My search into Padeobaptism

[AndOne]

I have recently completed a five month study into the issue of Padeobaptism and I would like to post my final conclusions and thoughts on the issue here for anyone that is interested. I realize this is not a forum for debate - however if anyone disagrees with me on my findings and would like to let me know feel free to email at davec925@yahoo.com or PM me here. Before you read on I want to let folks know right up front that I now believe that Padeobaptism is a correct practice and is Biblical.

I feel it is important to preface this discussion with how it came about that I felt the need to even look into it. Last Spring after much consideration and seeking prayerful guidance from God - my wife and I felt led to have a third child. I must say it was definately out of the norm for us to do this since we already have two boys that are considerably older (and yes they are both ours together) at ages 8 and 12 (both of whom were baptized through immersion). Also of note, last August I was called by God to go into the ministry and started making preparations toward that endeaver. I am blessed with a career that is primarily for the young (the Coast Guard) and by time I retire I will still be young enough to devote many good years to full-time ministry.

Being called to the ministry at the same time we are about to have a baby did confuse me however - but who am I to question God. I mention this whole bit about the ministry because I am a Reformed Baptist (or at least was) with strong ties in a Baptist church and fully intended to be a Baptist minister. Being a Reformed Baptist however has exposed me to the writings of the old Reformers such as Luther, Calvin, Owen, and I could go on I suppose. The reason I mention these men is because they all believed in infant Baptism. I felt as someone who is so deeply rooted in Reformed Theology that I should at least look into it and see what those who do hold to Padeobaptism actually believe about it. Quite frankly I was doing this on behalf of my still unborn child and I never would have even looked into it had my wife not been pregnant. And hence began my five month journey into studying it.

Before I move on I also want to mention my baby girl - Jenna - and how I am just so much in awe at how God can use a helpless infant to teach someone so much. Many of you know that my wife was in the hospital with a serious condition approximately 8 days before our child was born. The condition was serious enough that I was actually considering how on earth I was going to raise three kids on my own. During this time my wife and I both questioned God - and we both sought some kind of understanding but could gain none. My wife was in so much pain and I was so worried for her - and that time was so rough. After she finally did give birth through C-section things turned around. Within 24 hrs my wife was free from her condition and was completely back to normal (for a woman who had just had a c-section anyway). The doctor told me that it was a good thing that my wife's condition put him in a position to deliver the baby three weeks early - since the ambilical chord was wrapped around her neck twice and if she had continued to grow in the womb it would have cut off her circulation and either killed her or made her brain dead. It was at that moment that my questions of "why" were answered. I am telling you - for God to reveal himself and his soverignty to us in this way is very humbling.

I feel it was necessary to share that - not so that I can use that miracle as some sort of confirmation that my own conclusions are right - that is not it - but so that people will see just how incredible this whole situation has turned out to be for my family and I.

On my next post under this thread - I will list my conclusions - stay tuned...

 

[AndOne]

As a Baptist I always believed that Baptism was and should be a public testimony of one's faith - nothing more. I never considered it to be actually symbolic of one's inclusion into the family of God. Once I saw Baptism as an actual symbol of one's faith - I began to look at it from a completely different perspective.

What follows are eight points that caused me to change my position on padeobaptism. No single point alone would have changed my mind - but taken together they are the reasons why I now believe Padeobaptism to be a correct practice.

1) First and foremost is that in dealing with the Israelites (namely Abraham) and the "Old Covenant" God included children/babies. God did not tell Abraham the covenant is for you and btw when your children grow up they can be circumcised if they think its good for them too. Nope - Abraham included all of his children regardless of their final standing in the Covenant - I.E. Ishmael was circumcised yet was shown later that he was not to be included.

2) In most of the Old Testament Prophecies concerning the New Covenant (when Christ comes) Children are included. Here are a few: Jeremiah 30:18-22; Zech 10:6-9; Joel 2:15-16 (my favorite)

 

[AndOne]

3) I came across nine individual baptisms in the New Testament. Of those nine 5 had their households baptized as well. They were Cornellious (whom Peter preached to), the Philipian jailer in Acts, Lydia, Crispus, and Stephanus. The other four baptised were: Paul - who had no family, the Eunuch - who had no family, Simon the sorcerer - who actually turned out to be an unbeliever, and Gaius is just mentioned as being baptized without reference one way or the other to a household (in other words we don't know if he had one or not).

