gal. 3:14). I conclude that the episode in Cornelius' household not only does not support infant baptism but is also a strong indicator for disciples'/confessors' baptism.

Lydia's Household (Acts 16:15)

The case of Lydia is inconclusive. Where was Lydia's husband? She may not have been married at all. Only women are mentioned at the riverbank. And it appears that she and her household were baptized at the river before she took Paul back to her house. This opens the probability that only women were in her household (every member of which was probably at the riverbank with her) and that she was an unmarried or widowed businesswoman. Even if this is not entirely accurate, there is no mention of infants or older children in her household. Even many paedobaptists hold this instance of household baptism as inconclusive for their position.

Philippian Jailer's Household (Acts 16:30-34)

The account of the Philippian jailer is probably the best possibility for including infants in the household baptism. All his household was baptized, but it is wrong to apply the promise of verse 31 to the "covenantal baptism" of the household based upon the jailer's faith. This is clearly demonstrated in the following verses, where it is recorded that Paul and Silas preached the gospel to "all who were in his house" (v. 32) and that "all his household" (v. 34) believed in God with him.

There is a translation problem with this text that needs to be examined. J. A. Alexander (Acts) agrees that v. 31 is simply a promise of salvation by faith to the jailer and his household upon belief by both. Verse 34 is more complicated. The NASB, NIV, KJV, Williams, and Beck translations indicate that the faith which was shared by his whole household was the basis for their rejoicing: "having believed in God with his whole household." However, the participle is masculine, singular and seems to describe the faith of the jailer: "He greatly rejoiced with his whole household, having believed [that is, the jailer] in God." The emphasis seems to be that the household rejoiced with him because he had found faith (RSV, NEB).

Even if the latter interpretation is correct, we still have the problem of infants rejoicing. It is true that infants can detect and participate in joy in a household. But can infants rejoice because they realize their father has found faith in God? This may well be the basis for the whole household's rejoicing. However, because of the context in preaching the Word to all in the house and because all were resultingly baptized, I believe their rejoicing was the same as the jailer's rejoicing–the evidence of a new-found faith and redemption expressed in the joy of the Holy Spirit's regeneration. Because they all heard the gospel, were baptized, and rejoiced, it is a legitimate conclusion that they all believed. He and his "whole household" were baptized because they all believed. Can infants hear the Word and respond in faith? No. If infants were present, for which there is no proof, the context denies that they were baptized. In fact, the context suggests that no infants were present. This case of household baptism actually lends support to confessors' baptism.

Crispus' Household (Acts 18:8)

A related case which supports the same conclusion concerns the household of Crispus. Here is a definite account concerning baptism in which the whole household, along with Crispus, believed in the Lord. It should also be noted that in the same verse, the other Corinthians who were baptized had first believed. It seems clear that the whole household first believed and then were baptized. This case also positively supports confessors' baptism within households.

Stephanas' Household (1 Cor. 1:16)

The last household baptism mentioned in the New Testament is that of Stephanas by Paul. The thrust of this text is that the baptized believers were in division and controversy over who baptized them. It seems they were capable of knowing who baptized them, thus excluding infants. Further, 1 Cor. 16:15 describes the "household of Stephanas" as having devoted themselves for ministry to the saints. Infants cannot self-consciously devote themselves in such a way. Yet even if this does not prohibit infants in the household of Stephanas, the most that can be said is that we do not know if infants were present. At best, this account is inconclusive for infant baptism.

In summary, the accounts of Lydia's and Stephanas' households are inconclusive, while the accounts of Cornelius', Crispus', and the jailer's households actually point to conscious belief and regeneration before baptism. Therefore, I conclude that the weight of the household baptisms leans toward confessors' baptism.

 

Thanks for the link. It's an interesting perspective on the subject. But like the author said, the worst he can say is that the issue is "inconclusive", in the absence of a clear command not to baptize infants, coupled with the understanding that baptism is the new testament circumcision, which in the old covenant was routinely performed on infants, and what I consider to be the overwhelming consensus of the churh fathers and Tradition, it's my opinion that infant baptism is a good and holy practice.

 

I think the Presbyterians with their idea of covenant have the strongest argument for the practice. However, in the OT, the covenant had a nationalistic aspect, whereas the New Covenant does not; therefore, I do not believe water baptism is the NT circumcision. I like what the author of this article says about that.

