why infant baptism

[lmnop9876]

hi,
thought I'd post a list of all the reasons why I believe infant baptism is Biblical:

1. Infants in the OT were circumcised as a sign and seal of the covenant of which they were also partakers with their parents, and St. Paul indicates that baptism is the new circumcision (Colossians 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.)

2. the journey of the Israelites through the Red Sea and under the Cloud (which was their baptism, 1 Corinthians 10:2 :And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; ) would undoubtedly have included children.

3. St. Peter's sermon at Pentecost indicates that children are as much a part of the promise as adults: Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

4. St. Paul tells the Corinthians that the children of even one believing parent are holy (literally saints, 1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.)

there are many other reasons, but these are the only ones I can think of at the moment.

 

[lmnop9876]

thought I'd add:
5. The NT includes examples of household baptisms, which may have included infants.
6. Probably the most compelling reason: Christ tells us to allow the little children to come to Him, and not to forbid them, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven. Children are just as much a part of God's kingdom as adults.
7. There are examples in Scripture of children being filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb, and of 'trusting in God on their mother's breast,' and similar things.

 

[BalaamsAss51]

Hello pjw.

Nowhere in the Bible does it forbid infant Baptism.

Jesus told His disciples to baptize, not "baptize except for infants".

Early Christian practice was to baptize infants. This is proved by what the early Christians wrote about their practices in the second century.

Some people stopped baptizing infants when they came to the conclusion that they were smarter than God and knew better what God really meant. So they started doing what God really wanted in the first place and stopped baptizing infants. (People do this a lot, don't they?)

Pax

 

[lmnop9876]

Hello pjw.

Nowhere in the Bible does it forbid infant Baptism.

Jesus told His disciples to baptize, not "baptize except for infants".

Early Christian practice was to baptize infants. This is proved by what the early Christians wrote about their practices in the second century.

Some people stopped baptizing infants when they came to the conclusion that they were smarter than God and knew better what God really meant. So they started doing what God really wanted in the first place and stopped baptizing infants. (People do this a lot, don't they?)

Pax

yep, I just wanted to show the reasons why I think infant baptism is Biblical.
anyone who is credo-baptist only, why do you not believe infant baptism is Biblical?

 

[Jon_]

yep, I just wanted to show the reasons why I think infant baptism is Biblical.
anyone who is credo-baptist only, why do you not believe infant baptism is Biblical?

The argument pretty much follows that (1) infants weren't baptized in the New Testament, (2) the pattern in the New Testament is always belief and then baptism, and (3) baptism is a public confession of faith and a symbol of our death and resurrection with Christ, since infants haven't confessed faith in Christ, we shouldn't baptize them.

Of course, all of these arguments are fallacious and have been refuted many times throughout the ages. Baptists had always been in the minority throughout the history of the Reformed faith. This stems from a fundamental lack of understanding regarding God's covenantal relationship with man. Because their understanding of the covenants is defective, they arrive at this incorrect and incomplete view of baptism.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Knight]

Of course, all of these arguments are fallacious and have been refuted many times throughout the ages. Baptists had always been in the minority throughout the history of the Reformed faith. This stems from a fundamental lack of understanding regarding God's covenantal relationship with man. Because their understanding of the covenants is defective, they arrive at this incorrect and incomplete view of baptism.

In your opinion...

I mean no offense and I will not get drawn into an intense debate regarding this but this statement borders on an attack of the Baptist view of baptism.

This is a highly debated topic even among Calvinists. Your statements simply reflect your opinion on this issue.

 

[edie19]

In your opinion...

I mean no offense and I will not get drawn into an intense debate regarding this but this statement borders on an attack of the Baptist view of baptism.

This is a highly debated topic even among Calvinists. Your statements simply reflect your opinion on this issue.

Thanks for saying this Knight. I was thinking the very same thing. We're used to "hot" topic debates on other threads, but I didn't expect a comment like that in the Reformed forum where we're all Reformed in our beliefs.

edie

 

[Erinwilcox]

The argument pretty much follows that (1) infants weren't baptized in the New Testament, (2) the pattern in the New Testament is always belief and then baptism, and (3) baptism is a public confession of faith and a symbol of our death and resurrection with Christ, since infants haven't confessed faith in Christ, we shouldn't baptize them.

Of course, all of these arguments are fallacious and have been refuted many times throughout the ages. Baptists had always been in the minority throughout the history of the Reformed faith. This stems from a fundamental lack of understanding regarding God's covenantal relationship with man. Because their understanding of the covenants is defective, they arrive at this incorrect and incomplete view of baptism.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Thanks for the notice! Actually, though I greatly respect all of you, I'm still not convinced. I have done some studying on Covenant theology, but I still don't see how you can PROVE from Scripture that any infants were actually baptized. If you can give me a solid proof (not an inference) with a Scripture text that tells of the infants being baptized (not just a household text since you really can't be sure that there were infants), then I'll whole-heartedly become a paedo baptist. So convince away! "Believe and be baptized. . ."

