Why Some Churches Practice Infant Baptism and others do not.

[Ernie]

The hatred towards other Christians is horrific

I don't know that there is any hatred on MN towards other Christians. I sense anger towards those who call themselves Christian but are not following Jesus's teaching and example. Jesus got angry about this in the New Testament. The Apostles got angry (righteous indignant) about this. And I think this should stir anger in Christians today as well.

[Sudsy]

The hatred towards other Christians is horrific

I don't know that there is any hatred on MN towards other Christians. I sense anger towards those who call themselves Christian but are not following Jesus's teaching and example. Jesus got angry about this in the New Testament. The Apostles got angry (righteous indignant) about this. And I think this should stir anger in Christians today as well.

“Be angry, and do not sin”: do not let the sun go down on your wrath, Eph 4:26

I believe our anger should not be toward people but toward untruths. And there is a way to be angry and actually be sinning in our anger. Things like responding out of revenge and/or an unforgiving attitude. When it develops into hatred or contempt for another. Slandering one another over our beliefs.

Scripture says our conversation should be wholesome, helpful, building up of others, prayerful, thankful, peaceful, holy, obedient, good, not slandering, considerate, gentle, and loving. And there are more of these that could be added.

I know in my zeal for certain truths and in my anger regarding what I think are lies, I have sinned. When angry, it is easy to give way to our flesh, the old man. That is why we must be continuously filled with the Spirit and give Him control in our lives.

To the subject, perhaps I have this wrong and am open to correction but it seems to me the need for infant baptism found in scriptures is that new born babies were deemed to be born in sin and since water baptism was considered to have saving properties, these new borns need to be quickly baptised in water to keep them from going to hell. Those who do not follow this practise believe that a child reaches a certain age where they understand they need to repent as a sinner to be saved and upon their statement of belief in Jesus they are then baptised. Some give this a specific age (i.e. 12), others leave that age open to what the child can understand. I was immersed at age 7. And this later baptism has no saving properties but rather is an act of obedience to what is believed a new Christian should do.

[Ernie]

So here are the conclusions I am drawing from so far....

1. The New Testament does not forbid infant baptism, but neither does it affirm infant baptism.
2. The New Testament instructions for those being baptized cannot be accomplished by an infant.
3. The New Testament talks about households being baptized but there is no indication that infants were part of those households.

I agree with the following conclusions as well…

Regarding baptism of infants I have often heard this text used - Acts 16:33 - And he took them the same hour of the night and bathed [them because of their bloody] wounds, and he was baptized immediately and all [the members of] his [household]. AMP. Some believe this leaves the door open for children in the household to have been baptised. Pretty weak support in my opinion.

Yes, that argument is used. But then those same people don't want to talk about Acts 10:2 (Cornelius, along with his whole household, feared God), or Acts 18:8 (Crispus believed in the Lord together with his entire household).

As for the history of infant baptism, I think the following is true:
1. The NT does not mention infant baptism. The reasons given for baptism do not seem to apply to infants.
2. The Apostolic Fathers do not mention infant baptism.
3. Infant baptism is first mentioned around 180 AD.

I don't believe that baptizing a baby does anything other than get them wet, and that baptizing an adult who is not cognizant, repentant, or does not believe in Jesus accomplishes the same. Nothing.

So it seems to me that one of the generations shortly after the apostles, perhaps as soon as the first or second generation, failed to pass on good theology regarding baptism. This led to the gradual but fairly uncontroversial acceptance of infant baptism (no vitriolic splits or accusations of heresy involved).

People believe that Christians can kill people because Jesus asked the disciples if they had any swords and Jesus said it was enough.
People believe it is fine to deceive people because Jesus appears to have done so in John 7:8-10
People believe it is fine to baptize infants because households probably had infants.
People believe it is fine to pray to deceased saints because they are still part of the body of Christ and the NT does not forbid it.
People believe in purgatory and base it on 1 Peter 1:6-7 and 1 Corinthians 3:13-15.

