Why we Presbyterians Baptize infants.

[Neostarwcc]

It's commonly said among Baptists and other mainline denominations that its impossible for an infant to declare faith therefore they shouldn't be baptized. While it's true that an infant cannot speak for themselves us Presbyterians however have been Baptizing Babies for hundreds of years. Why? Well simply because it's the Parents responsibility to raise their Children in the faith and this includes Baptism. Second there is scriptural support for infant baptism. For one, there is the Old Covenant contained in Genesis 17:7-14. Just as believers and their children were circumcised in the Old covenant, believers and their children are baptized in the new covenant. Deuteronomy 29:10-12 shows that this covenant includes children on top of adults. Psalm 22:9-10 shows that God's relationship with his children begins before they are even born which proves that God's relationship with us begins before we even express faith ourselves therefore we should be baptized as soon as possible.

Ezekiel 16:20-21 further cements this point that children are part of the baptismal covenant community.
Children belong to God and are a part of that community. It also makes sense to get your infant baptized. If you are in the faith than the children of God need to be in the faith. Also don't forget Acts 2:38-39 & 1 Corinthians 7:14. So there is plenty of scriptural support for infant baptism. Also don't forget the WCF 28.1 & 28.4 if youre interested in some reading about presbyterian theology.

 

[BobRyan]

It's commonly said among Baptists and other mainline denominations that its impossible for an infant to declare faith therefore they shouldn't be baptized. While it's true that an infant cannot speak for themselves us Presbyterians however have been Baptizing Babies for hundreds of years. Why? Well simply because it's the Parents responsibility to raise their Children in the faith

R.C. Sproul - a reformed Presbyterian theologian debated his friend John MacArthur on this very topic.

In the first 59:00 minute MacArthur makes his case

Then at 59:11 Sproul responds.

Notice that in Sproul's opening remarks he starts off by admitting that MacArthur is only going to accept a Bible argument not a "history,tradition, church-authority" argument.

Then at 1:01:45 Sproul admits that "there is no where in the NT that the text explicitly commands the baptism of infants - OR - explicitly even MENTIONS the baptism of infants".

Sproul then notes that MacArthur then concludes "it is simply not in scripture".

In others words - it has to be "read into scripture" it is not "read out of it". The reader simply infers it if they wish.

For many viewers of that debates - that statement sounds like "infant baptism cannot be found in the Bible".

Second there is scriptural support for infant baptism. For one, there is the Old Covenant contained in Genesis 17:7-14. Just as believers and their children were circumcised in the Old covenant

Everyone agrees that Gen 17 does not reference infant baptism or preaching the Gospel to infants nor does it say all infants in Gen 17 were circumcised. It does not allow females.

, believers and their children are baptized in the new covenant.

The question is whether the NT formula "that those who believe are and baptized" will be saved.
Or is it "even if they don't believe - but are baptized they will be saved"?

Deuteronomy 29:10-12 shows that this covenant includes children on top of adults.

No doubt children can hear and accept the Gospel, believe and be baptized - but what about infants?

Psalm 22:9-10 shows that God's relationship with his children begins before they are even born

No indication that a child that is not born - has accepted Christ or is "born saved".

 

[RandyPNW]

It's commonly said among Baptists and other mainline denominations that its impossible for an infant to declare faith therefore they shouldn't be baptized. While it's true that an infant cannot speak for themselves us Presbyterians however have been Baptizing Babies for hundreds of years. Why? Well simply because it's the Parents responsibility to raise their Children in the faith and this includes Baptism. Second there is scriptural support for infant baptism. For one, there is the Old Covenant contained in Genesis 17:7-14. Just as believers and their children were circumcised in the Old covenant, believers and their children are baptized in the new covenant. Deuteronomy 29:10-12 shows that this covenant includes children on top of adults. Psalm 22:9-10 shows that God's relationship with his children begins before they are even born which proves that God's relationship with us begins before we even express faith ourselves therefore we should be baptized as soon as possible.

Ezekiel 16:20-21 further cements this point that children are part of the baptismal covenant community.
Children belong to God and are a part of that community. It also makes sense to get your infant baptized. If you are in the faith than the children of God need to be in the faith. Also don't forget Acts 2:38-39 & 1 Corinthians 7:14. So there is plenty of scriptural support for infant baptism. Also don't forget the WCF 28.1 & 28.4 if youre interested in some reading about presbyterian theology.

Right. I was baptized as an infant too, though in the Lutheran Church. Why should anybody wait to raise their children in Christ when they are adolescents?