However. . . As Baptists have always been in the minority throughout the history of the Reformed faith, I realize that my few fellow Baptists and myself are in the minority here. But that's okay, I love you all anyway!

 

[seekingpurity047]

The argument pretty much follows that (1) infants weren't baptized in the New Testament, (2) the pattern in the New Testament is always belief and then baptism, and (3) baptism is a public confession of faith and a symbol of our death and resurrection with Christ, since infants haven't confessed faith in Christ, we shouldn't baptize them.

Of course, all of these arguments are fallacious and have been refuted many times throughout the ages. Baptists had always been in the minority throughout the history of the Reformed faith. This stems from a fundamental lack of understanding regarding God's covenantal relationship with man. Because their understanding of the covenants is defective, they arrive at this incorrect and incomplete view of baptism.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

You guys can baptize your way, but we baptists will baptize God's way

To the glory of God,

Randy

 

[CrazyforYeshua]

If an infant is baptized, but never comes to know Jesus as saviour later in life, what saves him? The Bible is very specific, that we must believe in our hearts, and confess with our mouth,that Jesus is Lord. Without that there is no salvation.Mentions nothing about salvation through baptism.
So, to answer your question-no, I don't believe in infant baptism.

 

[seekingpurity047]

Thanks for the notice! Actually, though I greatly respect all of you, I'm still not convinced. I have done some studying on Covenant theology, but I still don't see how you can PROVE from Scripture that any infants were actually baptized. If you can give me a solid proof (not an inference) with a Scripture text that tells of the infants being baptized (not just a household text since you really can't be sure that there were infants), then I'll whole-heartedly become a paedo baptist. So convince away! "Believe and be baptized. . ."

However. . . As Baptists have always been in the minority throughout the history of the Reformed faith, I realize that my few fellow Baptists and myself are in the minority here. But that's okay, I love you all anyway!

John Piper.. C.H. Spurgeon...

 

[lmnop9876]

Thanks for the notice! Actually, though I greatly respect all of you, I'm still not convinced. I have done some studying on Covenant theology, but I still don't see how you can PROVE from Scripture that any infants were actually baptized. If you can give me a solid proof (not an inference) with a Scripture text that tells of the infants being baptized (not just a household text since you really can't be sure that there were infants), then I'll whole-heartedly become a paedo baptist. So convince away! "Believe and be baptized. . ."

However. . . As Baptists have always been in the minority throughout the history of the Reformed faith, I realize that my few fellow Baptists and myself are in the minority here. But that's okay, I love you all anyway!

Scriptural evidence:
God says to Abraham, "I will establish my covenant between me and you and your seed after you. Circumcise your sons as a sign of this covenant." (children) and "all strangers who come into you must be circumcised." (believers) (paraphrase mine) and St. Paul says, "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."

St. Peter says, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

Jesus Christ says, "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them."

St. Paul says, "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;" (children partook of this baptism as well as adults)

St. Paul says, "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy."

circumcision was the old sign and seal of the covenant, baptism is the new sign and seal of the covenant.

Extra-Biblical evidence (Early Church Fathers):
St. Polycarp states that he has served Christ for 86 years, which other contemporary sources state was his age.
St. Justin Martyr states that many old men and women have been disciples of Christ from their childhood
St. Cyprian and the Council of Carthage did not dispute the practice of infant baptism. Instead, they were merely deciding if it should be on the 8th day like circumcision, or asap after birth.
St. Irenaeus: (120-202 AD): "He came to save all through Himself - all I say, who through Him are reborn in God-infants, and children, and youth, and old men. Therefore He passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age, and at the same time becoming for them an example of piety, of righteousness, and of submission; a young man for youths, becoming an example for youths and sanctifying them for the Lord."
Origen (185-254 AD): "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." and: "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 AD): "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."
None of the Early Church Fathers (except Tertullian, who believed post-baptismal sin was unpardonable) denied or questioned infant baptism.
Source of quotes from Fathers: http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7067.asp

in addition, much early church art depicting young children being baptised. whether this was because the person being baptised was a 'babe in the faith,' or because they were actually infants is debatable though.

 

[Knight]

Here is an excellent analysis of the Baptist view...
http://faith.propadeutic.com/baptism.html

 

[Jon_]

In your opinion...

I mean no offense and I will not get drawn into an intense debate regarding this but this statement borders on an attack of the Baptist view of baptism.

Well, I think the Baptist view is wrong, and I expressed that in the last post, so that's probably why you thought it bordered on an attack. In any case, I am not presenting simply "my opinion," but the historic Reformed position. More follows.

