Dialogue with a Baptist Pastor on Whether Infant Baptism is Indicated in the New Testament

  By Dave Armstrong
This occurred on a public Facebook page, that shared a post I had shared, having to do with a Baptist pastor baptizing an infant. The pastor's words will be in blue. I made a dumb and unnecessary remark (though not intended as a personal attack) that offended the pastor. I later apologized for it, and explained exactly what I meant, but here I include only the theological exchanges.
* * * * *
I do Baby Dedications, which is really more about Parent Dedication than anything else. Jesus told us to "Go... make and baptizo (not really the proper tense but it'll have to do for now) Disciples..." (baptizo = submerge... same word used for the process of dying cloth... same word for describing a capsized or sunken fishing boat)... Jesus didn't give us an example of baptizing infants, he gave us an example of Baptism as the first act of obedience of a believer. an infant cannot change his mind about sin and self determination, or believe that Jesus died for them.

I'll just go with what Jesus said...

Yeah, me, too; and with what the Bible says about infant baptism:

Acts 16:15 (RSV) . . . she was baptized, with her household, . . .

Acts 16:33 . . . he was baptized at once, with all his family.

Acts 18:8 Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with all his household; and many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.

1 Corinthians 1:16 (I did baptize also the household of Steph'anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)

Many biblical passages connect household and children (if indeed such a demonstration is necessary, so obvious is it: especially for that culture and time):

Genesis 18:19 No, for I have chosen him, that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice . . . (cf. 31:41)

Genesis 36:6 Then Esau took his wives, his sons, his daughters, and all the members of his household, . . .

Genesis 47:12 And Joseph provided his father, his brothers, and all his father's household with food, according to the number of their dependents.

Numbers 18:11 . . . I have given them to you, and to your sons and daughters with you, as a perpetual due; every one who is clean in your house may eat of it.

1 Chronicles 10:6 Thus Saul died; he and his three sons and all his house died together.

Matthew 19:29 And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life. (cf. Mk 10:30)

1 Timothy 3:12 Let deacons be the husband of one wife, and let them manage their children and their households well;

In other biblical passages, entire households are referred to as being saved:

Luke 19:9 And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham.”

Acts 11:14 he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.

Acts 16:31 And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household. 

That's a pretty long leap if you are going to be honest with the text.

Do you want to actually make arguments against these passages or be content with one sweeping proclamation that is no argument?

Then of course there is also the analogy of infant baptism to circumcision: an argument that John Calvin makes at great length. 

You might want to do a little diagramming of the acts passages you partially quoted and include the entire passage not simply lifting a word or two.

Okay, cool, Pastor [Name]. Show us how all those passages are out-of-context. That should be fun.

You made the leap from acts 16: "and their household too" which is probably the better English translation that it must include their infant children. It could mean adult children, they may have had no children... you are using a general term to make a specific point. Just from memory from my Greek classes, I believe the "and their household too" refers back to " they believed" a few verses earlier... I can pull out my diagrams if you need help.

So you maintain that whenever households are mentioned in connection with baptism, these could not have ever included children? 

I'm not going to trade the plain and simple meaning of words for the hypothetical. Show me where Jesus baptized an infant, or told us to baptize infants and I'll change my mind.

I just showed how the Bible massively does. Also, where in the Bible are we told that we can believe nothing that Jesus did not specifically or explicitly address? Paul dealt with other things in a depth of specificity that Jesus never did (as, I think, we would fully expect).

I also don't buy the premise that Circumcision being equal to and being replaced by Baptism as far as infants go. I believe that's taking the parallel too far. Circumcision was the identifying mark of the Jews in Covenant relationship with God a relationship which begins at at birth. Baptism is the first act of obedience of a believer a relationship which begins when one believes (or repents "metanoia), if you will allow me to use that word). Both are indeed identifying acts of obedience but each is dependent upon when the relationship begins. And since I don't believe infants can repent, I don't baptize infants.

You are assuming that this is true in absolutely every case; just as we are assuming that "households" generally included infants.

How could it be different? [It] seems pretty specific to me. In issues of salvation, and direct relationship with God, Jesus is the ultimate authority, and the final word. in issues of Christian living and sanctification... Sure I'll go with Paul James and Peter. but if you are saying that Paul gives a different gospel or another way to be saved than Jesus taught... I'd be careful with that line of thinking. 

Yeah, I know you said that. I asked, where in the Bible is such a notion found? I said nothing about a different Pauline gospel: only a more fully explained one.

Jesus also taught baptismal regeneration, which Baptists deny:

Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Paul seems to imply an organic connection between baptism (washed), sanctification and justification.

Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,

Compare this to John 3:5: Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, unless a man is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (cf. 3:3: "unless a man is born again ...")

The two passages are almost exactly parallel:

Titus: "saved" / John: "enter the kingdom of God"
Titus: "washing of rebirth" / John: "born of water"
Titus: "renewal by the Holy Spirit" / John: "born . . . of the Spirit"

 
And the NT teaches baptismal regeneration and salvation through baptism:

Acts 2:38-39 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; [39] For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him."

1 Peter 3:18-21 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Acts 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'

Romans 6:3-4 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. (cf. Romans 8:11, 1 Cor 15:20-23, Col 2:11-13)

1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

I believe what I believe because I have studied scripture for decades, not because I read a theology book once and picked a side. I have a class to teach in about 30 min. We can pick this up tomorrow.

I believe what I believe because I have studied Scripture for decades, too: very intensely and continuously since 1981. Meanwhile, there are several questions I asked, and lines of argument, that you have either passed over altogether or (with all due respect) have not adequately addressed.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only son. That who ever believes in Him, will not perish, but will be given eternal life" Jesus... Jn 3:16. If [salvation] was by baptism, don't you think Jesus would have included it here?

Not all theology can appear in any given verse. The same Jesus stated elsewhere: Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

With regard to the argument made from Jn 3:16: Peter, too, is preaching the gospel in the first Christian sermon in Acts 2, on the Day of Pentecost; and what does he include in his entire proclamation?: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38).

The baptism brings about regeneration. It's not merely a symbolic act after regeneration has occurred: ". . . for the forgiveness . . . ". Baptism is the agent or means of regeneration. Peter makes the idea of salvation through baptism even more clear in 1 Peter 3:18-21. 

I am curious to see how those who believe in adult, believer's baptism deal with all the passages that sure appear to suggest infant baptism.

See also this article by a traditional Presbyterian (OPC): The Biblical Basis for Infant Baptism.  

There is a reason (probably dozens of reasons) that this has been a debate between Catholics, Calvinists, and Armenians and many sub-groups and denominations over the last 400 years. I can quote all the proof texts for what I believe, and others can counter with proof texts of their own. . . . If you want actual answers to actual questions I will be happy to respond with factual honest biblical translation and interpretation from my point of view.

[but because I had offended him, this probably won't happen now] 

As an evangelical [1977-1990], I believed exactly as you do, and was "baptized" (full immersion) at age 24. I believe my actual baptism, however, was as a baby in the Methodist church.

I still am very curious how the passages I produced can be plausibly, consistently exegeted in a way that avoids the implication of infant baptism. Simply dismissing them all with a line or two does not do that.

[to be continued if the pastor responds anymore, and/or accepts my apology]

* * * * *