Posted on 03/08/2007 10:53:14 AM PST by Alex Murphy
Several weeks ago I had the unique experience of witnessing my first infant baptism. I suppose that one statement says a lot about my own spiritual background in that I managed to live 54 years without ever seeing an infant baptism in person. I was raised Baptist and have spent my ministerial career serving in churches that practiced believers' baptism by immersion. Those are the circles in I have moved and felt most comfortable. And yet when all of Christendom is taken in consideration, that position is decidedly in the minority. Catholics, the Orthodox, Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and all the Reformed churches practice infant baptism. I witnessed my first one while preaching at a Reformed church in Elmhurst, Illinois. And I even had a personal connection because it happened that years earlier I had married the first couple whose children were being baptized that day.
The pastor began by asking the parents if they were true believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. He also asked them to affirm their commitment to raise their children in the church and to teach them the Word of God. His comments were essentially no different than the ones I make whenever I do a child dedication. Just before the baptism itself, he used a fascinating illustration. Suppose, he said to the parents, that a rich uncle came to you this morning and said, "I'm giving each of your children a check for a million dollars." You would be thrilled and your children would be blessed even though they wouldn't understand the significance of it. The check would guarantee your children's financial future. However, a million-dollar check is useless unless the person who receives it also endorses it and deposits it in the bank. If you never endorse it, the million dollars never really becomes yours. Infant baptism, he said, is like that. It's like a million-dollar check in that it brings the promises of God to the child but those promises are of no effect unless the child personally comes to faith in Jesus Christ. I am paraphrasing but I think that's a fair summary of the pastor's words.
Then he dipped his hands in the water of the baptismal font, placed it in the forehead of each child, and if I'm not mistaken, he did it three times, saying that it was done in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. All in all, it was a beautiful and simple ceremony. I was glad to be there to observe it. Those of us who hold to believers' baptism tend to have several major objections to infant baptism. Two are biblical and one is more pastoral in nature.
1) There is no example of infant baptism in the New Testament.
2) There is no command to baptize babies in the New Testament.
3) Many people who have been baptized as infants believe they are going to heaven because a priest or a pastor sprinkled some water on their forehead when they were a few weeks old.
It is #3 that is our chief objection. Too many people trust in their church connection (and thus in their infant baptism) who give no evidence at all of knowing Christ personally, trusting him, loving him, serving him, following him and obeying him, They never darken the doors of any church and seem to have no spiritual interest, yet they believe they are going to heaven because they are "members of God's family" by virtue of infant baptism. Sometimes they are even told that by church leaders.
That’s why I liked the million-dollar illustration. It makes clear that no one goes to heaven because water was sprinkled on them when they were a baby. And by implication, it teaches that infant baptism does not and cannot save. It is Christ who saves by faith. We are saved when we "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 16:31).
The pastor quoted the words of Jesus who said, "Let the little children come to me and do not forbid them" (Matthew 19:14). I smiled wryly and thought of Spurgeon's sermon Children Brought to Christ, and Not to the Font, but that was just my "inner Baptist" coming out.
Christians differ in our understanding of baptism, and it is not likely that we will agree on this until we get to heaven. For a good recent summary of various views, see the brand-new Understanding Four Views on Baptism, edited by John Armstrong and featuring presentations (and rebuttals) by representatives of the Baptist, Reformed, Lutheran and Christian Church/Church of Christ positions.
I remain convinced that believers' baptism is scriptural, but at the same time I recognize that thoughtful Christians disagree over this issue. I suppose (this is my "inner Baptist" coming out again) that if you have to have infant baptism, I like the way the pastor did it, with a strong emphasis on the fact that the children are not saved by baptism and must later come to personal saving faith in Christ. I can have happy fellowship with Christians of that conviction and will also be happy to baptize those children again (or for the first time, from my point of view) when they trust Christ as Savior.
One other note. This week I have enjoyed reading a delightful little book by Stephen J. Nichols called The Reformation: How a Monk and a Mallet Changed the World. In his chapter on John Calvin, he notes that "only two heresies were punishable by death in the Holy Roman Empire--heresies relating to the Trinity and the insistence on believers' baptism (in the place of infant baptism)" (p. 80). That made me sit up straight. Great issues are at stake in the baptism debate and I do not wish to minimize them. Where the gospel is faithfully preached and believed, we can recognize that we are truly brothers and sisters in Christ despite our deeply-held convictions in certain areas. We will sometimes have to agree to disagree and even to worship in different churches while still extending the hand of Christian fellowship across the watery divide of baptism.
It should. It's a thoroughly goofy statement.
Excellent post. Thanks.
One problem with "believer's baptism" is the ritualistic aspect -- kids are subjected to social, parental, and clerical pressure to perform a set of rituals -- walking the aisle, saying the sinner's prayer, filling out the six-point record form, and submitting to public immersion. It's easy to see how this cultural custom generates a substantial percentage of false conversions.
Were Only Adults Baptized?
Fundamentalists are reluctant to admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults, but when pressed, they will. They just conclude that is what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text does not explicitly support such a view. Naturally enough, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture (and few are individually identified) are adults, because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just beginning—there were no "cradle Christians," people brought up from childhood in Christian homes.
Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ." Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.
Specific Biblical References?
But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).
In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.
Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.
BAPTISM, by Francis Schaeffer [Schaeffer's defense of paedobaptism]
Excellent post AM. I'm pinging a few of our Baptist Calvinists buddy here. As the author states, I'm not sure it makes me want to switch my believer baptism views, but I've had a hard time understanding the meaning of infant baptism before this article.