The main point of the padeobaptists that I found from these examples is that of the households that were baptized how is there any proof that they could not have had infants in those households. That is a very valid point but I think even more condusive to this discussion is that of the households baptized how do we know that every family member believed. One gets the impression from reading these passages that the baptisms occurred fairly soon after conversion - and there is no way to show that of all the family members being baptised that they actually believed the gospel. We only know for sure that it was the head of the households who believed. The main point of the Baptist is that belief is a requirement before receiving baptism - but I think its reasonable to show that belief did not always proceed circumcission and quite possibly baptism in the case of family members being baptized at the direction of the head of the household. Even in this day and age - there can be no denying that there are many examples of people who were Baptized as adults and then later fell from the faith - which under the Reformed view only shows that they were not of the elect and did not believe to begin with.

Just as Baptists claim that many who have been baptized as infants grow up and stray from the faith so can the Padeobaptist claim that many who are baptized as adults can later stray from the faith.

Don't get me wrong - I do believe belief should be shown and testified by an adult who wants to be baptized - however my point is that in reality TRUE belief isn't always there and in the case of infants who have no ability to decide either way it should not be necessary. I think its important to remember as well who it is that does the real deciding - in all cases of faith - it is never the individual but God.

4) Baptists claim there is no specific instance in the Bible where and infant in baptized. However it is also important to note that there is also no specific case of a child of believers who grows up and is later baptized.

 

[AndOne]

5) How many times has the question been asked: What do I have to do to be saved? The answer is ususally Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved! That is so true - there is no denying it - but look at how Acts 16:31 answers the question: "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved, you and your household." Before anyone misinterprets what I am trying to say let me point out that I am not trying to use this verse to say that Baptism is necessary for salvation - but I do believe it opens the door to the believer to have his children baptized into the kingdom of God. Heaven forbid - that child may one day decide to not believe - but until then God's grace surely extends to the little one because of the belief of the parent.

6) My biggest hurdle to jump in this was Galations 5:1-12. This is where Paul criticizes the judaizers for demanding that new converts to Christianity by circumcised. John Calvin himself stated that baptism was to be used in the New Covenant as Circumcission was to be used in the old. This bothered me and when I read Galations 5:1-12 I would exchange the word "baptism" for "circumcission" and become very concerned. It became to clear to me however that these verses simply cannot apply to baptism the way it is used by the Reformers. It is never to be used as an essential to salvation - and never is when understood correctly. Unfortunately the Roman Catholics (and some others) do believe this to be an essential to salvation and I would say in those cases Galations 5:1-12 does apply. It was when I learned that baptism is nothing more than a symbol of salvation to the Reformers that I could reconcile this in light of Galations 5:1-12.

 

[AndOne]

7) Refering you to Matthew 18:2-10. This is when the disciples were arguing who was to be the greatest in heaven and Jesus places a child in their midst and says: "whoever receives a child in my name, receives me." This statement taken in light of Luke 18:17 - when Jesus rebukes the disciples for trying to keep the children away from him - definately points out that our Lord included children as part of the New Covenant. I really don't think anyone is in a better position to know who would be included in the kingdom of God.

8) I have pointed this out recently on another thread - but this is a major point for me. Simply the very act of baptizing and infant - who is completely devoid of any decision making ability, is completely helpless, and has to have all of its needs met by its parents - gives a beautiful picture of true grace. For we are all under this condition when God bestows His grace upon us. We are completely dependent upon him for everything - especially salvation - and in reality infant baptism is a much better representation of true grace than adult baptism in which we make the decision ourselves to receive it.

In conclusion, I am not saying infant baptism is the only mode of baptism - I am not saying that baptism by immersion is wrong and neither am I saying that one who comes to saving faith in Christ for the first time (who has never been baptized) should not receive baptism. I am simply saying that now I believe infant baptism is a corect practice by Christian parents.

I have other points - but these are the main 8 and I will discuss some of the others later.

Thanks

 

[Bulldog]

Behe's boy,

How does Christ intercede for infants?

 

[Lockheed]

1) First and foremost is that in dealing with the Israelites (namely Abraham) and the "Old Covenant" God included children/babies. God did not tell Abraham the covenant is for you and btw when your children grow up they can be circumcised if they think its good for them too. Nope - Abraham included all of his children regardless of their final standing in the Covenant - I.E. Ishmael was circumcised yet was shown later that he was not to be included.

True, this is not a debate area, (why in the world should we have a Reformed chat area where debate is not allowed? Bizzare) but here are a few questions to your 'findings'.

