Where are the infants baptized?

[Andrew P.C.]

Since i have seen alot of criticism from the Presbyterians, i was curious about where exactly they get the doctrine of infant baptism. With explanation of the text.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The title to the thread is strange: Where are the infants baptized?

Are you asking for the historical narrative that demonstrates a case of an infant baptism or are you asking for didactic teaching on the nature of the Covenant?

 

[Andrew P.C.]

The title to the thread is strange: Where are the infants baptized?

Are you asking for the historical narrative that demonstrates a case of an infant baptism or are you asking for didactic teaching on the nature of the Covenant?

Isn't the narrative supposed to be interpreted by the didactic?

 

[Andrew P.C.]

I understand that people use Mark 10:13-16. Here is something that Spurgeon writes about that passage:

"I. In handling this text in what I believe to be its true light, I shall commence, first of all, by observing that THIS TEXT HAS NOT THE SHADOW OF THE SHADE OF THE GHOST OF A CONNECTION WITH BAPTISM. There is no line of connection so substantial as a spider's web between this incident and baptism, or at least my imagination is not vivid enough to conceive one. This I will prove to you, if you will follow me for a moment.

It is very clear, Dear Friends, that these young children were not brought to Jesus Christ by their friends to be baptized. "They brought young children to him, that he should touch them," says Mark. Matthew describes the children as being brought "that he would put his hands on them and pray," but there is not a hint about their being baptized; no godfathers or godmothers had been provided, and no sign of the cross was requested. Surely the parents themselves knew tolerably well what it was they desired, and they would not have expressed themselves so dubiously as to ask him to touch them, when they meant that he should baptize them. The parents evidently had no thought of regeneration by baptism, and brought the children for quite another end.

In the next place, if they brought the children to Jesus Christ to be baptized, they brought them to the wrong person; for the Evangelist, John, in the fourth chapter, and the second verse, expressly assures us that Jesus Christ baptized not, but his disciples: this settles the question once for all, and proves beyond all dispute that there is no connection between this incident and baptism."

Here's the rest of his sermon:
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0581.htm

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Isn't the narrative supposed to be interpreted by the didactic?

Yes. That is why I'm asking. Your question seemed to indicate you wanted example of infant baptism.

Maybe i can make myself a little more clear.

baptizo {bap-tid'-zo}
1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)

2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe

I'm trying to understand where exactly they get the thought or biblical interpretation of baptism or why some "sprinkle" and others "submerge".

Here's a pamphlet that deals with the idea of pulling out a Greek lexicon to determine the mode of the Sacrament:
http://www.biblelighthouse.com/sacraments/baptism-whysprinkle.htm

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I understand that people use Mark 10:13-16. Here is something that Spurgeon writes about that passage:

"I. In handling this text in what I believe to be its true light, I shall commence, first of all, by observing that THIS TEXT HAS NOT THE SHADOW OF THE SHADE OF THE GHOST OF A CONNECTION WITH BAPTISM. There is no line of connection so substantial as a spider's web between this incident and baptism, or at least my imagination is not vivid enough to conceive one. This I will prove to you, if you will follow me for a moment.

It is very clear, Dear Friends, that these young children were not brought to Jesus Christ by their friends to be baptized. "They brought young children to him, that he should touch them," says Mark. Matthew describes the children as being brought "that he would put his hands on them and pray," but there is not a hint about their being baptized; no godfathers or godmothers had been provided, and no sign of the cross was requested. Surely the parents themselves knew tolerably well what it was they desired, and they would not have expressed themselves so dubiously as to ask him to touch them, when they meant that he should baptize them. The parents evidently had no thought of regeneration by baptism, and brought the children for quite another end.

In the next place, if they brought the children to Jesus Christ to be baptized, they brought them to the wrong person; for the Evangelist, John, in the fourth chapter, and the second verse, expressly assures us that Jesus Christ baptized not, but his disciples: this settles the question once for all, and proves beyond all dispute that there is no connection between this incident and baptism."

