Timeline for What is the Biblical basis for infant baptism?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 8:57 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jan 8, 2014 at 22:49 | history | edited | Iulian | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Jan 1, 2014 at 16:13 | history | edited | Iulian | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 16 characters in body
|
| Apr 18, 2013 at 8:50 | comment | added | Ries | @Greg: My point is that these verses should not be used to support/justify infant baptism as it being done in many answers to the question posed here. If we dont know enough about the specific situation, the best we can do is not to make our own conclusions. The question of infant baptism should therefore be answered from other parts of the bible, and I find it difficult to support/justify infant baptism if the spiritual background and significance of baptism is taken into account. | |
| Apr 17, 2013 at 20:37 | comment | added | Greg | @Ries: Your first comment (which I agree with) says that you don't know the faith of the rest of the household who were baptised. So by that argument you can possibly baptise non-believing adults but not infants? | |
| Apr 17, 2013 at 12:52 | comment | added | Ries | @Greg: Which means we cant use those examples to justify infant baptism. | |
| Apr 11, 2013 at 23:41 | comment | added | Greg | @Ries I agree that Acts 16 and 18 doesn't say there are kids (I think there were but it doesn't say) but it also doesn't say if everyone in his household believed, YET the whole household was baptised. | |
| Jan 8, 2013 at 12:44 | comment | added | Ries | The examples such as Acts 16 does not say anything about the age (or more importantly the faith) of the members of the household. It seems that everyone just assumes that "household" means there were babies or children than we too young to put their own faith in Jesus. | |
| May 7, 2012 at 18:32 | comment | added | Thomas Shields | that's a really cool argument combining Matthew 19 and John 3. +1 | |
| May 7, 2012 at 18:32 | history | edited | Thomas Shields | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 69 characters in body
|
| May 7, 2012 at 18:25 | history | answered | Iulian | CC BY-SA 3.0 |