It seems to me that arriving at ones beliefs, conclusions, practices in the manner I just described has a numbing and blinding effect on people. It obscures hundreds of millions of people from really seeing what the NT is all about and giving themselves fully to what is actually taught, and to the example of Jesus.

[Valerie]

So here are the conclusions I am drawing from so far....

1. The New Testament does not forbid infant baptism, but neither does it affirm infant baptism.
2. The New Testament instructions for those being baptized cannot be accomplished by an infant.
3. The New Testament talks about households being baptized but there is no indication that infants were part of those households.

I agree with the following conclusions as well…

Regarding baptism of infants I have often heard this text used - Acts 16:33 - And he took them the same hour of the night and bathed [them because of their bloody] wounds, and he was baptized immediately and all [the members of] his [household]. AMP. Some believe this leaves the door open for children in the household to have been baptised. Pretty weak support in my opinion.

Yes, that argument is used. But then those same people don't want to talk about Acts 10:2 (Cornelius, along with his whole household, feared God), or Acts 18:8 (Crispus believed in the Lord together with his entire household).

As for the history of infant baptism, I think the following is true:
1. The NT does not mention infant baptism. The reasons given for baptism do not seem to apply to infants.
2. The Apostolic Fathers do not mention infant baptism.
3. Infant baptism is first mentioned around 180 AD.

I don't believe that baptizing a baby does anything other than get them wet, and that baptizing an adult who is not cognizant, repentant, or does not believe in Jesus accomplishes the same. Nothing.

So it seems to me that one of the generations shortly after the apostles, perhaps as soon as the first or second generation, failed to pass on good theology regarding baptism. This led to the gradual but fairly uncontroversial acceptance of infant baptism (no vitriolic splits or accusations of heresy involved).

People believe that Christians can kill people because Jesus asked the disciples if they had any and Jesus said it was enough.
People believe it is fine to deceive people because Jesus appears to have done so in John 7:8-10
People believe it is fine to baptize infants because households probably had infants.
People believe it is fine to pray to deceased saints because they are still part of the body of Christ and the NT does not forbid it.
People believe in purgatory and base it on 1 Peter 1:6-7 and 1 Corinthians 3:13-15.

It seems to me that arriving at ones beliefs, conclusions, practices in the manner I just described has a numbing and blinding effect on people. It obscures hundreds of millions of people from really seeing what the NT is all about and giving themselves fully to what is actually taught, and to the example of Jesus.

If you haven't engaged in a tual conversations many times with those who believe in the ancient practice of infant baptism, it can as you say "seem" the way you see it. However once you have dismissed that assumption and actually realize that these folks DO take the Holy Scriptures and Gospel seriously but may interpret "some" of it differently or may make more spiritual application than some denominations I used to feel the same way. We have spent a great deal of time with these folks to draw then the same conclusion now. We no longer wanted to see those as supporters of infant baptism as wrong when we knew too many devout Christians who believe this way.

We had a member here for years who journeyed from another Protestant denomination to Anabaptism and took that serious. Surprisingly, he left Anabaptism for Eastern Orrhodoxy- certainly he overcame some bumps in the road of that journey. I don't know where Stoltz is these days but last I heard he was heading into EO. These are people who took Jesus words very serious. Same with the believed Theosis who converted from Mennonite to EO. I would not accuse any of these as not being serious Christians. The apparent tradition was that your baptized children who were formerly unclean, became Holy and then were raised in the nurture and admonishment of the Lord. They were then "added to the Church" . Granted, the ancient churches do not believe once saved always saved nor dismisses free will so one baptized young still must stay the course. Whether children or adults, it's possible after baptism to fall away. By your own free will.

[Josh]

The fact some Anabaptists become apostate and turn to Eastern Orthodoxy is not an endorsement of it at all. I will take EO seriously once I see them get together and decide to end this war between Russia and the Ukraine.

[Valerie]

The fact some Anabaptists become apostate and turn to Eastern Orthodoxy is not an endorsement of it at all. I will take EO seriously once I see them get together and decide to end this war between Russia and the Ukraine.

