Infant baptism

[ZiSunka]

Yep, I'm expecting that next, too.

 

[seebs]

Oh I know what they'll pull out now.... the old "whole household" argument

Well, it seems plausible to me. I mean, keep in mind, the early Christians were often Jews. Jews did the ritual to make male babies part of their tribe at the venerable age of 8 days, which strikes me as early enough that it's probably before the baby has full awareness... They might reasonably have assumed that baptism worked the same way.

I don't know whether baptising infants actually does anything, but then, I don't know whether water baptism as such does anything anyway. It's us doing something which we express as best we know how, I figure.

 

[theseed]

]Well, it seems plausible to me. I mean, keep in mind, the early Christians were often Jews. Jews did the ritual to make male babies part of their tribe at the venerable age of 8 days, which strikes me as early enough that it's probably before the baby has full awareness... They might reasonably have assumed that baptism worked the same way.

If there were babies in those "whole households" then they would have been old enough to believe. The Bible says that much.

 

[seebs]

I wouldn't be surprised if early Christians, like the Jews they were a splinter group of, simply assumed that kids were "believers" because you raised them that way. I don't think the age of accountability was a concept anyone had come up with yet...

 

[theseed]

In summary, the accounts of Lydia's and Stephanas' households are inconclusive, while the accounts of Cornelius', Crispus', and the jailer's households actually point to conscious belief and regeneration before baptism. Therefore, I conclude that the weight of the household baptisms leans toward confessors' baptism.

http://www.founders.org/library/malone1/malone_text.html#3

 

[Crazy Liz]

Do you believe that there is any objective criteria for Holy Baptism?

I have no idea what you mean by "objective criteria." What about baptism do you think we are judging or evaluating?

cri·te·ri·on ** *P***Pronunciation Key**(kr-tîr-n)
n. pl. cri·te·ri·a (-tîr-) or cri·te·ri·ons
A standard, rule, or test on which a judgment or decision can be based. See Synonyms at standard.


[Greek kritrion, from krits, judge, from krnein, to separate, judge. See krei- in Indo-European Roots.]
cri·teri·al (-l) adj.
Usage Note: Like the analogous etymological plurals agenda and data, criteria is widely used as a singular form. Unlike them, however, it is not yet acceptable in that use.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.



criterion


n 1: a basis for comparison; a reference point against which other things can be evaluated; "they set the measure for all subsequent work" [syn: standard, measure, touchstone] 2: the ideal in terms of which something can be judged; "they live by the standards of their community" [syn: standard]



Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
---http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=criterion

So, are you asserting that "infant Baptism" is an incorrect Baptism and therefore not Baptism at all?

No I am not asserting that. I am telling you the perspective on baptism held by the majority of Baptists and Anabaptists. Since you don't understand the perspective from which Baptists and Anabaptists think about baptism, you are asking absurd questions.

How, if self-awareness is the key, are we sure that we, as an individual, are fully aware of Baptism? If we are pledging ourselves to follow Christ and Baptism is this outward pledge, what happens when we sin? Do we return to the Font and try to make this pledge again...and again...and again? If we do not, are we liars or frauds?

You will find some variation in Baptist and Anabaptist practice in this area. However, baptism "again and again" is not encouraged.

I think "fully aware" is a poor choice of words that the vast majority of Baptists and Anabaptists would reject. Obviously, there is a continuum of awareness. Since an infant is not aware at all, we don't baptize babies.

I think the better view, that of the Anabaptists, is that a sober and deliberate voluntary commitment to Christ and to be a responsible member of a church. "Sober and voluntary commitment" would be much better than "fully aware," for these and other reasons.

Lutherans think of sin in terms of sickness or an infection that acts out through our faculties and results in actual sins, but the real problem, the source of our sin is our perverted nature. For us, such a pledge, would be a hollow, empty promise that we could not and would not keep.

I think you are confused about this, too. A commitment to Christ and to Christ's church is not a pledge of sinless perfection, but to accept the help of God through our brothers and sisters when we fall short, and to offer it to them, as well.

So Holy Baptism is essentially meaningless? Just wondering if I got the gist of what you said.

It has meaning. If we thought it was meaningless we would either not do it at all or do it to anybody, including infants.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Yes, a baptism can be illigitiment if if is not biblical. The Bible teaches that we only enters God's covenant of grace by a renewed heart. And how do we know that? Based on a profession of faith. Everybody that is baptized in the book of Acts believes first, and then is baptism. So, if we don't baptize the right way, then we are not being obediant to our Lord's command. Therefore, baptism must be a valid baptism.

