Infant Baptism?

[Curmudgeon]

Let me start by saying I'm not trying to start any firestorms here. We sent our boys to a Lutheran Bible camp this last week, we are not Lutheran but our church is not doing a camp this year, and the subject of infant baptism came up. I personally have not believed in this, but I am curious what scripture is used to support it, they didn't give any. All opinions are welcome but please support them with scripture.

 

[ewoksrule]

I am not well versed to speak on this topic from personal studies, but I lean heavily on a well known theologian R.C.Sproul for a good defense of Infant Baptism.
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/infant-baptism/
The links at the bottom of that post are very good as well.

 

[Pheonix28]

Following the link from ewok, I don't agree with the point the author is trying to make, that circumcision is equal to baptism, and thus the circumcision of infants is the same as baptism of infants. Circumcision wasn't a profession of faith as the author is suggesting. It was a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham. He even uses Gen 17:22-27 as his example, which it clearly is not used as a profession of faith.

 

[ewoksrule]

He also would agree that infant baptism is not a profession of faith just like circumcision was not. It is simply a promise and a seal that is hopefully fulfilled at a later date.

 

[Curmudgeon]

But baptism in the Bible is always linked with faith and repentance. The circumcision Sproul links to baptism was a spiritual circumcision. Paul actually teaches against doing physical things, such as circumcision (Galations), that are just symbolic with no spiritual change in the one doing them. They are just empty signs.

 

[Wolfeman]

Acts 8: 36-37 does a good job of defining baptism as something done after salvation. Of course most modern translations either take this verse out completely or relegate it to substandard status.

 

[Kendrik]

Funny that this comes up at the same time I'm listening to the John MacArthur/R.C. Sproul debate on believer's baptism and paedo baptism. haha

I wouldn't say that either man is the mouthpiece of God, but I thought I'd link to the debate anyway: http://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/baptism_debate/

 

[ewoksrule]

After listening to those debates and reading both sides for many years now. I came to the personal conviction that you can't prove it either way (heck both sides sound like they win in those debates). Therefore it is up to the Spirit working inside the individual as to what they feel is right for their baby. (dedication or baptism) I would probably want to err on the side of not missing out on something special so I would lean towards baptism. But if my kid wanted to be re-baptised after salvation, I think that would be fine with me.

 

[tomfoolery_79]

What is infant baptism? An act of saving faith? I disagree with it. As a symbol by the parents and community of believers to devote their parenting to raising the child in biblical way? I'm still not sure I'm down with it, but it doesn't get me out of my chair.

 

[ewoksrule]

While Catholics might say it is part of the process of saving faith, most any Protestants who practice it, treat it more like a Child Dedication with "more weight"

 

[Stc95]

The Bible is vary vague about baptisms, other than to be baptized. It does not leave instructions, it does not give clear understanding as to what actually happens during baptism, the only crystal clear thing about baptism is that it's commanded. To answer your question, it's important to look into church history to see the development of baptism that we are familiar with today.

Back in the early years, the 0's-300's baptisms were varied and not uniformed. The same can be said for theologies, but that's a different discussion. Mainly, churches had to work with what they had. Baptisms in North Africa looked a lot different than baptisms in Asia Minor, as one can imagine. Because baptisms are largely symbolic, the actual performance, or ritual, of them is not critical. The goal was to mimic Jesus' baptism as much as possible. Running water was preferred, however any water would do, or if water was scarce, sprinkling water was acceptable, and if no water was around sand was considered an acceptable replacement.

Jumping forward, in the first three centuries the largest population getting baptized were adult converts. After the Edict of Milan in 313 that legalized Christianity, the paradigm shifted and most of the population converted. After these converts were baptized, there were no more adults left to be baptized. This is where infant baptisms were first introduce in a large scale. This of course led to more changes in catechumen and the introduction of Confirmation, but to the Early Church, there really was no question about baptizing babies. Parents want their children to be saved, and an aspect of salvation is through Baptism. While I do not believe that salvation is based on Baptism alone, it is a command to go forth and baptize, meaning it's important.