While the command to circumcise includes infants in a household it also includes servants and slaves as well. Later on in Scripture aliens and sojourners who travel with the circumcised are to be circumcised themselves.

Gen 17:12 -13 "And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. "A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
Exodus 12:48
"But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it."

​

Why then do Paedobaptists baptise their infants but not their employees or relatives who come to visit? Where is the clear Scriptural command to baptise infants both male and female but not servants, employees or visiting relatives?

Since Christ is the promised "Seed" of Abraham, and since it "is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham", seed by their uniting to Christ through faith. Circumcision was a temporal sign of the promise God made to Abraham, it was not a sign of each individuals faith or uniting to a covenant, it was a sign of that which was to come.

2) In most of the Old Testament Prophecies concerning the New Covenant (when Christ comes) Children are included. Here are a few: Jeremiah 30:18-22; Zech 10:6-9; Joel 2:15-16 (my favorite)

Great, but there is within those verses no command nor commendation to baptise. Because children are included in the New Covenant and can be saved by God is not a good enough reason to baptise them.

I think even more condusive to this discussion is that of the households baptized how do we know that every family member believed...

Thus it is the paedobaptist position that unbelievers are to baptized? This bodes well for the Baptist cause... read on.

...The main point of the Baptist is that belief is a requirement before receiving baptism - but I think its reasonable to show that belief did not always proceed circumcission and quite possibly baptism in the case of family members being baptized at the direction of the head of the household...

In not even one of the passages you studied is there even a mention of infants belonging to those households. Yet, using the paedobaptist argument, however, it is probable that even if there weren't infants in those households, there were servants. Therefore, when first century Christians baptized "their whole household" they obviously baptized their servants, employees and relatives with them... why don't paedobaptists now?

When a person converts to a paedobaptist denomination, does his whole household get baptized, even if they do not believe? Surely this is what your argument would demand.

4) Baptists claim there is no specific instance in the Bible where and infant in baptized. However it is also important to note that there is also no specific case of a child of believers who grows up and is later baptized.

The Biblical narrative does not go into much detail about minor characters post-belief. This is yet another argument from silence that lends nothing to the paedobaptist side. Consider that everyone who was circumcised was required to be baptized regardless of their circumcision. When John the Baptist baptized individuals in the river, he did so "as they repented". One has to wonder how closely tied John's baptism and that of Christ was, and whether they followed the same pattern. If so, the paedobaptist has to show how and when infants repent and explain why/why not infants were baptized in John's baptism.

5) How many times has the question been asked: What do I have to do to be saved? The answer is ususally Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved! That is so true - there is no denying it - but look at how Acts 16:31 answers the question: "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved, you and your household." Before anyone misinterprets what I am trying to say let me point out that I am not trying to use this verse to say that Baptism is necessary for salvation - but I do believe it opens the door to the believer to have his children baptized into the kingdom of God. Heaven forbid - that child may one day decide to not believe - but until then God's grace surely extends to the little one because of the belief of the parent.

You quote Acts 16:31 yet don't explain how or why this helps your view point. The Reformers believed that God used baptism whenever and by whomever it was administered to effect graciousness to the infant. Even Roman Catholic baptisms were considered valid by the Reformers and thus no one was rebaptized... yet what you're saying here isn't quite what they said at all.

How does baptism add to "God's grace" in "extending to the little one because of the parent"? If the little one does grow up to reject Christ, is not their baptism (in the paedobaptist view) a judgment against them?

6) My biggest hurdle to jump in this was Galations 5:1-12. This is where Paul criticizes the judaizers for demanding that new converts to Christianity by circumcised. John Calvin himself stated that baptism was to be used in the New Covenant as Circumcission was to be used in the old.... It was when I learned that baptism is nothing more than a symbol of salvation to the Reformers that I could reconcile this in light of Galations 5:1-12.

Not sure what you're saying here, the Reformers DID NOT consider baptism to be "nothing more than a symbol", they believed that it actually was a means of grace, it affects grace. Therefore you need to go back to Gal 5 and reconsider your conclusions. Your problem remains.

 

[Lockheed]

7) Refering you to Matthew 18:2-10. This is when the disciples were arguing who was to be the greatest in heaven and Jesus places a child in their midst and says: "whoever receives a child in my name, receives me." This statement taken in light of Luke 18:17 - when Jesus rebukes the disciples for trying to keep the children away from him - definately points out that our Lord included children as part of the New Covenant. I really don't think anyone is in a better position to know who would be included in the kingdom of God.

