Presbyterian Paedobaptism

I'm not a Presbyterian, but , as I understand it - and I tend to agree - the thinking is (or was originally) something like this:

As with the OT initiation rite of circumcision (which baptism is seen to mirror), a child born to believing parents is considered to be a partaker in God's Covenant - at least 'conditionally', until s/he is of an age to accept or reject the promises made on his/her behalf. (The early Pilgrim Fathers used the term 'half-way covenant' I believe). Yet the parents and sponsors stand 'in faith' that s/he will indeed prove a faithful follower of Christ. As the children of Christian parents, any baby can be seen to be born into the household of God, and covered by his/her parents faith while s/he remains not 'morally accountable'.

This was the thinking of the early Church - the baptism of infants of believing parents being firmly established by at least the latter half of the second century (see Tertullian, Hippolytus et al) - who were generally far less individualistic in their world view than modernday Westerners! Baptism of adults remained the norm while the Church was very much a missionary movement in a pagan society (as indeed, it is starting to become once more, in our contemprary 'post-Chrisitan' society!), yet early rites do show that young children were baptised on their parents' confession of faith.

I'm not entirely sure what the official Presbyterian line would be on the re-baptism of adults - but generally in most paedobaptist denominations this is very much 'taboo': 'one baptism, once' is and always has been the guiding precept. Unless the original baptism is proven to be in someway 'defective' (ie within a heretical tradition), then the baptism received in infancy needs only to be 'confirmed' in adulthood, but cannot be repeated. Thus even Catholics will not re-baptise a convert from a protestant denomination who was baptised as an infant.

Hope that helps!

Anthony

My question would be this - why are there no biblical examples of a child being baptized? When Christ gives us an example as to what we must be like, He uses a child. Why would He use a child as an example of purity if that were not so?

As you know, Jesus himself baptised no-one, of any age.

John baptised for repentance, and so far as we know this was exclusively for adults - incidentally, I don't beleive there are any mentions of him baptising women (correct me if I'm wrong), tho' we probably shoul;dn't assume that he didn't.

In the book of Acts we have at least two examples of 'household baptisms', which many Christians take as indirect evidence that children were included in the initiation rites which followed their parents' confession of faith. In fact, these passages 'prove' nothing, either way. Tho', again, I cannot recall any specific mention of women being baptised either.

As you say, Jesus did welcome children, and hold them up as an example of 'godliness' - which might lead us to conclude 'So who are we to exclude them from the household of faith by witholding baptism?'

Jewish tradition certainly was that children were included in the Covenant, as the practice of infant circumcision clearly marked. Would it therefore not be likely that a predominantly Jewish Church would continue a similar practice for the offspring of believing parents, unless this were specifically forbidden? Certainly that seems to be the attitude which quickly prevailed in the sub-apostolic age.

To be honest, I don't have a definite answer on this one - at one time I was very much inclined to the adult baptism camp, now I am less sure. Fortunately, not being a parent, I don't have to face the decision of whether or not to 'christen' my offspring, as I really am not sure what I would do.

Anthony

I'm not a Presbyterian, but this is what they pretty much believe

This is what a guy named R.C. Sproul said about the subject:

While space will not allow a full development between circumcision and baptism, let us consider the teaching of Paul from Colossians 2:11-12: “In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.”

In this passage, Paul clearly identifies the signs of circumcision and baptism with each other. As he writes to the church of the new covenant, he explains that believers are circumcised in the spiritual sense of that word, and that this spiritual circumcision takes place as they are buried with Christ in baptism.

This equating of the essential meaning of circumcision and baptism could not be clearer. Just as physical circumcision indicated circumcision of the heart, so now physical baptism indicates a circumcision of the heart.
This obvious connection between the two covenant signs of circumcision and baptism creates a difficult problem for the opponents of covenant baptism, for any argument against infant baptism is necessarily an argument against infant circumcision.