Here's the rest of his sermon:
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0581.htm

Andrew,

Are you having a conversation with yourself on this point? I just acknowledged that I would not use a historical narrative to determine the teaching on the nature of the Covenant. I would use this passage to neither support nor deny the issue of who the proper recipients of the Sacrament are.

What Baptists need to contend with, in this passage, is not that Christ baptizes them but that He uses a child as an example of faith.

 

[Ezekiel3626]

Since i have seen alot of criticism from the Presbyterians, i was curious about where exactly they get the doctrine of infant baptism. With explanation of the text.

emphasis mine

..The infants are baptized in States, Countries and Cities that have Presbyterians in them.



Oh..this wasn't a geography question?


IN front of the church?
On top of the head (where the water is usually poured or sprinkled).



Ah, our language is so imprecise at times....

Very classy, Trevor. Perhaps he phrased the question wrong in the title, but he did get around to asking two valid questions. Are you able to formulate an intelligent, adult response?

 

[Philip A]

IN front of the church?

Silly man, Trevor. Everyone knows infants are baptized at the font of the church, which is not necessarily in the front.

 

[VaughanRSmith]

Also, as an addendum to this thread, I'd like to know where women take communion?

 

[tellville]

This is one of the strangest threads I've ever read on Puritanboard....

 

[Theoretical]

This is one of the strangest threads I've ever read on Puritanboard....

 

[LadyFlynt]

To believe that Presbyterians and Catholics are the only ones that baptise infants is incorrect.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I could be terminated for letting you in on our secret.

I post this at great risk for my life.

[static]Bauer, this is the G-6, over.[/static]

[static]This is Bauer, over.[/static]

[static]Roger. Need you to send a tactical team over to the Manata residence. Stay out of view until I get there. Do you have the interrogation kit at your pos? Over.[/static]

[static]Roger. Wet Willy kit is in the van. Over.[/static]

[static]Roger, stay put. I'll be right there, over.[/static]

[static]Wilco, out.[/static]

 

[Theoretical]

To believe that Presbyterians and Catholics are the only ones that baptise infants is incorrect.

Continental Reformed, Lutherans and Anglicans also do (not for your reference, Colleen, but for the thread's reference).

I do not count Methodists because as far as I know from having been there their sacramentology is so nonexistent, it's just a natural inheritance from Anglicanism - it is that thoroughly non-doctrinal. I think they'd be credo-baptists if Methodists devolved from Baptists rather than Anglicans. Sorry for the dicta.

 

[Theoretical]

If you must know

We get the doctrine from our secret book. Upon becoming presbyterian, we are inducted into a secret oganization where we must take a blood oath promising to put our evil mark on children. We then howl at the moon and drink goat's blood. If you really want to know, that's where presbyterians get the doctrine from. It's been that way for hundreds and hundreds of years.

As far as explaining the text. We just train at explaining AWAY the clear baptist evidence. We dimiss the clear and obvious teaching of Scripture. Once we've confused you at how we could be so blind, we then assert that we have won the debate. We then have at least 30 peadobaptists come in behind us (in threads like this one) and talk about how well we argued.

We are all rich and control most of the theological book stores, banks, movie studios, and the US government. We make it so that baptists can hardly find a job, have children, and live the American Dream. Then the baptist, who wants to support his family, is duped into thinking we may have a point. He then U2Us a paedobaptist and asks him some questions. At this point he's so helpless that we could tell him that paedobaptism is true because sheep Mark 98:73 explicitly tells us that it is true. After the prospective cult member tels us that he's seeing our side, we then send him job offers, send our kids over to play football with his kids, and send our wives over to play cards with the baptist's wives. At this point the baptist converts, partakes in the above ceremony, and then is silent about the truth so that he can keep his job and newly found stature in the community.

All of this is found in the secret book.

I could be terminated for letting you in on our secret.

I post this at great risk for my life.

We really don't believe the Bible teaches infant baptism.