The issue, for some, is that infant Baptism isn't really biblical Baptism. It is really just a Christian tradition, which is, in fact, a ceremonial Dedication. Absolutely nothing wrong with this.

At any rate, Baptism isn't necessary for Salvation--it is just the act of a penitent who wishes to turn his or her life over from a pagan lifestyle to a Christian lifestyle.

Baptism was prescribed for those in Israel who had lived a wayward lifestyle, indicated by John the Baptist's "Baptism of Repentance." Either that, or it was for pagans who had never known the ways of godliness.

People raised up in Christian households, who never "fell away," had no need to be cleansed of their sins by ritual, since they had lived in the faith that cleansed them. They were already "saved."

I know Peter mentions something about Baptism "saving you," but I think that is grotesquely misunderstood. Baptism is a simulation of Salvation and as such "saves you" through a symbolic act of cleaning through Christ.

 

[Neostarwcc]

Right. I was baptized as an infant too, though in the Lutheran Church. Why should anybody wait to raise their children in Christ when they are adolescents?

The issue, for some, is that infant Baptism isn't really biblical Baptism. It is really just a Christian tradition, which is, in fact, a ceremonial Dedication. Absolutely nothing wrong with this.

At any rate, Baptism isn't necessary for Salvation--it is just the act of a penitent who wishes to turn his or her life over from a pagan lifestyle to a Christian lifestyle.

Baptism was prescribed for those in Israel who had lived a wayward lifestyle, indicated by John the Baptist's "Baptism of Repentance." Either that, or it was for pagans who had never known the ways of godliness.

People raised up in Christian households, who never "fell away," had no need to be cleansed of their sins by ritual, since they had lived in the faith that cleansed them. They were already "saved."

I know Peter mentions something about Baptism "saving you," but I think that is grotesquely misunderstood. Baptism is a simulation of Salvation and as such "saves you" through a symbolic act of cleaning through Christ.

I was baptized Catholic as an infant as well as was my wife and sister. My mother who was a "practicing" Catholic at the time made sure that my sister and I were baptized. I asked my Elders when I joined the PCA several years ago if my wife and i needed to get rebaptized because we were baptized Catholic and not Protestant and they said that all baptisms done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are valid. On the topic of RC sproul though i believe he would have rebaptized a Catholic if they requested him to do so.

Mainly because not all children who get baptized are saved. It's a little bit of a Grey area i think.

Your point about waiting to baptize your children is so true. As a believing parent you have a God given duty to raise your children in the faith and this includes getting them baptized as soon as possible. They might not be saved later on but God commands us to raise our children in the faith regardless and oftentimes more than not i see God working miracles in the children of believers. My church is full of children of God who I would be immensely surprised if they left the faith later in life.

 

[RandyPNW]

I was baptized Catholic as an infant as well as was my wife and sister. My mother who was a "practicing" Catholic at the time made sure that my sister and I were baptized. I asked my Elders when I joined the PCA several years ago if my wife and i needed to get rebaptized because we were baptized Catholic and not Protestant and they said that all baptisms done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are valid. On the topic of RC sproul though i believe he would have rebaptized a Catholic if they requested him to do so.

Mainly because not all children who get baptized are saved. It's a little bit of a Grey area i think.

Your point about waiting to baptize your children is so true. As a believing parent you have a God given duty to raise your children in the faith and this includes getting them baptized as soon as possible. They might not be saved later on but God commands us to raise our children in the faith regardless and oftentimes more than not i see God working miracles in the children of believers. My church is full of children of God who I would be immensely surprised if they left the faith later in life.

Yes, I want to be quick to say that I don't believe that various sacraments and religious rituals transfer power to people, ie sacramentalism. They are celebratory in the sense they represent a person's determination to do something or live a certain way.

When we get baptized as adults we are testifying to the world that we are choosing to follow Christ in our lives. When we are baptized as infants our parents are telling the world that they are determined to raise their children in the Christian religion.

Rituals do not convey salvation mystically to infants, nor to adults. They just present a public testimony of religious intentions to perform what the ritual depicts.

 

[BobRyan]

Right. I was baptized as an infant too, though in the Lutheran Church. Why should anybody wait to raise their children in Christ when they are adolescents?

The issue, for some, is that infant Baptism isn't really biblical Baptism. It is really just a Christian tradition, which is, in fact, a ceremonial Dedication. Absolutely nothing wrong with this.

At any rate, Baptism isn't necessary for Salvation--it is just the act of a penitent who wishes to turn his or her life over from a pagan lifestyle to a Christian lifestyle.