The problem here is that not all baptists exclude children from the kingdom of God. Sure, some do believe that they need to see some change, some confession or what have you, but it is a fallacy to say that Baptists exclude children from the Covenant.

That said, just because children can be saved where is the command to baptize them?

8) I have pointed this out recently on another thread - but this is a major point for me. Simply the very act of baptizing and infant - who is completely devoid of any decision making ability, is completely helpless, and has to have all of its needs met by its parents - gives a beautiful picture of true grace. For we are all under this condition when God bestows His grace upon us. We are completely dependent upon him for everything - especially salvation - and in reality infant baptism is a much better representation of true grace than adult baptism in which we make the decision ourselves to receive it.

While this might be a 'great picture', the question remains: is it Biblical?

I recently was interested in Lutheranism and studied their views carefully, they have a very nicely formed system... but that's what it is, a system. When confronted with the truths of particular atonement and the perserverance of the saints, the Lutheran shrugs his shoulders and proclaims "no one can know, it's a mystery!"

Likewise, your argument here sounds good, but upon examination it cannot hold up to the scrutiny of Scripture. There is no command, nor commendation to baptize infants. Nor does the claim of the connection to circumcision hold up given the application is partial. In the end we're left with a system that is based on filimentary references and a partial application of Old Testament ceremonies to New Covenant situtations.

I look forward to the rest of your post.

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, Lockheed

You can debate with others here as long as you are reformed, this area is for debating for reformed members only others can post, but not debate reformed doctrine. As a reformed Baptist you can debate, as a reformed Baptist I like the Padeo debate.

Rules:

2) Reformed/Calvinist, as well as all members of the Congregational Forums can post fellowship threads here. Only Reformed/Calvinist members are allowed to debate threads to discuss various doctrines to do with their own denomination and other denominations as long as they are within our rules.


Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Lockheed]

Good... we can debate each other, but when non-Reformed folks show up we have to pat them on the head?

 

[Beoga]

good stuff behe, i recently studied this topic somewhat (still want to study it somemore) and came to the same conclusions that you have given

 

[~Heavens_Bride~]

I too, studied this area for a period of 6+ months after my second was born. My church does practice infant baptism, and I wanted to know why as I received some opposition for it; even was told that baptising babies was an evil practice. That scared me, heaven forbid I do something 'evil' to my child. So I wanted to make sure I was following God. It was a very ahrd and confusing road for me; but was worth it.

Granted, I am not 100% in the Calvinist camp (that is my other study), but, like you, I came to the similar conclusion, and have baptised all 3 of my children. And what a wonderful and Spirit filled day each of those days presented.

Have you ever read the conversion of Matthew McMahon? It is very interesting and worth the read (a long but very interesting read)

 

[Gamecock]

I realize this is not a forum for debate - however if anyone disagrees with me on my findings and would like to let me know feel free to email at davec925@yahoo.com or PM me here.

What's the fun of being Calvinist if we can't argue???

 

[Gamecock]

Have you ever read the conversion of Matthew McMahon? It is very interesting and worth the read (a long but very interesting read)

I read his posts earlier this week. He gave me a new appreciation for my beliefs.

 

[Lockheed]

Calvinist arguments are fun, cause we usually get to sit around and drink while doing it.

-REFORMED- Baptist.

 

[kevken]

Any argument against infant baptism is an argument against infant circumcision.

 

[Lockheed]

Any argument against infant baptism is an argument against infant circumcision.

Would the same apply in the opposite?

Why don't paedos baptize their sons (and sons only) on the 8th day? Why don't they baptize their servants, employees, relatives and friends (regardless of faith) who have Easter (and/or passover) supper with them? Why do paedos expressly apply baptism as a "sign of the covenant" to infants but then refuse to give them the one sign Christ declares to be the "covenant in My blood"?

Any argument for infant baptism is an argument against infant baptism, as they are abritrary in so many ways.

 

[kevken]

We don't baptize only sons because with the New Covenent it is larger and more inclusive than the previous covenents. "there is neither slave nor greek, neither male nor female...in Christ." Therefore, we baptize our daughters also.


The male is clearly the head of His family and all that is familialy underneath him. Remember it is clear in the Scriptures that God claims all people within a family that is LAWFULLY part of the family if one is a believer. Therefore, they SHOULD receive the sign of the covenent. The rampant individualism in the church today (not only in Baptist circles) is clearly hurting the church.

