Do you baptize their children?

JM · #11 22nd July 2011, 08:52 AM

Ok, thanks for folks.

jm

JustAsIam77 · #12 22nd July 2011, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by JM

Let’s try this again.

In the last thread I took part in I was more then rude and showed little patience or Christian charity on this subject. For that I apologize.

I understand your argument but you must recognize the logical and biblical inconsistency. If baptism replaces circumcision why should we not ALWAYS include the children of believing parents? Does a parent stop acknowledging their children as their children at a certain age? Of course not. They will ALWAYS be the children of believers so it’s illogical to argue otherwise. In the question I asked the children were still under the headship of their parents and should, according to the Old Testament practice be baptized.

I agree and put forth that scripture ALWAYS links faith and repentance with water baptism. We see the Bible consistently presenting baptism in the context of faith because of what baptism signifies. It is unbiblical to practice this ordinance in any other manner then what is prescribed and modeled in the New Testament. I asked about slaves…this can get a little dicey. Many Reformed paedobaptists would answer differently then you have. In the Old Testament the children of slaves and servants would have been circumcised regardless. They practiced household circumcision. You have a more baptistic response when it comes to the question about household baptism and adults. I say this with respect that you are not being as consistent with your import of the Old Testament model you claim to follow. In the question I asked would you baptize these children of believers, who were under the authority and headship of their parents and the answer following the Old Testament model would be yes.

I would say your line of reasoning would be contradicting the New Testament practice of baptism since, by conjecture, you have equated the physical circumcision of the flesh with the spiritual circumcision of the heart. You willing create "covenant breakers," which is impossible according to Jer. 31/Heb. 8, by baptizing your children. [If you have a look at the many Reformed commentators of Jer. 31/Heb. 8 you'll not find universal agreement on the covenant, if it's unbreakable or breakable, so the issue for the Reformed on this point is still up for discussion. It's not a closed issue and should not be presented as such.] If the new (administration of the) covenant is unbreakable as most believe the Baptist practice should be deemed correct. To say infants are "within the covenant community" needs to be fleshed out and explained further. The Dispensationalist makes the same argument, that by virtue of birth, infants of physical Israel are Israel.

You quoted Zwingli, so will I: “Nothing grieves me more than that at the present I have to baptize children, for I know it ought not to be done . . . If however I were to terminate the practice then I fear that I would lose my prebend [stipend] . . . If we were to baptize as Christ instituted it then we would not baptize any person until he has reached the years of discretion; for I find it nowhere written that infant baptism is to be practiced”

How about some Luther on the subject? “There is not sufficient evidence from Scripture that one might justify the introduction of infant baptism at the time of the early Christians after the apostolic period. . . . But so much is evident, that no one may venture with a good conscience to reject or abandon infant baptism, which has for so long a time been practiced.”

Thank you for taking the time to read my response. It's easy to forget how many areas of theology the subject of baptism touches upon until we open up such a discussion.

jm

In regard to infant baptism I am sure of one thing..opinions will not be reconciled in this forum, there is too wide of a gulf among members concerning the subject, however, it should not be divisive IMHO.

IOW we can agree to disagree with no harm within the Reformed community in general.

hedrick · #13 22nd July 2011, 06:48 PM

I just went through all the passages mentioning baptism in the NRSV. One thing I noticed that I haven't before is that baptism is most consistently seem as a sign of the gift or presence of the Holy Spirit, and secondarily as identification with Christ's death and resurrection. John's baptism is consistently portrayed as a baptism of repentance, but Jesus' is distinguished by its association with the Holy Spirit.

Faith is associated with it in Mark 16:16, but both faith and baptism point to the activity of the Holy Spirit.

Act 2:38 is the classic "repent and be baptized", but it looks very much like baptism is not the sign of repentance, but rather than after repenting and becoming Christ's, one receives the Holy Spirit, and baptism is a sign of that. Furthermore the passage says that it is for us and our children, and that it is for those who God has called.

Most passages refer to specific people, but two talk about being baptized as a household (Act 16:14, 1 Cor 1:16).

So, the emphasis in baptism is not specifically on decision, but on the key elements of Christian life: identification with Christ and the presence of the Holy Spirit. Obviously someone who comes from the outside starts these when he decides to be a Christian. But the NT recognizes that for many of us this is not strictly an individual matter. They show signs of the concept of a believing household. This is also present in 1 Cor 7:14, although without the specific reference to baptism.

In summary, I think there's precedent in the NT for baptizing households. Justification is not given. Based on the meaning of baptism I would say it is because infants growing up in a faithful household are in Christ and the Holy Spirit from the beginning, although certainly they can reject it. And in a traditional household, other members of the household may well accept the beliefs of the household as a whole, learning about Jesus and coming into faith when the head of the household becomes Christian.

But the NT simply doesn't answer the question of what age limits there are, if any. If I understand the justification, I would think you'd baptize someone any time they are actually growing up as a Christian. I don't accept a magic age of accountability. I think children take more responsibility as they grow. I believe even a very young child can be in Christ, and those who we can presume are growing up as Christians should be baptized. But at a certain age the responsibility for this moves from the parent to the child, and baptism should be at the discretion of the child. There is an intermediate range of ages when there responsibility is probably joint. At a certain point, I might have the parents take the baptismal vows, but only if the child consents to be baptized. Or possibly they both should take the vows.

In my experience, the most difficult compromises are for older children and young teens. Last year I was paired in the confirmation program with a 15 year old who was clearly a Christian, but had not been baptized as an infant. We do not typically baptize children between about age 6 and confirmation, because we think they're too old for infant baptism but we'd prefer not to do an adult baptism until they're old enough to make a real adult commitment. In principle, we should not have permitted him to participate in communion, but we certainly did. I think it would probably be better to baptise older children on their request, but certainly if they wanted to participate in communion. (In the PCUSA this is up to the child, but we're required to provide instruction in the meaning of communion. At least when I was part of it, there was an attempt to make sure they understood it.)

---------

My answer to the original question is that if the 17, 23 and 26 year old don't accept the spiritual authority of their parents, then we don't have the kind of Christian household the NT was thinking of. if they do, then they will be Christians, and there's no problem with baptizing them. If the family is new to Christianity, these older children should be instructed at the same time as the parents, and thus should be ready to be baptized at the same time. Quite likely a family with that kind of commitment to each other would want to wait until all members are ready for baptism before anyone is baptized.

JustAsIam77 · #14 22nd July 2011, 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by hedrick

Based on the meaning of baptism I would say it is because infants growing up in a faithful household are in Christ and the Holy Spirit from the beginning

This

JM · #15 22nd July 2011, 10:08 PM

Thanks for adding JustAsYouAre. The point remains and there is no need to continue.

lol

heymikey80 · #16 23rd July 2011, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by JM

I understand your argument but you must recognize the logical and biblical inconsistency. If baptism replaces circumcision why should we not ALWAYS include the children of believing parents? Does a parent stop acknowledging their children as their children at a certain age? Of course not. They will ALWAYS be the children of believers so it’s illogical to argue otherwise. In the question I asked the children were still under the headship of their parents and should, according to the Old Testament practice be baptized.

The argument involves the heart and the assumption of allegiance until demonstrated otherwise.

Abraham did oust a child from the family -- a circumcised one at that.

The difference in treatment is stated in NT Scripture, as I mentioned before.

JustAsIam77 · #17 23rd July 2011, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by JM

Thanks for adding JustAsYouAre. The point remains and there is no need to continue.

lol

Cool