The fact that Jews of OT had evil and went to war did not make the religion itself Apostate. You do need to learn the difference.

[Soloist]

The fact some Anabaptists become apostate and turn to Eastern Orthodoxy is not an endorsement of it at all. I will take EO seriously once I see them get together and decide to end this war between Russia and the Ukraine.

The fact that Jews of OT had evil and went to war did not make the religion itself Apostate. You do need to learn the difference.

The Religion is Christianity, not Orthodox.
The fact that Orthodoxy is corrupt and wages war against their so called brothers does not impact Christianity but it does make them apostate.

Those who were apostate were not pardoned or shown mercy just because they belonged to Abrahams seed. Nor does God spare the corrupt because they had hands laid upon through history back to possibly the apostles.

[Valerie]

The fact some Anabaptists become apostate and turn to Eastern Orthodoxy is not an endorsement of it at all. I will take EO seriously once I see them get together and decide to end this war between Russia and the Ukraine.

The fact that Jews of OT had evil and went to war did not make the religion itself Apostate. You do need to learn the difference.

The Religion is Christianity, not Orthodox.
The fact that Orthodoxy is corrupt and wages war against their so called brothers does not impact Christianity but it does make them apostate.

Those who were apostate were not pardoned or shown mercy just because they belonged to Abrahams seed. Nor does God spare the corrupt because they had hands laid upon through history back to possibly the apostles.

All that has nothing to do with the ancient practice of baptizing a Christians infants & children and the other "Protestant" denominations that believe to do so too, which is what this topic was about. Bad behavior does not negate what was taught. We have visited probably 12 different Orthodox congregations. We spent about a year in one and visit periodically and these are very devout Christians. I refuse to see these people as Apostate no matter what's going on. Jesus did not write off the Jews nor did Paul because they messed up and God did command war so that doesn't make their teachings wrong - any more than bad Jews made the teachings wrong

[mike]

The fact that Jews of OT had evil and went to war did not make the religion itself Apostate. You do need to learn the difference.

The Religion is Christianity, not Orthodox.
The fact that Orthodoxy is corrupt and wages war against their so called brothers does not impact Christianity but it does make them apostate.

Those who were apostate were not pardoned or shown mercy just because they belonged to Abrahams seed. Nor does God spare the corrupt because they had hands laid upon through history back to possibly the apostles.

All that has nothing to do with the ancient practice of baptizing a Christians infants & children and the other "Protestant" denominations that believe to do so too, which is what this topic was about. Bad behavior does not negate what was taught. We have visited probably 12 different Orthodox congregations. We spent about a year in one and visit periodically and these are very devout Christians. I refuse to see these people as Apostate no matter what's going on. Jesus did not write off the Jews nor did Paul because they messed up and God did command war so that doesn't make their teachings wrong - any more than bad Jews made the teachings wrong

Ancient does not equate to what Jesus and the apostles taught in the scriptures. Christianity is about following Jesus.

[Judas Maccabeus]

The Religion is Christianity, not Orthodox.
The fact that Orthodoxy is corrupt and wages war against their so called brothers does not impact Christianity but it does make them apostate.

Those who were apostate were not pardoned or shown mercy just because they belonged to Abrahams seed. Nor does God spare the corrupt because they had hands laid upon through history back to possibly the apostles.

All that has nothing to do with the ancient practice of baptizing a Christians infants & children and the other "Protestant" denominations that believe to do so too, which is what this topic was about. Bad behavior does not negate what was taught. We have visited probably 12 different Orthodox congregations. We spent about a year in one and visit periodically and these are very devout Christians. I refuse to see these people as Apostate no matter what's going on. Jesus did not write off the Jews nor did Paul because they messed up and God did command war so that doesn't make their teachings wrong - any more than bad Jews made the teachings wrong

Ancient does not equate to what Jesus and the apostles taught in the scriptures. Christianity is about following Jesus.

Exactly. A church does not and cannot save you, only Jesus can.