Infant Baptism, why do you reject it?

[tall73]

What do you all make of this text:

1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

This seems to suggest that it is the faith of the parents, not baptism directly, that makes children holy.

It doesn't preclude the idea that baptism was practiced, but it does provide for another means of holiness.

 

[Trento]

Reguarding infant Baptism which is Historical and traditional The ordinance receives many illustrations from the monumental evidences of the 1st and 2nd Century Catacombs. There are numerous epitaphs of neophytes--a term appled only to newly baptized persons--which indicate that this Christian rite was administered at all ages from tender infancy to adult years ." One of many examples is: "CANDIDIS NEOF Q.VXT. M.XXI, 'Candidis, a neophyte, who lived twenty-one months'" (Withrow, W.H. The Catacombs of Rome and Their Testimony Relative to Primitive Christianity. 6th ed. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1895, pp. 532-533.)

There is also much other archaeological evidence which overwhelmingly testifies to the practice of infant Baptism in the early Church, such as a fragment of a tombstone for a child who died very young, likely less than a month old, which describes the child as "dulcissime nate," literally, "The Most Blessedly Bathed" (Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres, I:1520). Another example is from about 206 A.D. in a North African tombstone inscription from Hadrumetum:

Arisus in pace

natus ora sexta

bixit supra scriptas VIIII

which indicates that this child who died nine hours after birth had been baptized (Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres, II:4429-A).

Polycrates of Ephesus. In 190/91, when writing to Rome concerning the dispute over Easter, Polycrates states that he is “sixty five years in the Lord.” Since this reference to his age is made “because of his concern for his long unimpeachable Christian standing,” Jeremias postulates that his baptism “took place right after birth, rather than that there was an age limit for baptism.”
Justin Martyr gives still another testimony to the practice of infant baptism by stating that many old men and women of sixty and seventy years of age had been disciples of Christ from infancy.

Origen’s (185-254 A.D.) view of baptism is direct and transparent:

“For what is sin? Could a child who has only just been born commit a sin? And yet he has sin for which it is commanded to offer a sacrifice, as Job 14:4ff and Psalm 51:5-7 show. For this reason the Church received from the Apostles the tradition to administer baptism to the children also. For the men to whom the secrets of divine mysteries had been entrusted knew that in everyone there were genuine sinful defilements, which had to be washed away with water and the Spirit.”

In his Homily on Luke he again states his beliefs on infant baptism:

“Infants are baptized for the remission of sins. What sins? Whenever have they sinned? In fact, of course, never. And yet: ‘No one is free from defilement.’ (Job 14:4) But defilement is only put away by the mystery of baptism. That is the reason why infants too are baptized.”

Hippolytus’ (170-236 A.D.) perception of infant baptism is clear and straightforward as well:

“And first baptize the little ones; and if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them.”

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

First of all, there is no basis for the assumption that infants cannot have faith.

This assumption is, perhaps understandable, but it's based in another assumption; i.e. that faith is essentially cognitive, that it subsists in the intellectual assent to a number of doctrinal propositions.

But here's the thing, faith is not essentially assent, it is, essentially, trust.

Faith seeks understanding...faith first, then understanding.

Faith without understanding and then a gradual outworking in assent to propositions under the care and tutelage of the Church.

And if faith is the gift of God, then who is to say that He cannot or will not grant it to infants?

 

[qh93536]

Im not sure how many would go as far as to say its "a meaningless ritual" though many unknowingly believe that. Anyway, if its meaningless then why does it matter if the person understands or not before they get Baptized?

You missed the point. It is meaningless BECAUSE they don't understand it.

 

[qh93536]

I have to agree with CD here.. Look at the ethiopian..He wanted baptised right away after he believed.. I'm not saying it was required as he would have died from a roadside robber attack before he was babtiesed. he would have been welcomed to heaven because he heard and believed..pax..kim

He was an ADULT!

 

[TruthMiner]

You missed the point. It is meaningless BECAUSE they don't understand it.

There is not need for them to understand it to be meaninful.

We are not Gnostics.

 

[jckstraw72]

When Moses brought the Law down off the mountain he said "Do and then understand". DO FIRST

 

[Jig]

Look at what "evidence" is givien to support infant baptism.

Analogies (which is not true evidence), questionable comparisons (again, not true evidence), and loose scriptural definitions of the single word "household" (which has been proven to hold little water, if that).

Funny how there is absolutely no clear cut scriptural evidence for infant baptism. This belief evolves around considerably large assumptions and fallable tradition. There is not one proof positive example of a infant or young child getting baptized in scripture. There is no verse or passage that clearly (beyond any doubt) mentions infants or young children being baptized.

There is mulitple verses that strongly suggest all that were baptized, first believed, and all of which just happen to be adults.

Sadly, there is a few denominations out there, that teach and preach infant baptism, and if one of their members disagrees, they are no longer a true member.

 

[Jig]

First of all, there is no basis for the assumption that infants cannot have faith.

Yes there is. You may be blind to it, but I hope this reply will help.

This assumption is, perhaps understandable, but it's based in another assumption; i.e. that faith is essentially cognitive, that it subsists in the intellectual assent to a number of doctrinal propositions.

If saving faith was not cognitive (a process of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment), then it isn't by our free-will we are saved.

