View Single Post
Old 12-29-2011, 04:55 AM
Vizion's Avatar
Vizion Vizion is offline
Hughes fanboy
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,218

Originally Posted by Chris F View Post
An infant is incapable of making a profession of faith.
I think you're onto something here Chris

First what is it? Baptism in the ancient was much like an altar call is today. Once one makes a profession of faith they followed that with a public profession and baptism. Phillip and the Eunuch is a great example. After Peters sermon was another.
Baptism is making a covenant with God. Without it, there is no covenant with God. Therefore, un-baptized children haven't been "flagged" yet ... but that isn't there fault, and this is why I believe it is legitimate to "stand up for" the child as an intersceder.

If Paul baptized kids I would need to see the verse. Vizion you said Paul baptized households which is true. The Philipian Jailer was an example. However it does not mention infants or kids for that matter.
Right, but that doesn't mean there weren't kids either. The word "entire" is a very, VERY big word and it could absolutley have encompassed a wide berth of ages inside thos family.

What it does say however is that he p[reached they believed and were baptized, Acts 16:31-34 So in this case it is clear that it was a believers baptism. I would need to see a verse that in its hermeneutic context shows any infant baptism. Then we can discuss it in more detail. I am u aware of any such verse but there are countless verses that show believers baptisms. Hope this helps sir.
Well, you're right that no verse indicating infant baptism exists, but its exactly why I defer to the covenant of circumsicion on the child's behalf. We have no context to show discontinuity, therefore we assume that continuity can be carried over.

If God so loved the world and Jesus commanded us to baptize "all nations" and to "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these" AND the Bible does not specifically exclude infants being baptized then where is the evidence to suggest its not right? Also, back to Paul ... remember he was talking about 5 households being baptized, not 1, FIVE. Its a lot to assume - and especially back then before birth control existed that none of these 5 households had children among them. ..

Please consider England in your prayers!
Reply With Quote