I have long had a problem with infant baptism. I think it developed because of a wrong idea about sin/original sin. I don't really see any use or point in infant baptism. I suppose it could be used to say that children of believers are in the covenant, but the General Baptists say in their statement of faith that "We believe that infants are in the covenant of God's grace", and they of course do not practice infant baptism. So, I believe that infants of believing parents are already in a sense in the covenant, regardless of whether or not they are baptized with water. My Communion allows liberty of conscience on infant baptism, and ministers may perform it or not based on their personal beliefs. So, we allow both infant and believer's baptism , and also infant dedications. I like that freedom.

 

I am enjoying this thread. See, this is proof discussion and disagreement can be had without resorting to name calling and insults.

I don't even mind heated discussion, which also can be had without insults. Sometimes clarity of one's beliefs can be reached as a result of heated discussion. "Iron sharpens iron".

 

I hear what you are saying Celtic1, but if I was part of the communion that you belong to I would expect all ministers to be consistent in what they do, it should either be or be out IMHO.

In reality isn't infant Baptism a dedication ceremony anyway. The God Parents make the promises on behalf of the child, and the whole congregation are including the parents and God parents are given the responsibility of welcoming the child into the Church and a charged with making sure the child is taught about his/her faith system. I see no difference with the concept of baptism/confirmation then with adult baptism.

 

1. So you think a forced either/or is better than an inclusive both/and, or in this case all three/and. The Church of the Nazarene allows infant baptism, believer's baptism, and infant dedication, and I agree with them on this. And so does our jurisdiction. And all our ministers are consistent -- consistently for liberty of conscience.

2. Except with infant baptism, the child does not get to experience his/her baptism and remember it.

 

Hi Celtic with regards to 2... that is why I said baptism/confirmation I cannot remember my baptism because I was only 2 months old but I do remember my confirmation vividly and the studies of the catechism we did prior to confirmation.

Regarding 1... I am not sure why you are using words like forced I don't believe I said that or implied it... I was referring to consistency of church rule/practice. What your saying is that it is not up to the parents as to whether they have their child baptised it is up to what the local minister believes... that is the point I was making.

 

Well, I believe we are somewhat misunderstanding each other. I do believe it is up to the parents whether to have their child baptized or not, but I also believe the conscience of the minister must also be respected and that he/she not be required to perform infant baptisms against his/her conscience or will.

I think I know what is coming next, but I'll wait and see.

In the meantime, let me ask you: Do you wish you had been able to experience baptism at your profession of faith?

 

We will just to agree to disagree.

No I saw my confirmation as my personal profession of faith.

 

I know, but do you ever wish that you had not been baptized until you could have experienced it and remembered doing so?

 

No

 

I wrote a whole bunch in response, but ended erasing it all in the end . I think that in simple terms we can formulate salvation not in terms of faith, but in terms of adoption. Faith is only a means of being adopted into the body of Christ, the 'regular' means.

You know the post-modern assault that Christianity is undergoing in our age? I think you've unwittingly been an accomplice of it here

You're compromising the meanings for terms like "faith", "conversation", "reasonable conversation", in order to formulate a theological answer, instead of, using propositions with independent meanings to formulate an objective truth. Language has to be a tool for understanding of truth, using independent propositions. "Our" truth has to fit into propositional independent terms, and not, independent propositions that have to fit to our truth.

All that is a long way of saying that faith can't be other than the definition of it: a form of rational decision; an active assent to things spiritual. That's what we mean when we say 'you ought to have faith'. Those who cannot decide, can't make this decision. Those who can't hear, or understand the options likewise can't make this decision.

But, if we look at the definition of a vegetative state, it is defined as not having human or even animal faculties, but only vegetative ones. It is not only lacking rational consciousness, but consciousness of any kind. As a tree isn't conscious, so is a person in a vegetative state. How can that entity possess what we mean by the word faith?

Right, and I know of others you haven't cited as well.

What I would say simply to that is all of these can be viewed as instances of calling, not faith. As Jeremiah says that God 'knew him in the womb', it's an instance of God's drawing to him who will be His. We can think of other elements in salvation than pure act of faith, which is just one item and not the whole.

 

I am agreeing with you here, I saw my confirmation as my profession of faith as well
But I have to say that I do wish I could remember my baptism as well, because isn't baptism supposed to be the symbol of a persons profession of faith, no where, that I know of, in the bible does it say anything about someone being baptised and then having to technically be baptised again so the child can profess to something which should have been present at the original baptism.

 

Baptism is the means into the New Covenant just as circumcision was for the Old Covenant, we could ask the same question of Circumcision in the Old but it comes down to we just don't know. We must trust God to do as He wills, we can do no other.