Any objection raised against the inclusions of the infants of believers in the covenant can be answered with, “Because it pleased the Lord to do so.” Because they are initiatory signs and seals of the same covenant of grace circumcision and baptism carry essentially the same meaningin Scripture.
They are both outward signs of the inward, spiritual need of the grace of God in the heart of the covenant member. Both signs bind the recipient to God's promised Redeemer, Jesus Christ.

Like circumcision in the Old Testament, baptism in the New Testament is to be administered to believers and their children to mark them out and set them apart as the people of God. To oppose infant baptism is to oppose infant circumcision in the Old Testament.

As Calvin warned, “If it enters anyone's mind to jest at infant baptism on this pretext, he is mocking the command of circumcision given by the Lord. For what will they bring forward to impugn infant baptism that may not be turned back against circumcision?”

I would recommend the following links showing the Presbyterian/Reformed position on Infant Baptism and the Presbyterian/Reformed answer to 8 common Baptist objections:

http://www.christreformed.org/resource/00000062.shtml

 

And the related topic of immersion, addressing common Baptist objections:

http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH00/0007b.html

An interesting argument, Joe. Not that I am against infant baptism, though I consider it not baptism bur rather dedication. Simple reasons being that baptism properly follows on confession of faith and repentance, neither of which an infant can do.

I feel bad because I used to be Presbyterian...but my family left the church when I was in 4th grade so I know absolutely nothing about their beliefs and stuff.

Christ did baptize others - consider the following passage:

"After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing. John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there; and people were coming and were being baptized--

-- John 3:22,23

Click to expand...

What can this passage show us other than the fact that Christ baptized others?  He was spending time with them, and due to the context of that same sentence, the verb phrase "and baptizing" refers back to that "He", which is Christ.  We know that this isn't John because in the very next sentence the Bible tells us that John is also baptizing.  Why would the Bible need to say this if the only person who was baptizing was John?  Jesus is the "He" who was spending time with His disciples in Judea baptizing.

Sorry I didn't cover this post more thoroughly the first time that I replied. I'll try to cover all of the points as briefly as possible.

Originally posted by TruelightUK
As you know, Jesus himself baptised no-one, of any age.

Click to expand...

I did cover this point in the original post. I can't remember what reply number is it, but it's in this thread.

John baptised for repentance, and so far as we know this was exclusively for adults - incidentally, I don't beleive there are any mentions of him baptising women (correct me if I'm wrong), tho' we probably shoul;dn't assume that he didn't.

Click to expand...

The Bible does give us evidence of women being baptized. If we look in Acts 8, it states specifically that women were baptized:

"But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike. "

-- Acts 8:12

In the book of Acts we have at least two examples of 'household baptisms', which many Christians take as indirect evidence that children were included in the initiation rites which followed their parents' confession of faith. In fact, these passages 'prove' nothing, either way.

Click to expand...

Well, there is one thing that would have had to be true in order for these baptisms not to contradict what we are told in other places in the Bible, and since there are no contradictions in the Bible, careful examination and comparison with other passages is often necessary to understand the true meaning of a given passage.

If an entire household were to be baptized they would all have to repent, to change from their former ways, and be baptized into the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38).

Then the question arises as to who was actually baptized. When we look at other verses of scripture that are more specific we can gain an understanding as to who would have been baptized.

"And all the more believers in the Lord, multitudes of men and women, were constantly added to their number,"

-- Acts 5:14

There is no mention of any children being baptized into the name of Christ. Does this mean that they have no place in the kingdom of Christ? No, rather it means that they cannot fully understand the things that are required of them to be baptized. When they can understand this, they should be.

As you say, Jesus did welcome children, and hold them up as an example of 'godliness' - which might lead us to conclude 'So who are we to exclude them from the household of faith by withholding baptism?'

Click to expand...