[static]Bauer, this is the G-6, over.[/static]

[static]This is Bauer, over.[/static]

[static]Roger. Need you to send a tactical team over to the Manata residence. Stay out of view until I get there. Do you have the interrogation kit at your pos? Over.[/static]

[static]Roger. Wet Willy kit is in the van. Over.[/static]

[static]Roger, stay put. I'll be right there, over.[/static]

[static]Wilco, out.[/static]

 

[CalvinandHodges]

That was good

Hay:

Paul Manata and SemperFideles are funny!

But to get more serious, though, concerning the Matthew 19:13 and Mark 10:13-16 passages, Matthew reads:

Then were brought unto him little children that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven (Mark reads: "Kingdom of God") And when he had put his hands on them, he departed thence, 1599 Geneva Bible.

Baptists make a big deal out of the fact that Jesus did not Baptize these children. But the fact is that Jesus did not Baptize anybody. Baptizing people was not a priority of his. So, what is the significance of this passage then?

Jesus refers to babes and little children of believers (for it was believing parents who brought the children to him to be blessed) as members of the Kingdom of Heaven, or, the Kingdom of God. Now, if a child of a believer is considered a member of the Kingdom of Heaven, then how much more so should the child be considered a member of the Kingdom here on Earth?

How can you refuse Baptism to a person who is considered a member of the Kingdom of Heaven?

As far as an example of NT Baptism of infants: We are told that "our fathers" received NT Baptism during the Exodus. When Israel passed through the water we are told that they were Baptized: That they all did eat the same spritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink - for they drank of Christ found in the similitude of a Rock, 1 Cor. 10:1-5.

Hope this helps,

-CH

 

[blhowes]

[static]Bauer, this is the G-6, over.[/static]

[static]This is Bauer, over.[/static]

[static]Roger. Need you to send a tactical team over to the Manata residence. Stay out of view until I get there. Do you have the interrogation kit at your pos? Over.[/static]

[static]Roger. Wet Willy kit is in the van. Over.[/static]

[static]Roger, stay put. I'll be right there, over.[/static]

[static]Wilco, out.[/static]

All (?) kidding aside, I have to commend Paul for divulging the secrets. It took a lot of guts and, quite frankly, life will never be the same for Paul and his family from here on out.

 

[BobVigneault]

I think you guys should take this thread more seriously. {I'm sure you've heard this one.}

"This afternoon, there will be a meeting in the south and north end of the church. Infants will be baptized at both ends."

 

[blhowes]

I think you guys should take this thread more seriously. {I'm sure you've heard this one.}

"This afternoon, there will be a meeting in the south and north end of the church. Infants will be baptized at both ends."

Sorry, Bob, you're right.
















...baptized at both ends

 

[CDM]

Since i have seen alot of criticism from the Presbyterians, i was curious about where exactly they get the doctrine of infant baptism. With explanation of the text.

The Reformed don't understand baptism and the recipient's of it from an isolated verse or two found in the synoptic gospels. You ought to start in Genesis and end in Revelation. Not beginning with Christ's public ministry and ending at His ascension.

To aid with this, one should ask, "Where exactly is the doctrine that God has cut off the children of believers from this new and better covenant?" Where is it taught that children of believers are accounted as heathen in God's sight? Not one Jew, not even one, made a peep about God casting aside their children that have always been in covenant with Him?

This is to say, if you approach God's Word with a scale to weigh Paedo vs. Credo proof texts you are going to miss the forest for the trees.

 

[LadyFlynt]

I was thinking of Methodists, but you are correct in your understanding of them. Also Nazarenes, but then they came from the Methodists. Episcopalians do also, I believe. And the Orthodox, though we can place that under Catholicism.

I just thought it was interesting that he quoted Spurgeon on the whole Godparent and crossing oneself thing...we don't do either...I believe Spurgeon was referencing the Catholics, which is a diffferent ball game in the mosh pit.

Continental Reformed, Lutherans and Anglicans also do (not for your reference, Colleen, but for the thread's reference).