In the Bible - it was not only pagans that were being baptized - it was also observant Jews who were following the new Christian sect of Judaism.

Baptism was prescribed for those in Israel who had lived a wayward lifestyle

Luke reports that everyone needed to be baptized and religious leaders that did not choose to repent and be baptized were in a lost condition.

Luke 7:30 I say to you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” 29 When all the people and the tax collectors heard this, they acknowledged God’s justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John. 30 But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.

People raised up in Christian households, who never "fell away," had no need to be cleansed of their sins

"all have sinned" Rom 3:23 -- even those raised in Christian households.

This is why Rom 6 Paul argues that Christians are to avoid sin - having been baptized into Jesus' death and then raised up (literal water baptism) in newness of life.

 

[BobRyan]

I was baptized Catholic as an infant as well as was my wife and sister. My mother who was a "practicing" Catholic at the time made sure that my sister and I were baptized. I asked my Elders when I joined the PCA several years ago if my wife and i needed to get rebaptized because we were baptized Catholic and not Protestant and they said that all baptisms done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are valid

I agree that the infant in a Catholic baptism vs the infant in a Protestant baptism - is not experiencing anything different.

Mainly because not all children who get baptized are saved.

It is pretty much certain that no infant is making a decision in that case.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Baptists have a radical ecclesiology and hence reject paedobaptism. It all comes from what one thinks the Church is.

 

[RandyPNW]

In the Bible - it was not only pagans that were being baptized - it was also observant Jews who were following the new Christian sect of Judaism.

Sacramentalism is typical in all people groups. They want to believe it's something they do, some law they keep, that confers on them some virtue or power. It's really just a form of magic.

What gave Israel virtue under the Law was their obedience to God's word. The rituals themselves did not confer a mysterious power or ability upon them. Their obedience pleased God, which in turn caused the obedient to be blessed.

Sacramentalism and Legalism are false forms of religious observance, although many do so innocently. They think God is requiring things of them that are really just memory aids or ways of testifying that help the devotee or those who witness them. Such is Communion and Baptism, typically viewed as "Sacraments."

Luke reports that everyone needed to be baptized and religious leaders that did not choose to repent and be baptized were in a lost condition.

Luke 7:30 I say to you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” 29 When all the people and the tax collectors heard this, they acknowledged God’s justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John. 30 But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.

Yes, the assumption has to be made that "everyone" present needed to repent of their sins. Israel was in a very lost state when Jesus arrived on the scene, when John the Baptist came to "prepare the way."

"all have sinned" Rom 3:23 -- even those raised in Christian households.
This is why Rom 6 Paul argues that Christians are to avoid sin - having been baptized into Jesus' death and then raised up (literal water baptism) in newness of life.

Yes, even Christians sin, but they do not live in sin. Only those living in sin were encouraged to be baptized for repentance. I don't know of any saint who was told to be baptized, except Jesus consented to do so on behalf of righteousness for those who didn't have it. That is, he was a special exception.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't know of any saint who was told to be baptized, except Jesus consented to do so on behalf of righteousness for those who didn't have it. That is, he was a special exception.

Cornelius' entire house was told to be baptized.
Paul tells people baptized by John -- to be baptized again.

 

[BobRyan]

Baptists have a radical ecclesiology and hence reject paedobaptism.

That is not a logical argument.

Christians had a radical ecclesiology as compared to Jews , with both Jewish church and NT church grafted in together as per Romans 11 - and with Jesus as High Priest in heaven Heb 8:1-5 and the earthly priesthood of levites abolished. (Heb 7) -- but that does not explain why we only see believer's baptism in the Bible.

You have to consider the doctrine of it - as Paul explains in Rom 6:1-9 to see what the Christians were claiming in baptism.

 

[RandyPNW]

Cornelius' entire house was told to be baptized.
Paul tells people baptized by John -- to be baptized again.

Cornelius was not a Christian, and it was normal to ask non-Christians to get baptized as a believer in Christ. John's Baptism was a prelude to Christian Baptism.

What passage are you referring to with respect to John's Baptism? Acts 19 speaks of those who were disciples of Jesus who had been baptized by John. They had repented of their sins, but had failed to follow that by receiving the Spirit. John's message was to follow Jesus in his Spirit Baptism.

So I don't know. Those who had to repent needed to go the next step. But those Jews who had not needed to repent may not have needed to get baptized upon conversion to Jesus, since Jesus was their Messiah.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That is not a logical argument.

Christians had a radical ecclesiology as compared to Jews , with both Jewish church and NT church grafted in together as per Romans 11 - and with Jesus as High Priest in heaven Heb 8:1-5 and the earthly priesthood of levites abolished. (Heb 7) -- but that does not explain why we only see believer's baptism in the Bible.