And if faith is the gift of God, then who is to say that He cannot or will not grant it to infants?

It's a free gift for the taking. We must choose to be saved. Those who can't, obviously are exempt and will be saved regardless.

 

[Oblio]

Is this not what you asked for Oblio? No response?

I've been travelling.

You failed to search all the Scriptures, esp. the OT.

 

[Oblio]

If saving faith was not cognitive (a process of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment), then it isn't by our free-will we are saved.

Western rationalism and the attempt to imprint adult cognitive abilitites on those of an infant.

 

[Oblio]

Scripture is clear that entire housholds were baptised, with no exception noted for children. As households undoubtably had children and they were not excepted, it is a stretch to claim that they were excluded.

 

[MikeMcK]

Why do some groups hold to the historical Christian teaching of infant Baptism while others do not?

If you reject it, on what grounds do you reject it (especially considering other groups accept it)?

Because it's Unbiblical and defeats the purpose of baptism.

 

[MikeMcK]

Scripture is clear that entire housholds were baptised, with no exception noted for children. As households undoubtably had children and they were not excepted, it is a stretch to claim that they were excluded.

First, you're assuming that every household has children. This isn't true and the text never suggests that this is the case.

Second, you're assuming that the children who may be in the household are small children and not twelve or thirteen years old or older, which is typically when baptism-appropriate age begins. You don't know that this is true, either.

 

[Oblio]

Second, you're assuming that the children who may be in the household are small children and not twelve or thirteen years old or older, which is typically when baptism-appropriate age begins. You don't know that this is true, either.

You're assuming the oppposite, and assuming the consequent, a logical fallacy. I'm going by Scripture and norms of Eastern culture, not that of post-modern western society.

 

[MikeMcK]

You're assuming the oppposite, and assuming the consequent, a logical fallacy.

No, I'm not assuming anything. Perhaps you didn't notice, but I never said that there were or weren't children in the house. My point was only that you should not assume that there were when the Bible is silent, simply because it seems to support your side.

I'm going by Scripture and norms of Eastern culture, not that of post-modern western society.

The problem is that scripture never says that there were small children in the house, so I'm not sure how you can say that you're going by scripture.

As for "norms of Eastern society", does this mean that the norms of Eastern society dictate that there always be a small child in the house?

What happens when the woman passses child bearing age? What happens when the children grow up? What happens when there are no children in the house?

 

[Oblio]

My point was only that you should not assume that there were when the Bible is silent, simply because it seems to support your side.

You (and other anabaptistish types) attempt to discredit paedobaptism by assuming there are no infants/children in the household because they are not explicitly mentioned in the Baptism passages. The fact is, it is the norm for households to have children, especially in the family units in the Eastern culture in question where families were not the post-modern, hedonistic 'families' we see today in the west. There was no need to mention that children were there, because it would be abberant for them to be missing. If a couple or family were without children, we see it mentioned explicitly elsewhere in Scripture, yet WRT Baptism, we do not.

 

[jckstraw72]

First, you're assuming that every household has children. This isn't true and the text never suggests that this is the case.

Second, you're assuming that the children who may be in the household are small children and not twelve or thirteen years old or older, which is typically when baptism-appropriate age begins. You don't know that this is true, either.

youre assuming that not a single household had infants. Oblio is saying its highly likely that some did.

 

[frumanchu]

Look at what "evidence" is givien to support infant baptism.

Analogies (which is not true evidence), questionable comparisons (again, not true evidence), and loose scriptural definitions of the single word "household" (which has been proven to hold little water, if that).

Funny how there is absolutely no clear cut scriptural evidence for infant baptism. This belief evolves around considerably large assumptions and fallable tradition. There is not one proof positive example of a infant or young child getting baptized in scripture. There is no verse or passage that clearly (beyond any doubt) mentions infants or young children being baptized.

There is mulitple verses that strongly suggest all that were baptized, first believed, and all of which just happen to be adults.

Sadly, there is a few denominations out there, that teach and preach infant baptism, and if one of their members disagrees, they are no longer a true member.

The first century Jews absolutely would have expected to include infants in baptism because the covenant practice throughout Biblical history has always included infants. What you are advocating is a regression of covenant practices from placing the sign of the covenant upon children to withholding it from them. To the first century Jew this would make no sense at all.

 

[MikeMcK]

You (and other anabaptistish types) attempt to discredit paedobaptism by assuming there are no infants/children in the household because they are not explicitly mentioned in the Baptism passages.

No, I'm not assuming anything. Perhaps you didn't notice, but I never said that there were or weren't children in the house. My point was only that you should not assume that there were when the Bible is silent, simply because it seems to support your side.

The fact is, it is the norm for households to have children, especially in the family units in the Eastern culture in question where families were not the post-modern, hedonistic 'families' we see today in the west.

The problem is that scripture never says that there were small children in the house, so I'm not sure how you can say that you're going by scripture.

As for "norms of Eastern society", does this mean that the norms of Eastern society dictate that there always be a small child in the house?

What happens when the woman passses child bearing age? What happens when the children grow up? What happens when there are no children in the house?

There was no need to mention that children were there, because it would be abberant for them to be missing.

So then, what if the couple were unable to have children? What if the woman had already passed childbearing age? What if the children were grown?