Infant Baptism

First topic message reminder :

Should infants be baptized or should baptism be reserved for believers? And what age should that be?

John Chrysostom said " some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins" meaning that is true but here are many other reasons too. 

Where do the Apostles say they will only baptise adults?

Jehoshaphat wrote:I think we need to define what baptism is for; baptism is for the remittance of sin, and salvation of the soul, and the infusion of the Holy Spirit.

St John Chrysostom said this about infant baptism

St John Chrysostom wrote:"You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members"

Source: Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388] I can't post the link to the website I got it from.

There. I think he said clearly there that they are not defiled by sins?

War Doctor wrote:Where do the Apostles say they will only baptise adults?

Where do they say they baptize infants and actually mentions it clearly so no mistake? So the absence of something is the proof that it exists? Didn't you say that was a lame argument?

By personal sins 

Yes, proof by absence by itself is not proof. I'm saying from a very early time Christian's baptized infants and so there would need to be very clear evidence in Scripture that we shouldn't. Since there isn't I choose to go with what the existing evidence points to, that it was an accepted practice.

What is the difference between a personal sin and a sin? 0_0

And there is no way to attack the Early Christians. They were scripture themselves.

Sin being the result of living in a fallen world. 

I've never said that, I'm simply looking at the evidence. I'm open to being proven wrong.

Countess wrote:@Pound Cake So you can prove something by the absence of it? I thought WD just informed me that that was a poor argument. 

Yes, you can.You can't necessarily prove a negative. Not mentioning something doesn't mean it never happened. However, proving a positive is always easier.

It's just common sense really.  We read Lydia was converted by Paul's preaching and, "she was baptized, with her household." (Acts 16:15). This is just one of several verses like that, mentioning the entire household. If the babies are an exception, why are they not mentioned? Why, rather misleadingly, is the entire household encompassed?

The assumption is that there were infants in that household. Suppose there weren't any?

That would be unusual for that time period and unusual that every household mentioned in the NT had no infants.

The difference between personal sin and all sin. Personal sins are sins committed by the individual after the age of reason. Original sin is sin caused by our fallen nature from the original sin of Adam and Eve.