You have to consider the doctrine of it - as Paul explains in Rom 6:1-9 to see what the Christians were claiming in baptism.

Baptist ecclesiology is radical compared to the ecclesiology of all the ancient Christian churches. In this matter Judaism is not relevant. And if you count Romans 6:1-14 as defining the meaning of baptism then it follows that you will believe in baptismal regeneration, which I think you do not, and that in baptism one's sins are taken away, which I think you do not, and that in baptism one receives grace, which I think that you do not.

Romans 6:1-14 RSV-CE What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? (2) By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? (3) Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? (4) We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. (5) For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. (6) We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. (7) For he who has died is freed from sin. (8) But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. (9) For we know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. (10) The death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. (11) So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. (12) Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. (13) Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness. (14) For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.​

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Paedobaptists see baptism as a remedy for original sin. Paedobaptists understand original sin as a condition one is born into.

Credobaptists see sin as an act of the will. Hence the Age of Accountability is the remedy for original sin.

Paedos and Credos are as far apart as the East is from the West. And the debate continues on and on and on.

 

[RandyPNW]

Baptist ecclesiology is radical compared to the ecclesiology of all the ancient Christian churches. In this matter Judaism is not relevant. And if you count Romans 6:1-14 as defining the meaning of baptism then it follows that you will believe in baptismal regeneration, which I think you do not, and that in baptism one's sins are taken away, which I think you do not, and that in baptism one receives grace, which I think that you do not.

In my view this is partly fair and partly not. I m not a Baptist, but I believe that rituals like Water Baptism, though symbolic, still maintain validity as an expression of faith. And they are performed by regenerated people to confirm their regeneration.

As I see it, early Christian belief in "Baptismal Regeneration" really had more to do with validating a rite by the faith involved than with what is termed "Sacramentalism." In my view, Sacramentalism gradually inched into the performance of these rites until with a mixed Christian crowd the people began to believe that these rites conferred virtue upon them on their own--even with less than a genuine faith. They began to put more of a premium on the rite than on the faith that gave it validity.

I hope you know what I mean? Nominalism is the operation of Christianity with a Faith that is not regenerated. Much of Christianity over time is diluted, due to there being a "mixed crowd" that was invited in.

Sacramentalism among a nominally Christian population becomes a form of magic. But true virtue is conferred upon those who have faith, including when they perform rites like the Eucharist and Water Baptism. It is the Spirit, however, that gives these rites and their faith validity.

That's why John the Baptist preempted the ritual of Water Baptism with Spirit Baptism--not to exclude Water Baptism but rather, to ensure that Water Baptism is performed by those with genuine Faith. My opinion only....

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

In my view this is partly fair and partly not. I m not a Baptist, but I believe that rituals like Water Baptism, though symbolic, still maintain validity as an expression of faith. And they are performed by regenerated people to confirm their regeneration.

As I see it, early Christian belief in "Baptismal Regeneration" really had more to do with validating a rite by the faith involved than with what is termed "Sacramentalism." In my view, Sacramentalism gradually inched into the performance of these rites until with a mixed Christian crowd the people began to believe that these rites conferred virtue upon them on their own--even with less than a genuine faith. They began to put more of a premium on the rite than on the faith that gave it validity.

I hope you know what I mean? Nominalism is the operation of Christianity with a Faith that is not regenerated. Much of Christianity over time is diluted, due to there being a "mixed crowd" that was invited in.

Sacramentalism among a nominally Christian population becomes a form of magic. But true virtue is conferred upon those who have faith, including when they perform rites like the Eucharist and Water Baptism. It is the Spirit, however, that gives these rites and their faith validity.

That's why John the Baptist preempted the ritual of Water Baptism with Spirit Baptism--not to exclude Water Baptism but rather, to ensure that Water Baptism is performed by those with genuine Faith. My opinion only....

Your post reflects your perspective, but I believe what truly matters is the teaching of Christ, particularly as it is conveyed through His church.

 

[The Liturgist]

Paedobaptists see baptism as a remedy for original sin. Paedobaptists understand original sin as a condition one is born into.

Credobaptists see sin as an act of the will. Hence the Age of Accountability is the remedy for original sin.

Paedos and Credos are as far apart as the East is from the West. And the debate continues on and on and on.

Interesting - credobaptism as inherently crypto-Pelagian. The existence of Calvinist Baptists, who regard one as foreordained to salvation regardless of whether or not one is actually baptized, and whose view is therefore irrelevant from a sacramental theology perspective, had blinded me to this.