I think infant baptisms are the best of the lot and why I say this is from the very beginning kids already have a base for believing in God and loving Jesus. Immediately they are attending mass, the family is involved in the importants of the religion from the very beginning until the grave. What a wonderful gift to give a baby. Of course, this is my opinion and I don't bash anyone who feels differently and feel that adult Baptism is better. My brother in Law was Baptised a Catholic at the age of 24 before he married my sister and so there are cases where adult baptisms are necessary. I don't bash either way.
This may be lacking in the New Testament but certainly not in the documents of the first Christian.
Irenaeus
"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God--infants, and children, and youths, 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 . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 180]).
Hippolytus
"Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow through the baptismal font or pour into it from above; but if water is scarce, whether on a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available. Let them remove their clothing. Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
Origen
"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin . . . In the Church baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 244]).
Origen
"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries [sacraments], knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 244]).
Cyprian
"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth.
In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letter to Fidus 64:2 [A.D. 251]).
Cyprian
"If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid. 64:5).
Gregory of Nazianz
"Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!" (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 381]).
If grace is a free unearned gift from God then even an infant can receive the grace that is given in baptism. Nothing needs to be done to receive it. The catholic notion demonstrates this best. But then, the early church had no idea of what True Christianity was.
Option B: Assume some kind of "state of innocence" protects your child until the "age of reason" is attained, at which point strive to induce a "conversion experience" via a complex array of societal and psychological pressure mechanisms. Oh, yes. Since we are hard-wired to respond to the pressures brought upon us by those we respect, you'll probably be able to induce such an experience -- but you aren't God, so the converts you make are less likely to be genuine than those God makes.
Charles Finney, the American pelagian, introduced a number of human psuedo-sacraments into the experience of the American church, such as the "altar call." He also denied original sin, and preached a form of autosoteriology through will power.
1) There is no example of infant baptism in the New Testament.
Converts and sometimes their households were baptized. It is not stated either that the entire household was converted, or that there were or were not infants in the household.
I maintain that the NT is not nearly as clear as Baptists would like to believe.
2) There is no command to baptize babies in the New Testament.
Because, "of course" it's appropriate. Do you need a command to breathe? :-)
3) Many people who have been baptized as infants believe they are going to heaven because a priest or a pastor sprinkled some water on their forehead when they were a few weeks old.
That they are misinformed in not an arguement one way or the other about the validity of the practice.
I remain convinced that believers' baptism is scriptural,Of course it's scriptural. Noone would deny baptism to a convert who had not previously been baptised. I've seen adult baptisms in Reformed churches. The question is whether it's appropriate to apply the sign of the new covenant to the infant children of believers.
Christians differ in our understanding of baptism, and it is not likely that we will agree on this until we get to heaven. For a good recent summary of various views, see the brand-new Understanding Four Views on Baptism, edited by John Armstrong and featuring presentations (and rebuttals) by representatives of the Baptist, Reformed, Lutheran and Christian Church/Church of Christ positions.
Not even getting into the RC conception of baptism....
One problem with "believer's baptism" is the ritualistic aspect -- kids are subjected to social, parental, and clerical pressure to perform a set of rituals -- walking the aisle, saying the sinner's prayer, filling out the six-point record form, and submitting to public immersion.
I can remember seeing young kids (<=10) giving testimony before baptism, about how awful their lives were before accepting Jesus. That had to be someone else talking. No way they'd have a grasp on that. No way at all.
I don't get "bent out of shape" over infant Baptism because Baptism is not salvational. I do prefer "believer's Baptism" because it is the product of an adult desire to repent and publicly declare your faith.
It is the understanding that you are only saved by Grace through Faith not works that is the key.
I had the opportunity to witness to a RC last week and she mentioned that infant Baptism was essential to remove sin, after I had discussed believer's Baptism. I responded by asking her what sins Jesus Christ had removed when John the Baptist Baptized him.
Ditto (and I'm a paedobaptist), and Amen!
non sequitur. John the Baptist didn't administer Christian baptism, and Jesus was God in the flesh who had no sin.
It's not too far from the Lutheran view, which shouldn't come as a surprise. From Luther's small catechism:
What is baptism?
Baptism is not merely water, but it is water used according to God's command and connected with God's Word.
What is this Word of God?
As recorded in Matthew 28:19, our Lord Christ said, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
What gifts or benefits does Baptism bestow?
It effects forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and grants eternal salvation to all who believe, as the Word and promise of God declare.
What is this Word and promise of God?
As recorded in Mark 16:16, our Lord Christ said, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned."
How can water produce such great effects?
It is not the water that produces these effects, but the Word of God connected with the water, and our faith which relies on the Word of God connected with the water. For without the Word of God the water is merely water and no Baptism. But when connected with the Word of God it is a Baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Spirit, as St. Paul wrote to Titus (3:5-8): "He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life. This saying is sure."
---- [end quotation] ----
As a Catholic, I don't find too much objectionable there.
We have baby dedications and the pastor gives a letter to the parents to open with the child on their 16th birthday. Why 16? I don't know.
We have baby dedications and the pastor gives a letter to the parents to open with the child on their 16th birthday. Why 16? I don't know.
Age of Accountability?
And what is the biblical warrant for "baby dedication"? Yeah, yeah, Samuel was dedicated. So what?
That is probably the reasoning. I'm not sure you can set an exact age because people mature differently.
And what is the biblical warrant for "baby dedication"?
As a congregation we are praying for the baby that the LORD may bring the baby to a saving FAITH. The biblical warrant is probably as strong as that for infant Baptism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.