Something the Bible doesn't teach

Since in my last article, I discussed non-existent Bible verses, I think this week, I would discuss something that isn’t in the Bible, but people will insist that it is.

The idea that you have to reach the age of reason to be baptized. 

Before we get to it; 

Now, I’ve already dealt with both infant baptism and baptismal regeneration, here; An overlooked passage on baptismal regeneration and infant baptism , and have discussed being “born again”, here, Get born again.

Before we get started, I miss traditional animation

So, let’s get right to it.

There’s nothing in the Bible that teaches credobaptism, (at least not for the children of Christian families) for incidence.  I know people will appeal to this verse, “Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remissions of sin, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”. (Acts 2:38).

There are several problems with interpreting this verse to teach credobaptism, the first one is that this divorces it from the context of the next verses. 

So, let’s go to next verses, “For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.  And with many other words, did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

Then they that gladly received his word were baptize: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls”. (Acts 2:39-41)

I want to point out more, but, here’s the thing.  Why was the promise made to their children?  Why was that verse directly tied to baptism in the previous verse, and two verses later

Now, I am not arguing this proves you should baptize babies.  In fact, I wouldn’t even argue that based on Acts 16:14-15, “And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, the she attended to the thing which were spoken of Paul.  And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, if ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there.  And she constrained us.”

You’ll note something, Lydia’s household was baptized.  It doesn’t say “except for the babies”.  It doesn’t say “when they could decide for themselves”, it said household. 

Of course, I HAVE argued that the Bible does support infant baptism (I’ve already left the link).  So, obviously I think there’s support for infant baptism in the Bible.  What I am arguing AGAINST though, is the idea that one MUST be able to make a profession of faith to be baptized.  I think that’s what Peter is actually saying in Acts 2, he’s telling the parents that they can make a profession of faith on their behalf. 

At least that’s what I read. 

Adam Charles Hovey is the founder of the Catholicism news and what ever community on Locals Catholicism news and whatever community and is the host of the weekly Bible study, Coffee and Christianity