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.
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....
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Already some good stuff on this thread, so I'll just comment on this Minister's third objection: "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."
I don't know any Christians who believe this, and it has certainly never been an article of faith of any Church that I know. Catholics, for instance, believe that if you commit a mortal sin at any time after baptism, then you need to repent it, make a confession to a priest, and receive the sacrament of absolution.
I was born and bred an Episcopalian, and many of my brethren really didn't think too much about doctrine. But in the High Church, much the same was believed. And those Episcopalians who don't go to confession--probably a large majority--nevertheless are supposed to sincerely repent their sins and make an act of contrition to God.
Luther encouraged auricular confession for the forgiveness of what he called public sins, although this became uncommon later in the Lutheran churches.
Well, I could go on, but it would be a very naive member of any of the traditional churches who believed that infant baptism was enough to get you into heaven no matter what happened in the rest of your life.
Actually, the Justinian Code, dating from the late Roman Christian Emperor--and practiced throughout medieval Europe up into the Reformation (and why they burned heretics) made RE-BAPTISM a capitol offense, not simply being baptized later than infancy. Of course everyone was expected to baptize their infants, and to not do so was seen in those days as a form of political rebellion--treason, besides heretical. I do not think however not baptizing infants was automatically punishable by death--what was shocking (and REALLY considered heretical, treasonous and schismatic) was being baptized as an infant and then being re-baptized as an adult. Such people, named Anabaptists in the Reformation, were indeed executed.
As a pedo-baptist, what I would like from baptists is an acknowledgment that my baptism (and that of the great majority of Christians today, and throughout history) is an authentic baptism--even though they firmly believe infancy is not the best time for baptism.
I may be wrong, but I believe that even in baptist churches, if a person, baptized there as an adolescent, later becomes authentically born-again (due to a false conversion earlier) they are not required (though they may be permitted) to be baptized again. The earlier baptism is valid, even though at that time they were not actually committed personally to Christ. Practice may vary from church to church, but this scenario sounds likely. In any event, unity in the gospel could be increased if, while sticking to one's conviction on when baptism should be administered--others' baptisms are recognized--conditional, of course, as it should be for everyone, that a person has evidenced a personal committment to Christ. I recognize a baptist's baptism as valid, all I ask is that he do the same for mine--even though he himself does not practice or approve of infant baptism.
To just throw some fuel on the fire let me make a couple more points, using the logic from the article:
1)There is no example of women taking communion or being baptized in the New Testament (even though it has been universal practice, as far as we can tell, from the beginning). Should we therefore deny communion and baptism to women?
2) There is also no explicit command to serve communion to women or to baptize them...only universal practice, so, since its not in the bible, why should we do it?
3) Many baptists think that once they are baptized, they are definitely going to heaven, and they apostatize, due to such false assurance. Same issue as with those baptized as infants....
Obviously, I'm not calling for #s 1 or 2, it's just a way to make a point. If something is not specifically exemplified or commanded in the New Testament, that alone does not make it wrong.