TL;DR: In answering your question, you won't find biblical support for infant baptism because it wasn't an issue when the gospels/epistles/New Testament was written. In the First Century, adults were the only one's being baptized. It was not until later that the Church had to adapt and included infant baptism.

Augustine:
"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

 

[ewoksrule]

I have read in various places that infant baptism was an encouraged practice throughout the first four centuries of Christian history. It was not until the Edict that the adult baptism took over.

 

[ewoksrule]

Polycarp (69-155), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. This enabled him to say at his martyrdom. "Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 9: 3). Justin Martyr (100 - 166) of the next generation states about the year 150, "Many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years" (Apology 1: 15). Further, in his Dialog with Trypho the Jew, Justin Martyr states that Baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament.

Irenaeus (130 - 200), some 35 years later in 185, writes in Against Heresies II 22: 4 that Jesus "came to save all through means of Himself - all. I say, who through him are born again to God - infants and children, boys and youth, and old men."

Hippolytus: And they shall baptize the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family. And next they shall baptism the grown men; and last the women. (Apostolic Tradition 21.3-5)


http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar40.htm

 

[Curmudgeon]

By scripture I mean Genesis thru Revelation. In the scripture only adults were baptized with repentance. I'm looking for any scripture that says to baptize infants. There were dedications in the scripture and we did this with both of our boys. The Elders came forward and laid hands and prayed over them. So I'm not addressing that. What I would be concerned about would be someone being baptized as an infant and thinking later on, well now I'm saved so that's all there is to it, and never coming to a saving belief in Christ as their personal savior.

 

[Stc95]

I'm looking for any scripture that says to baptize infants.

You're not going to find one. Infant baptism is extra-biblical. That's not to say that it isn't valid or heretical. It's just an adaptation to the changing times.

I have read in various places that infant baptism was an encouraged practice throughout the first four centuries of Christian history. It was not until the Edict that the adult baptism took over.

I didn't mean to say that infants or children were not baptized in the first four centuries. Before the Edict, adults wanting to be baptized and enter the Church had to undergo Catechumen which ranged from several weeks to 6 months depending on the church. In essence it was Christianity 101 and a process to weed out hostiles. Because it was more of an intellectual class, adults were primarily the product from it. After the Edict however, there was a major influx of new "converts," either for political or spiritual reasons, that were adults. However, because there were so many new people seeking baptism, Catechumen was cut short and those were baptized rapidly. Some think polluting the Church. Eventually there would be hardly any adults left to baptize. That only leaves children. Since they were baptized without going through Catechumen, the idea of Sunday School took its place.

 

[Abba San]

While Catholics might say it is part of the process of saving faith, most any Protestants who practice it, treat it more like a Child Dedication with "more weight"

Ewok is pretty accurate here, in how it is practiced.

Our first son was born when we were in a Methodist church and he was christened. Our second son came when we were in a Baptist church and he was dedicated. In both cases the onus was more on the parents than the child, to raise the child in the way he should go until that time when he could make a decision for himself. It was not a believer's baptism as you see in the scriptures.

Catholics have long had infant baptism as a part of the salvation process. To some extent it became more important than adult or believer's baptism. I just finished reading a book about Marconi. When his first child died before he could return home and have her baptized, they could not find a church with a cemetery that would allow the child to be buried. That is how strongly the Catholic church used to hold to infant baptism.

As Stc said, you will not find infant baptism taught in the Bible. Baptism, Old and New Testament was a baptism o repentance - and then a baptism of identifying with Christ.

 

[Lloren]

Infant baptism is found in the scriptures: Acts 16:25-34 where Paul baptizes the whole family of the jailer and in 1st Corinthians 1:16 where he says he baptized the a household of Stephanas as well.

There are a couple of things I like to think about in infant baptism. I am a recent apologist (5 years ago) of pedobaptism, but I don't disregard the believer's baptism either. I think the important thing is each follower their own conscience as led by the Lord. There are things to go to battle about... I don't believe this one is it.