I do not count Methodists because as far as I know from having been there their sacramentology is so nonexistent, it's just a natural inheritance from Anglicanism - it is that thoroughly non-doctrinal. I think they'd be credo-baptists if Methodists devolved from Baptists rather than Anglicans. Sorry for the dicta.

 

[BobVigneault]

Here's a tough one to get around.

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” 40 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.


Tha Anabaptists tried to get around this one by saying that 'your children' referred to spiritual children. There is no reason in the text to follow that reasoning. Peter is clearly speaking of the promise of adoption being extended to our children and sealed by the outward sign of baptism.

Some might ask, "Then is Peter saying our children must repent?". No, repentance is granted as an outward demonstration of our vital connection with Christ. Parents in covenant ought to show forth repentance, but the promise of adoption does not stop at the parents. It is extended to the children to enjoy the benefits of the covenant community and as they are quickened by the Spirit they may show signs of repentance as well.

 

[Davidius]

I think the thread became so strange and off-topic so quickly because this issue has been debated countless times already. The thread author can easily search for "infant baptism" or just look through the "Baptism" forum if he would like answers to his questions.

*shrug* I dunno, I haven't been a member of the board long enough to know protocol for things like this. Should we just start rehashing all the old arguments?

 

[CDM]

Here's a tough one to get around.

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” 40 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Not to mention its the exact same covenant language (which included the children) from Genesis onward . . .

 

[BobVigneault]

I think the thread became so strange and off-topic so quickly because this issue has been debated countless times already. The thread author can easily search for "infant baptism" or just look through the "Baptism" forum if he would like answers to his questions.

*shrug* I dunno, I haven't been a member of the board long enough to know protocol for things like this. Should we just start rehashing all the old arguments?

You're absolutely right David. Whereas the PB is evangelical enough to have Presbyterians and Baptists fellowshipping, the topic of Baptism obvious focuses on the matter where we are most deeply divided. There have been many discussions on this topic. Sometimes the debates were gracious and at other times they led to very unfortunate words and attitudes. The veterans will prefer to shy away and suggest that you search those threads. The newbies of course would like to test their swords out in the contest and I don't blame them.

So, if it seems like the veterans are avoiding the topic they are. If someone has a new slant to offer after reading through the older threads then I'm sure you will get a response from new and old members.

Baptism represents one of the greatest subjects of disagreement because of the important place it holds in our theology. We won't avoid it, but let's make sure we seek answers with a gracious heart and care for one another.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

He was just joshin' around. He meant no offense, I assure you.

Not to mention Trevor is a baptist too. So the criticism is doubly off.

 

[tewilder]

Silly man, Trevor. Everyone knows infants are baptized at the font of the church, which is not necessarily in the front.

This was debated at the Westminster Assembly. The English mainly wanted the infants to be baptized at a font at the door of the church, emphasizing that baptism is the entry into the church. The Scots (Presbyterians) insisted that infants be baptized in front of the church by the pulpit, emphasizing the supremacy of the word received by faith for salvation, and its priority over ritual.

 

[LadyFlynt]

On a very basic level, there is more evidence of infants and young children being baptised than there is against it...simply in understanding what entailed a "household".

 

[JKLeoPCA]

On a very basic level, there is more evidence of infants and young children being baptised than there is against it...simply in understanding what entailed a "household".

Agreed. And the usual argument that makes sense to me is one from silence. Being you take a people (the Jews) deep in tradition and prideful in their linage, introduce a new and better covenant that would exclude their kids, and there is no uproar or discussion about it? Not likely.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

THis thread became so off topic, and i feel the tension between some. I have a feeling Semper(the first to respond) is a little irritated... sry man. Plus, i know i can search it, but i just wanted to see the response, and see if you guys really know where it is in the scriptures.

Oh, and for the "smart" one talking about the scret book, sadly people believe and follow a church without even seeing if it's biblical. So, you could be right .

I read yesterday about "men of the word" who get together to talk about issues but do not even open their own bibles to see what the scriptures have to say. Rather, they try to reason. They sit around to debate without seeing what the ruler of the universe spoke on the issue.