This is a highly debated topic even among Calvinists. Your statements simply reflect your opinion on this issue.

No, my statements reflect hundreds of years of Reformed confessional faith on the subject. The Westminster Confession of Fatih, as the historic foundation for Presbyterianism and the Three Forms of Unity as the historic foundation of the Dutch Reformed churches both uphold infant baptism. Credobaptism has historically been the minority position up until about a hundred years ago when Arminianism, Liberalism, and Dispensationalism did a number on the many apostate denominations. Now, there are many fewer "Reformed" Baptist congregations as compared to non-Reformed.

It should also be noted how the London Baptist Confession of 1689, while retaining most of the wording of the (Presbyterian) Westminster Confession upon which it was based, eliminates all mention of the covenants that comprise Covenant Theology and its implications in baptism. Baptists have historically rejected Covenant Theology outright, or accepted a modified version that repudiated the connection between Old Testament circumcision and New Testament baptism. The two are inherently interdependent.

Look, this is nothing more than the historical perspective. I'm not misrepresenting anything here. You can call it my opinion; it is. But my opinion happens to coalesce with the historic Reformed faith.

but I didn't expect a comment like that in the Reformed forum where we're all Reformed in our beliefs.

Hi Edie. For many people (myself included), the label "Reformed" carries with it more than just the doctrines of grace. For me (and many others), "Reformed" means the historic Reformed faith as laid down in the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Confession of Faith, of which both sources are strongly covenantal, and hence, teach infant baptism.

If you can give me a solid proof (not an inference) with a Scripture text that tells of the infants being baptized (not just a household text since you really can't be sure that there were infants), then I'll whole-heartedly become a paedo baptist.

Hi Erin. You do realize that all "proofs" are inferences, right? A "proof" is a logical argument in which the conclusion validly follows from the premises. In other words, "proof" is an argument that infers something from something else. In order to make the argument for credobaptism, you have to make inferences as well. So, if you will accept logically valid arguments from Scripture, I would be more than happy to provide you with many proofs for infant baptism, and Covenant Theology by necessity of establishing the grounds for the inference to infant baptism.

If an infant is baptized, but never comes to know Jesus as saviour later in life, what saves him? The Bible is very specific, that we must believe in our hearts, and confess with our mouth,that Jesus is Lord. Without that there is no salvation.Mentions nothing about salvation through baptism. So, to answer your question-no, I don't believe in infant baptism.

This is just a misunderstanding of the topic. Protestants reject baptismal regeneration—that is a Catholic (and maybe others) doctrine. We're not talking about infants being regenerated by baptism.

And finally, allow me to quote Martin Luther from his Large Catechism (XIIIA, Part Four).

Further, we say that we are not so much concerned to know whether the person baptized believes or not; for on that account Baptism does not become invalid; but everything depends upon the Word and command of God. This now is perhaps somewhat acute but it rests entirely upon what I have said, that Baptism is nothing else than water and the Word of God in and with each other, that is when the Word is added to the water, Baptism is valid, even though faith be wanting. For my faith does not make Baptism, but receives it. Now, Baptism does not become invalid even though it be wrongly received or employed; since it is not bound (as stated) to our faith, but to the Word.

Thus you see that the objection of the sectarians is vain. For (as we have said) even though infants did not believe, which however, is not the case, yet their baptism as now shown would be valid, and no one should rebaptize them; just as nothing is detracted from the Sacrament though some one approach it with evil purpose, and he could not be allowed on account of his abuse to take it a second time the selfsame hour, as though he had not received the true Sacrament at first; for that would mean to blaspheme and profane the Sacrament in the worst manner. How dare we think that God's Word and ordinance should be wrong and invalid because we make a wrong use of it?

Therefore they are presumptuous, clumsy minds that draw such inferences and conclusions as these: Where there is not the true faith, there also can be no true Baptism. Just as if I would infer: If I do not believe, then Christ is nothing; or thus: If I am not obedient, then father, mother, and government are nothing. Is that a correct conclusion, that whenever any one does not do what he ought, the thing in itself shall be nothing and of no value? My dear, just invert the argument and rather draw this inference: For this very reason Baptism is something and is right, because it has been wrongly received. For if it were not right and true in itself, it could not be misused nor sinned against. The saying is: Abusus non tollit, sed confirmat substantiam, Abuse does not destroy the essence but confirms it. For gold is not the less gold though a harlot wear it in sin and shame.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

Here is an excellent repudiation of the Baptist view and constructive arguments in favor of the Reformed view.

http://www.christreformed.org/resources/sermons_lectures/00000062.shtml?main

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[seekingpurity047]

*sigh* i dont feel like dealing with this issue. Are we going to split becasue of it or something? Why are we arguing? Do you consider Baptists heretics?

Ah....