Anyways, thoughts that brought me over to thinking pedobaptism has valid points:

1. How has western society perceived the sense of an individual being vs a collective family as a single unit? We see throughout history how God saves entire families because of the faith of the father. If the head of the house followed the Lord everyone did (willing or not). When the Holy Spirit came on Cornelius's house in Acts he came upon the whole house. (He and all his family were devout and God-fearing)

2. Baby dedications? Biblical? No, but it's done because the Body is affirming a member of the church otherwise in the thinking of a Believer's Baptism we treat a son and daughter as non-members (non-believers) until they make a rightful profession of faith and are baptized. This is incongruent with the behavior of church because we do actual train children and admonish them AS IF they will be brought to saving faith. Infant baptism is this. It's not salvation, but it's an outward testimony of their membership into the Body. Therefore they are not outsiders, but members of the Body as we believe they will be brought to saving faith.

3. Is salvation on my terms or Gods? Because a baby has no willful choice in baptism it is a definitive picture of God choosing His children (not of man's will or the will of the flesh, but God's will - John 1). When we put ourselves back in the choosing position then it's easy to say "we chose God" and "we chose to be baptized" and , in truth, we do choose baptism, but often this choice is made for us. Ultimately our salvation is authored by God. I feel like infant baptism is an interesting picture that reflects this.


I love my many friends and brothers who believe either way. I don't think this is the hill to die on and this why Paul said:

13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

 

[Curmudgeon]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say those verses promote infant baptism. Children were often not included at all when statements like those were made. Gen. 18:19 is an example of this, children were considered separate from the household. I'm not saying the children weren't baptized, but I think if the Lord wanted us to, I think it would be a bit more clear. It is very clear for adult believers the Bible clearly states repent and be baptized, but I fail to see how an infant can accomplish this. I do agree it is not an issue that should cause division. My only point was one that I made previously, that someone might feel that since they were baptized as an infant they are ok, and on their way to heaven without ever coming to repentance and a personal relationship with the Messiah

 

[Patriot]

Infant baptism is found in the scriptures: Acts 16:25-34 where Paul baptizes the whole family of the jailer and in 1st Corinthians 1:16 where he says he baptized the a household of Stephanas as well.

Household is a pretty generic term. All you can conclusively say about this is that it doesn't specifically rule out infants.

1. How has western society perceived the sense of an individual being vs a collective family as a single unit? We see throughout history how God saves entire families because of the faith of the father. If the head of the house followed the Lord everyone did (willing or not). When the Holy Spirit came on Cornelius's house in Acts he came upon the whole house. (He and all his family were devout and God-fearing)

What of Eli's children? Should I look for other examples?

2. Baby dedications? Biblical? No

Again, back to Samuel. It is indeed Biblical.

3. Is salvation on my terms or Gods? Because a baby has no willful choice in baptism it is a definitive picture of God choosing His children (not of man's will or the will of the flesh, but God's will - John 1). When we put ourselves back in the choosing position then it's easy to say "we chose God" and "we chose to be baptized" and , in truth, we do choose baptism, but often this choice is made for us. Ultimately our salvation is authored by God. I feel like infant baptism is an interesting picture that reflects this.

That would mean those adults baptized in Scripture (as well as my own) is an incorrect picture of Salvation. I reject this. While God does author our salvation, Baptism is not commanded to be done to infants as some sort of picture of this.

 

[Stc95]

My only point was one that I made previously, that someone might feel that since they were baptized as an infant they are ok, and on their way to heaven without ever coming to repentance and a personal relationship with the Messiah

From my knowledge, while most might consider it unnecessary, there is nothing inherently wrong about being baptized again. I was actually baptized twice. Once at birth and again when I was 10/11. Of course at the time I didn't know anything about the theology and no one said anything, but I there isn't a clause in the Bible that says if you're baptized more than once they cancel each other out.

If I were in a situation where someone was baptized as a child and they were concerned about the validity of it, I'd encourage them to get baptized again. Understanding that Baptism is not a get out of jail free card, but I don't think God is the type of god that would have a problem with multiple baptisms.

And if someone was baptized as a child, grew up and completely lived in sin, of the world, rejecting Jesus, I don't think they would worry too much about their place after death. From my experience, people that never "come to repentance and have a personal relationship with the Messiah" don't believe that they are going to Heaven.. or that there is one.