Does an infant understand what it means to be obedient, obedient to the point of death? Can an infant fully understand the sacrifice that was made for their salvation? Can an infant understand what it means to repent, to turn and change from their old ways and begin to imitate God? Can an infant understand what is happening when they are baptized? Does this mean that the infant is not a part of the New Covenant? The answer to all of these questions is no. We are told that those who have child-like hearts in regard to sin will be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Who else would have a child-like heart other than a child?

The only precept that men can use to support the baptism of infants is the concept of original sin. My question to that is where in the Bible does it tell us that we will be judged for the sins of anyone besides those that we ourselves have committed?

Joe,
I did a web search on this subject about 2.5 years ago. I had copied and pasted numerous articles into a file, strictly for personnel use. Because of that, I don’t have the actually source document on the qoutes, other than the author’s name.

A rural bishop’s letter to the Council of Carthage (256 AD) ask’s? “Do children need to be baptized before or on the eigth day”? Answer— all members unanimously said on the eigth day, they expected and condoned the baptizing of infants. Remember, the members of the Council of Carthage would have been taught and discipled by the pupils of the apostles.

Some people translate “for” (eis) in Acts 2:38 as “because of”. Hence it becomes “because of the remission of sins”. They contrast it with Matthew 3:11 “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, (unto, for, eis) meaning “because of”.

My question to that is where in the Bible does it tell us that we will be judged for the sins of anyone besides those that we ourselves have committed?

Click to expand...

Psalm 51:5:

“Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”

Click to expand...

Romans 5:18-19

Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous.

Click to expand...

1 Corinthians 7:14

For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

Click to expand...

As for Baptism of children not being mentioned:

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; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 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."

Click to expand...

Don't forget, this was a time when 12 year olds were commonly given in marriage and were not seen as children in the same manner they are today. The Children mentioned here could have been quite young.

God Bless,

Neal

The verse from Acts 2:38 - this is simply telling us that the promise os for everyone who would come to be a believer in Christ - this lets us know that what Peter is saying here is not limited to just the crowd that he was addressing - otherwise there would have only been 3,000 Christians.

Ok people...you got a Reformed baby baptizing believer here. Its been a while since I have had a go with someone on this subject but I will give it my best shot. I will say up front that I like to keep my posts short so I will not quote scripture...you can look it up your self.

For the good man who started this thread let me recommend a book...Children Of The Promise by Robert R. Booth. He is a former Baptist pastor who while teachimg on baptism for his church and studying the Reformed view on padeobaptism was "converted" to infant baptism.

I myself have my origins in the Pentecostal movement and infant baptism is totally rejected there. I began studying Calvinism and the Reformation when we started going to a Presb. church and wanted to know what was going on there. I saved infant baptism for last because I had no interest. Studying Reformed theology leads one into a study of Covenantal Theology. In studying this you must study on infant baptism. There is more to this thing than meets the eye. After a couple years of struggling with this, the book I recommended answered almost every question I had. I highly recommend reading it.

I commend the starter of this thread for your honest search in this matter. Most people who do not hold to infant baptism just right it off as some crazy presb. thing. It is much more than that.

Thats all for now. Check back tomarrow

Thanks, Aggie for correcting me about Jesus baptising folk, and on the verse about women being baptised. The first passage I had forgotten about, and the second I don't recall ever having noticed before. But you're right, both are definitely there in the Bible.

I also take your points regarding infants and repentance, however, I am not entirely convinced that this is compelling enough to totally exclude the possibility.  Certainly it seems abundantly clear that the second generation Church was quite happy to baptise the children of believing parents, on the parent's confession of faith, to be 'confirmed' at a later date, and that circumcision was taken as a suitable precedent, and for the most part, saw no conflict with this and the rest of the apostolic tradition. I think it was Tertullian who protested about the practice - but more from a concern that baptism in general be delayed as long as possible into old age to avoid the possibility of post-baptism sin than to any theological objection to infant baptism in particular.

Anthony