Is infant baptism from the Bible?

Luke 5:32 ---> "I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance."


Anyone who has the capacity to sin has the capacity to repent. Once again, you completely destroyed your entire objection to infant baptism the moment you argued they have the capacity to sin.

 

Can you make your case why St. Peter was in error and you instead are correct?

 

He was right, its just your understanding of what he meant is "all wet"

 

I misspoke and should have said that you failed to include it in your bolded words. Why is that?

Please provide scriptural support for this idea please.

I have already proven this incorrect in my earlier post. The prophecy was not about baptism.

Which has nothing to do with infant baptism. This is a clear misapplication of that passage. Infants were not even in view in that passage.

 

I'll bold it for you if that makes you feel better. Here again are the words of St. Peter...

Acts 2:38-39 ---> Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."

Better?

Sure. Scripture defines sin as a positive act contrary to the law of God. (1 John 3:4) Infants do not have full use of their faculties and thus by definition are incapable of making a positive act contrary to the law of God.

I suppose this is another one of those coincidences many Protestants seem to think the Bible is full of? St. Peter references the Prophet Joel, who prophesied the coming of grace and the sanctification of the people, which included children and infants (those that "suck the breasts")...

Joel 2:16 ---> "Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the children, and those that suck the breasts: let the bridegroom go forth of his chamber, and the bride out of her closet."

Here is St. Peter again, referencing the prophet Joel whose prophesy is now fulfilled ---> "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."

The gift of sanctification promised by Joel is fulfilled now by receiving the Holy Spirit in baptism.

Sorry, but the Greek makes it clear it includes infants...

"Then were there 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 unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.' And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence." (Matthew 19:13-15)

Little children = παιδίον (paidion)

παιδίον =

1. a young child, a little boy, a little girl
   1. infants
      
      
   2. children, little ones
      
      
   3. an infant
      1. of a (male) child just recently born
   4. of a more advanced child; of a mature child;
      
      
   5. metaph. children (like children) in intellect

Source ---> G3813 - paidion - Strong's Greek Lexicon (KJV)

 

Yes, he was right. Glad you have finally come around.

---> 1 Peter 3:20-21

 

That does not fully address it try again.

Being Baptized is not in the Joel passage. I already covered this. Just because Joel mentions infants and at some point Peter does, doesn't mean you can insert baptism into the Joel passage.

Again that passage has nothing to do with baptism.

 

Sure thing...

Scripture says sin is a positive act contrary to the law of God (1 John 3:4). In order for one to make a positive act, one must have:

a. knowledge (intellect)
b. the freedom (will) to choose based on the knowledge

Infants are incapable of making moral choices because they do not have use of their faculties (the intellect and the will). Hence infants are incapable of committing sin.

Non-sequitur. No one has posited that Joel is discussing baptism. Rather, what Joel did prophesy is the coming of grace and the sanctification of God's people, which included infants. It is St. Peter who states the sanctification for God's people (including infants) promised by Joel is now fulfilled by receiving the Holy Spirit in baptism.

It was posted to demonstrate our Blessed Lord said not to hinder children (including infants), as the kingdom of God belongs to them.

 

Well that is the first clear description of your position you have made yet. However, Joel never said anything about receiving the Holy Spirit in Baptism neither did Peter. Joel talked about miracles as a sign of God's working. The Holy Spirit was obviously poured out on that day beginning in the upper room:

Act 2:1 When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place.
Act 2:2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting.
Act 2:3 And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them.
Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

There was no baptism involved here. Neither was it for the purpose of water baptism in order to provide grace (salvation) to anyone. This was also a fulfillment of what Jesus said:

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

None of these passages suggest that Baptism is the method by which on receives the Holy Spirit. In Acts 2:38 it is not saying that baptism is required for salvation. When it says:

Act 2:38 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.

The use of the word "for" can be used in one of several different contexts. It can be used to mean "in order to", "because of", or "with regard to". If I say that I am going to take my medicine for my illness I am not saying that it is to get sick but because of my sickness. So the context doesn't bear out the interpretation of those who believe on must and can be saved via baptism. Further, there are other passages in scripture such as Romans 10:9-10 that do not mention baptism at all. When we look at Romans 6 which singles out the topic of baptism we see it is a picture or a symbol of what Christ did and our identifying with Him in that.

 

Joel prophesied about the coming sanctification of God's people and that He would pour out his Spirit upon them. (Joel 2:29) Peter states the promise of the sanctification for God's by Joel is now fulfilled by receiving the Holy Spirit in baptism. He is explicit, as we shall see (again)...

Let's look at the words of St. Peter and focus on "for" and what that refers to...

Acts 2:38 ---> 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."