Thank you for a most illuminating post.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Interesting - credobaptism as inherently crypto-Pelagian. The existence of Calvinist Baptists, who regard one as foreordained to salvation regardless of whether or not one is actually baptized, and whose view is therefore irrelevant from a sacramental theology perspective, had blinded me to this.

Thank you for a most illuminating post.

Pelagianism:

1. Denial of Original Sin
2. Full Libertarian Free Will
3. Adam's fall set a bad example but did not impute sin
4. Jesus' life and death set a good example
5. Humanistic Monergism (man saves himself by choosing Jesus as his example)

Semi-Pelagianism:

1. Accepts Original Sin, but only as an injury to the....
2. Libertarian Free Will, which does choose evil but can (and must) choose God.
3. Synergistic Regeneration - generically 99% - 1% regeneration (God did 99% of the work, you must do the rest and choose to accept that in order to be saved. Most argue that God does the saving, but you must allow Him to save you in order for him to do it, which leads to...)
4. God's ability to save or do good is limited by man's approval in allowing him to do it. To Semi-Pelagians, God is semi-sovereign (which, I believe, is an oxymoron)

Arminian: People are born completely corrupt and unable to respond to God, but God gives prevenient grace to all (or to all who hear the gospel), undoing enough of the corruption in their hearts that they are able to seek or to reject the offer of the gospel.

Clearly, theological liberalism and theistic evolutionism is Pelagian. Liberalism denies that the Fall made men unable to live virtuously, that as an act of will men may be righteous. Christ thus becomes an example for men, not their atonement. It is a denial of the Fall and of the Atonement.

Credo's are closer to Semi-pelagianism....but with some qualifications which I am going to have to think through.

 

[RandyPNW]

Your post reflects your perspective, but I believe what truly matters is the teaching of Christ, particularly as it is conveyed through His church.

I know it may not accord with your church's teachings. Many of my beliefs do not accord with my church's teachings either. But I'd like to think that we Christians all belong to the same universal Christian Society.

We share viewing Christ's teachings as being of highest importance. One of Christ's teachings was the prayer that all Christians be "one."

John 17.20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

 

[RandyPNW]

Pelagianism:

1. Denial of Original Sin
2. Full Libertarian Free Will
3. Adam's fall set a bad example but did not impute sin
4. Jesus' life and death set a good example
5. Humanistic Monergism (man saves himself by choosing Jesus as his example)

Semi-Pelagianism:

1. Accepts Original Sin, but only as an injury to the....
2. Libertarian Free Will, which does choose evil but can (and must) choose God.
3. Synergistic Regeneration - generically 99% - 1% regeneration (God did 99% of the work, you must do the rest and choose to accept that in order to be saved. Most argue that God does the saving, but you must allow Him to save you in order for him to do it, which leads to...)
4. God's ability to save or do good is limited by man's approval in allowing him to do it. To Semi-Pelagians, God is semi-sovereign (which, I believe, is an oxymoron)

Arminian: People are born completely corrupt and unable to respond to God, but God gives prevenient grace to all (or to all who hear the gospel), undoing enough of the corruption in their hearts that they are able to seek or to reject the offer of the gospel.

Clearly, theological liberalism and theistic evolutionism is Pelagian. Liberalism denies that the Fall made men unable to live virtuously, that as an act of will men may be righteous. Christ thus becomes an example for men, not their atonement. It is a denial of the Fall and of the Atonement.

Credo's are closer to Semi-pelagianism....but with some qualifications which I am going to have to think through.

These categories are not air-tight. As you see it I could be any number of these Nominally Christian people groups. I believe in Original Sin, but I don't believe that prevents man from exercising his will, choosing for Christ, or doing good.

What an unregenerated person cannot do, however, is produce the fruits of a changed character. He may do good, but not of the character of Christ who was good by disposition. Fallen people remain fallen people, and the good they do may be good, but does not reflect a full conversion to Chrsit, who alone saves people. Truly saved people reflect an entirely new character--not just good works on occasion.

I do not believe we do 1% of our Salvation, with Christ producing only 99% of our atonement. He provided *all* of our atonement, and yet, we still have free will and must choose to accept his atonement. This is not Salvation by Works but our God-given ability to respond to God's Word, which is what makes our acceptance valid.

So it is all God, in terms of Salvation, even though we can legitimately choose it. Predestination is another matter entirely. All people are equally given access to Salvation. But only those God originally chose will accept it. The rest are people produced outside of God's original plan.