Concerning the elements of the Lord's table being given to young children, that is another string for debate. This string is on baptism.

"Any argument for infant baptism is an argument against infant baptism, as they are abritrary in so many ways." They are clearly not arbitrary for reasons given above. You need to bring more evidence for an argument to be arbitrary.
It is better said that any argument for believers only baptism is utterly irrelevent to infant baptism because almost all accounts of baptism in the New Testament are NOT accounts of a believer coming from a covenent household.

If you are looking for an explicit record for infant baptism there is obviously no written record that explicitly says an infant was baptized. However in order to be consistent with your own demands for explicit evidence for all doctrine you will need to find me a verse that explicitly defines that the Godhead is made up of 3 persons sharing one substance. There are many doctrines that we would both agree on that are implicitly understood to be true. And for some "arbitrary" reason, who should be baptized is not one of them.

 

[~Heavens_Bride~]

.....very interesting.
Would it be wrong of me to say I enjoy reading these debates/discussions? As this issue is not a salvation one, it is enjoyable to weigh both sides.

Keep it coming

 

[Lockheed]

We don't baptize only sons because with the New Covenent it is larger and more inclusive than the previous covenents. "there is neither slave nor greek, neither male nor female...in Christ." Therefore, we baptize our daughters also.

Was there "slave or greek... male or female" in God's process of election and salvation in the past? Were females excluded from God's grace in the Abrahamic covenant? If not, how does your answer in any way address the issue?

What about servants, relatives and employees? Why do you fail to baptize them when the Scriptures relating to circumcision directly command them to be circumcised? Did you have friends over for Easter dinner? Why didn't you baptize them?

The male is clearly the head of His family and all that is familialy underneath him. Remember it is clear in the Scriptures that God claims all people within a family that is LAWFULLY part of the family if one is a believer.

Your second sentence is a partial one, what are you trying to say? Remember that in era in question not only children were "within a family" but so were the immediate family members as well, brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles AS well as servants... yet we never see Paedobaptists causing their immediate family to be baptized apart from and expression of faith even though this logic would demand it.

Therefore, they SHOULD receive the sign of the covenent.

Where in Scripture is baptism called the "sign of the covenant"?

The rampant individualism in the church today (not only in Baptist circles) is clearly hurting the church.

I agree, yet one could also say that the teaching of paedobaptism has led to errors of its own. How does your claim in any way prove that paedobaptism is true?

Concerning the elements of the Lord's table being given to young children, that is another string for debate. This string is on baptism.

But in the Lord's table is the only symbolic thing in the New Testament Scripture directly called "the new covenant" or a sign thereof. Christ, in giving the cup called it the "blood of the new covenant". So here we have one clear, direct correlation between covenant symbology, yet it is witheld from infants until they profess faith?

On what basis do you baptise infants but refuse them the one thing the Christ calls "the new covenant"?

"Any argument for infant baptism is an argument against infant baptism, as they are abritrary in so many ways." They are clearly not arbitrary for reasons given above. You need to bring more evidence for an argument to be arbitrary.

The evidence is staggering... as I've already documented and you failed to reply to. You baptise infants on the basis that im Old Testament infants were circumcised... but you FAIL to baptise your other family members, employees and visitors who share meals with you. Why?

It is better said that any argument for believers only baptism is utterly irrelevent to infant baptism because almost all accounts of baptism in the New Testament are NOT accounts of a believer coming from a covenent household.

It is best said that there is no command, commendation nor suggestion that infants be baptized anywhere in the New Testament. The entire belief therefore is based on the partial importation of signs and theory from the Old Testament and the Old Covenant into the new.

If you are looking for an explicit record for infant baptism there is obviously no written record that explicitly says an infant was baptized.

Thank you for confirming my statement.

However in order to be consistent with your own demands for explicit evidence for all doctrine you will need to find me a verse that explicitly defines that the Godhead is made up of 3 persons sharing one substance.

It is quite a different thing to present an exegettical case for the Trinity than to present a case for infant baptism. It is evident from Scripture that the three parts of the Godhead are co-equal etc. Whereas it is not evident from Scripture that any infant was ever baptized.

There are many doctrines that we would both agree on that are implicitly understood to be true. And for some "arbitrary" reason, who should be baptized is not one of them.

The "arbitrary"-ness I was referring to was the arbitrary way in which paedobaptists apply Old Testament rituals to New Testament ceremonies. Paedobaptists abritrarly baptise infants but not employees etc.