To the glory of God,

Randy

 

[Jon_]

*sigh* i dont feel like dealing with this issue.

Most people don't—myself included. But I can't just sit by and grin as if it were no big deal.

Are we going to split becasue of it or something?

No, no. These threads occasionally pop up. The credos and paedos have a go at it, everyone decides they're just happy with their own position, and then go their merry ways. A time after that, one or two credos convert and the process starts over again. That happened to me, in fact.

Why are we arguing?

Because everyone thinks he or she is right.

Do you consider Baptists heretics?

No, I don't.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[mlqurgw]

I am a Baptist who believes that infant baptism isn't Scriptural but Jon is correct in what he stated. It is the Reformed view and has been throughout history. I am not a Reformed Baptist I am just a Baptist. I do hold to the 5-points and preach them without reservation but that does not make me Reformed. As he stated I hold to a different view of the covenant than Reformed theology teaches. I am here not because I am Reformed but because I am much more comfortable with those who at least believe in God's sovereignty in salvation than I am even in the Baptist forum. I was just recently attacked there as not being a Baptist because I started a thread against altar calls.

 

[Bob Moore]

If an infant is baptized, but never comes to know Jesus as saviour later in life, what saves him?

Nothing.

The Bible is very specific, that we must believe in our hearts, and confess with our mouth,that Jesus is Lord. Without that there is no salvation.Mentions nothing about salvation through baptism.

Quite right. Baptism is an outward sign only, and has nothing to do with salvation. It is appropriate to baptise infants as a sign from the parents that they intend to raise the child in a godly manner.

So, to answer your question-no, I don't believe in infant baptism.

Once understood for what it is, a sign only, objections should disappear. Even in the case of adult baptism there is no guarantee that the heart has been regenerated, is there? Adult baptism following rebirth is a public confession of faith, and infant baptism is a public confession of the parents faith, not the infant's.


Here is the doctrine in excruciating detail. Take the time to look up the citations. And note the last statement about liberty of conscience. We should all keep that in mind.

CHAPTER XXVIII
Of Baptism
Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.

Matt. xxviii. 19; 1 Cor. xii. 13; Rom. iv. 11 with Col. ii. 11. 12; Gal. iii. 27; Rom. vi. 5; ***. iii. 5; Mark i. 4; Rom. vi. 3, 4; Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.

II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.

Matt. iii. 11; John i. 33; Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.

III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person.

Heb. ix. 10, 19, 20, 21, 22; Acts ii. 41; Acts xvi. 33; Mark vii. 4.

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents, are to be baptized.

Mark xvi. 15, 16; Acts viii. 37, 38; Gen. xvii. 7, 9, 10 with Gal. iii. 9, 14 and Col. ii. 11, 12 and Acts ii. 38, 39 and Rom. iv. 11, 12; 1 Cor. vii. 14; Matt. xxviii. 19; Mark x. 13, 14, 15, 16; Luke xviii. 15.

V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

Luke vii. 30 with Exod. iv. 24, 25, 26; Rom. iv. 11; Acts x. 2, 4, 22, 31, 45, 47; Acts viii. 13, 23.

VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will in His appointed time.

John iii. 5, 8; Gal. iii. 27; Titus iii. 5; Eph. v. 25, 26; Acts ii. 38, 41.

VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.

Titus iii. 5.

[Note: The FPC allows some liberty of conscience on Baptism. To quote the Articles of the FPC, "The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, under Christ the Great King and Head of the Church, Realizing that bitter controversy raging around the mode and proper subjects of the ordinance of Christian baptism has divided the Body of Christ when that Body should have been united in Christian love and Holy Ghost power to stem the onslaughts and hell-inspired assaults of modernism, hereby affirms that each member of the Free Presbyterian Church shall have liberty to decide for himself which course to adopt on these controverted issues, each member giving due honor in love to the views held by differing brethren, but none espousing the error of baptismal regeneration.]

 

[McWilliams]

This is only IMHO as has been already stated we are all pretty well set in our beliefs! However, I'll just throw out my thoughts on the subject which helped clarify it all for me.

Both baptism and the Lord's Supper are symbolic, done to remember in sign what already occured in actuality. A heart is no more regenerated via baptism than is the Lord's body present in the Lord's Supper.
In baptism we are 'buried and resurrected' as was Christ, a sign of what took place at our regeneration. We thereby confirm that we are now His child and will be living a new life in Him as one raised from the dead. This obviously cannot be the case with an infant, unable to believe or confirm anything at all.
This appears clear to me now. I am open to new growth and learning from the Holy Spirit, just as I also did when learning of the doctrines of grace! I never want to set my beliefs in concrete and see no further truths that are shown! If in all our ways we acknowledge Him He will direct our paths. This includes our specific beliefs if we trust Him. It will be declared to us in full clarity 'in that day'.