Using "valid' as a synonym for "legitimate" is still an application of the legal definition, not the statistical definition or the physical one.

However, since I said most Baptists and Anabaptists don't use terms such as "valid" or "legitimate" to describe baptism, you have established that some do. Feel free to discuss the concept of "validity" or "legitimacy" with Chi Rho. I was trying to explain to him why I don't think about baptism in those terms.

 

[Crazy Liz]

If there were babies in those "whole households" then they would have been old enough to believe. The Bible says that much.

Where?

 

[theseed]

Where?

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=13556309#post13556309

 

[BT]

Well, it seems plausible to me. I mean, keep in mind, the early Christians were often Jews. Jews did the ritual to make male babies part of their tribe at the venerable age of 8 days, which strikes me as early enough that it's probably before the baby has full awareness... They might reasonably have assumed that baptism worked the same way.

The difference is that under the Old Covenant they were commanded to circumcize on the 8th day. The commandment for baptism under the New Covenant follows belief. A baby can't believe, because a baby can't conceive. Baptisms that took place in the OT were for the priestly roles, hence the NT believer priest takes on a new form of the OT ritual. They might have assumed that baptism worked in the same way and were later corrected by Paul. So whether or not they baptised in err has no weight on us because we have received the instruction and know better. I mean Simon the sorcerer tried to "buy" the gifts of the Spirit. He was in error. He probably didn't realize that he was, but we, having gained the understanding, know that he was. Should we then attempt to buy the gifts of the Spirit just because someone in the beginning of the church tried to in err?

When the Ethiopian was met on the road in Acts 8 did the Spirit instruct Philip to go and baptize him? No he went to him and "... preached unto him Jesus" (Acts 8:35). So they continue down the road and the Ethiopian sees some water and says "... what doth hinder me to be baptized?" (Acts 8:36) The answer is "... If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest" (Acts 8:37) and he answers "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." and so the chariot stops and he gets baptized. We have the clear order here. Belief proceeds baptism.

 

[Snow Angel]

I think a person should wait till they are old enough to know what
they are doing,before they get baptized.I was 12 when I was baptized,I have
never been re-baptized because I have always felt the lord is with me.My two
brothers were baptized 5 & 6 and they were re-baptized when they were men.
God Bless. When Satan is knocking at your door, simply say,
Jesus, could you get that for me?!!

 

[ZiSunka]

I agree whole heartedly with BT. The infant circumcision ritual was precisely described as being something that was done to infants on the eighth day of their lives, or to strangers wanting to convert. Baptism, on the other hand, is described as something done to adults. Everywhere it is described in detail, it is done upon a confession of faith, and never something just done to everyone or to infants. Since Jesus commanded baptism, if he had wanted it to be done to infants, he would have said so, based on God's explicitness about wanting circumcision to be done on infants.

 

[seebs]

I think it is possible that one could reasonably infer that baptism was assumed to follow the same rules as circumcision; you do your own children, but newcomers have to make a serious effort to join the tribe before they're given the ritual.

I don't necessarily think this was the intent... But it's not stupid or crazy to infer that, even if it's wrong.

 

[ZiSunka]

I think it is possible that one could reasonably infer that baptism was assumed to follow the same rules as circumcision; you do your own children, but newcomers have to make a serious effort to join the tribe before they're given the ritual.

I don't necessarily think this was the intent... But it's not stupid or crazy to infer that, even if it's wrong.

I think it's a huge stretch to make that inference on the basis of silence. Babies aren't mentioned at all anywhere, OT or NT, regarding baptism, but neither are donkeys, monkeys, dogs or fish. Some of those are sure to have been part of the households we are talking about. Should we then assume that because they were members of the household that was baptized, that the animals got a dunking, too? In every instance where the details are given to us about someone's baptism, it is always adults baptized after a declaration of faith (which is why it is so important to have Acts 8:37 in the Bible and not editted out), never to a child or an infant on the basis of a parents faith. Circumcision is a whole different proceedure than baptism and was done on infants to lesson the chance of infection (babies weren't diapered back then and they were circumcized well before they would have been exposed to any yeast or viral infection that could cause sepsis). It was for the health and protection of the child that circumcision was done so early. It was more than a commitment of the parents to raise the child as a Jew, it was the way God prescribed to prevent a child from accidentally dying from their own circumcision.