---> What does the Apostle say one does for the forgiveness of sins in the name of Jesus Christ?

---> When you say, "I am going to take my medicine for my illness", what are doing for your illness?

 

Sorry he just did not say that.

I have already explained this.

 

Sorry, but he does and is explicit. In Acts 2, St. Peter quotes the Prophet Joel prophesying that God will pour out his spirit upon his people (Joel 2:29). After hearing this, along with St. Peter's quotation of the Psalms, the Jews are cut to the heart and ask him what then shall they do. The Apostle answers how they can be recipients of the fulfillment of Joel's prophesy...

Acts 2:38 ---> 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."

No, you have not. And you have not answered my questions. Here they are again:

RE: Acts 2:38 ---> What does the Apostle say one does for the forgiveness of your sins in the name of Jesus Christ?

RE: Your example ---> When you say, "I am going to take my medicine for my illness", what are doing for your illness?


Here's the answer ---> If you think back to your primary school grammar, "for the forgiveness of your sins" is a prepositional phrase modifying the verb, which is baptized. Thus, the action by which the forgiveness of sins occurs is being baptized.

 

Simply claiming it doesn't make it so. You have not proven your case and it is in no way explicit. Not sure you know what that means based on your use here.

Well you were willing to quote the Greek grammar usage before but missed it here. However, even in the English language it has several uses. As I explained there is more than on use for "for" even though you appear to deny it. Further you have ignored the Romans 6 and romans 10 passages I gave you which speak of the nature of baptism (which is not a means of receiving grace) and that those who get saved in 10 are nowhere encouraged to be baptized.

Another example of this is in Acts 10:

Act 10:44 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.
Act 10:45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles.
Act 10:46 For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared,
Act 10:47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

Here we have the Holy Spirit coming on those who heard but not yet baptized.

 

Explicit = fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal:

St. Peter fully and clearly expresses that when baptized, your sins are forgiven and you receive the Holy Spirit and that this promise includes children. Here again are his words as quoted by St. Luke:

Acts 2:38-39 ---> Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."

---> Be baptized for the forgiveness of sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

1. Be baptized
2. Your sins will be forgiven
3. You will receive the Holy Spirit
4. This applies to your children

The Greek only further makes it clear. The word "for" is εἰς (eis) and it too is a preposition governing the accusative, and denoting entrance into, or direction and limit: into, to, toward, for, among..

Once again, if you think back to your basic primary school grammar, a prepositional phrase modifies verbs, which in Acts 2:38 is "baptized." Thus, the action by which the forgiveness of sins occurs is being baptized. This is true in English and Greek.


As for Romans 6 and Romans 10, how have I ignored them? That's like me saying you ignored 1 Cor 10. They haven't been introduced. Recall we are discussing infant baptism and Acts 2:38 was introduced because it contains an explicit statement that baptism includes children.

Lastly, we have evidence of the belief that baptism for the forgiveness of sins is part of the fidei regula because it is contained in one of the Church's earliest Creeds.


This attack on baptism was started by Zwingli, who was bold enough to admit his understanding of baptism was novel and that the Apostles and doctors were actually wrong...

"In this matter of baptism - if I may be pardoned for saying it - I can only conclude that all the doctors have been in error from the time of the Apostles...At many points we shall have to tread a different path from that taken either by ancient or more modern writers or by our own contemporaries." (Zwingli, De Baptismo, 1525 A.D.)

 

I made clear how you have ignored them and why they were introduced. Now I have added Acts 10 which you also have ignored. All of which further discredit your position.

 

Offer some sort of refutation to Acts 2:38 and infant baptism and then we'll tackle Acts 10.

 

Ok Another one I cant take seriously. I will leave you to your misery.

 

I was hoping you would actually formulate an objection and offer a refutation, but I graciously accept your white flag.

Best wishes to you.

 

People here believe they MERIT BAPTISM commanding God entrance into the holy family.

Clearly MERIT by age, MERIT by Choice.


Colossians 2

10and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; 11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.


Baptism is the circumcision of Christ.



Since, however, remission of sins is given even to the greatest sinners after they have believed, however much they have previously sinned against God, and since nobody is forbidden baptism and grace, how much more ought an infant not to be forbidden who newborn has done no sin, except that from having been born carnally after Adam he has contracted from his very birth the contagion of the primeval death! How, too, does this fact contribute in itself the more easily to their reception of the forgiveness of sins, that the remission which they have is not of their own sins, but of those of another!” --Augustine of Hippo, “A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants,”

 

Great post. It also explains why Protestants have re-defined what it means to be born again to basically the moment they decided to put down the bottle of Jack Daniel's.