Posted on 09/02/2009 12:33:33 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
A Lutheran professor, Kurt Aland, after intensive study of infant baptism, says, "There is no definite proof of the practice until after the 3rd century," and he says, "This cannot be contested." A Catholic professor of theology, Hegerbocker (sp.), writes, "This controversy has shown that it is not possible to bring in absolute proof of infant baptism by basing one’s argument on the Bible." Good. B.B. Warfield, who is no mean theologian, was an astute and really a great, great theologian who, again, influenced my life in my seminary days…B.B. Warfield affirmed—he was, by the way, an advocate of infant baptism—but, he affirmed the absence of infant baptism from the Bible.
....
It still is defended, however, amazingly, and still practiced as if it was Biblical. It’s really amazing. I can understand how people within the Protestant church can disagree about an interpretation of Scripture…I really find it very hard for myself to understand how they can argue about something that isn’t in the Bible, as over-against what is. It’s one thing to say, "Well, I understand that passage this way and you understand it that way…I understand that doctrine this way and you understand it that way,"—it’s another thing to say, "I believe what’s in the Bible," and, "I don’t. I believe what’s outside the Bible." That’s a completely different issue, but that, in fact, is what we have.
(Excerpt) Read more at biblebb.com ...
Ping!
Excellent. Thank you, Titus. Lots of good reason and arguments here against infant baptism.
Much of so-called “reformed” covenant theology still has half a foot inside the Vatican.
Full disclosure: I’m four point calvinist (no “P” - 1Cor3:1), Zionist, dispensational, pre-wrath rapture, believers’ baptism.
Luther defended it as Biblical.
Calvin defended it as Biblical.
MacArthur rejects it as unBiblical.
All three men claimed to follow sola Scriptura and professed to be guided in their interpretation by the Holy Spirit.
They can't all be telling the truth.
Well, "age of accountability" as an 8 yo kid isn't in the Bible either...Yet Baptists & Mormons have drawn that conclusion (tho only the Mormons actually specify an age).
From the article: A Lutheran professor, Kurt Aland, after intensive study of infant baptism, says, "There is no definite proof of the practice until after the 3rd century"
Aside then from the NT, we're talking then about a period of just around 200 years after the last book of the NT was written (around 100-300 AD)
So the first question is: Do we have a tremendous number of early church father writings from pre 300 AD? We do have a fair amount...but the majority of extant early church fathers' writings were written in the 300s and 400s.
So the next question is: If we know infant baptism was practiced after the third century, and the majority of early church fathers' writings were in the 4th & 5th centuries, why don't we have critiques from the early church fathers condemning infant baptism?
If...
...the early church practiced it -- at least conclusively beyond the third century;
...and if it didn't match up with what Christ taught or the early apostles practiced (we know that three times in the book of Acts, it mentions families were baptized as a whole, and we can't say conclusively -- one way or the other -- if infants were part or not part of any of those families)...
...then surely we should have early church fathers' critiques of infant baptism.
Why don't we find them? (Please show me them)
Question: Were infants considered as part of the covenant people of God in the Old Testament?
Answer: Yes
Question: Based Upon What?
Answer: Circumcision @ 8 days' old.
Question: What inference can be drawn from that?
Answer: Circumcision was one of the forerunners of NT baptism.
Question: Did 8-day-old infants among the Israelites "make a decision for the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?"
Answer: No!
Question: Is the phrase, "making decisions for Christ" in the NT?
Answer: No. One of the closest we get is in Revelation where Jesus talks about standing at the door and knocking; but we know from the context Jesus is speaking the Church -- not unbelievers.
That said, I'd like to offer a few questions for you or any other opponents of pedobaptism to field, if you care to.
1. While this article down-plays the rise of infant baptism, I've found zero evidence for credobaptist doctrine or practice prior to c. 1537 AD (outside the credobaptist interpretation of the NT, obviously). The only exception I can think of is the notion (c. 3rd century AD) that baptism should be reserved for the death-bed as it did not cover sins committed after a baptism, a belief which is dictinct from contemporary credobaptism. Can anyone provide historical evidence for credobaptism prior to the Reformation?
2. Regardless of the precise relationship between circumcision and baptism (let's pass on that endless debate!), I think we can agree that the NT does relate the two together in at least some form, and early Christians would have been aware of the connection. This makes it reasonable to suppose that differences in practice between circumcision and baptism should have raised questions that NT epistle writers would have needed to address. In particular, if children were no longer to be religiously initiated ala circumcision, it is reasonable to expect that this would have been explained and expounded upon. Parents would have been confused at the new absence of any kind of initiation for their children as had been the case for Jews. Certainly many other points of doctrine and practice were explained in NT epistles, so the silence here is odd if the NT is teaching a credobaptist position. Comments/rebuttal?
3. Why are there no 'follow-up' baptisms in the NT? There are many references in the epistles to missionaries re-visiting and following up with congregations and families of believers. If these evangelists were skipping over children and infants in their initial visits, why is there never any mention of follow-up baptisms being conducted, or exhortations to parents to follow up with baptism as their children grow in faith, or expressions of hope that this would come about?
4. Likewise, why is there no prohibition on baptizing infants? There is a warning against taking communion without proper preparation and faith. It is thus reasonable that there would be a corresponding warning for baptism, if it could be mis-practiced to the harm of the recipient. Yet there is no call for 're-baptism' in the case of ineffectual baptisms (as an infant baptism would be), nor warnings that this is a pointless practice, etc.
Food for thought from someone still muddling through on this subject - and interested in any thoughts on the foregoing. God bless!
He states the Scriptural case against infant baptism pretty well. Of course to those that want to cling to the practice the Scriptural case won’t make much difference.
But to their credit they have a lot right. I'm with you on believers' baptism, pre-wrath rapture, Zionist. The dispensational I haven't figured out.
No question the biblical model is to believe and then be baptized. Babies don't have the understanding to be believers.
What is baptism about?
What does is signify?
Is it for God's purpose or man's?
Why wasn't Jesus baptized as an infant?
My answer to these questions indicates that infant baptism does no good other than rinsing off a child.
IIRC, there are some critiques of it, but it's really not surprising there isn't much criticism. The early theologians were supported and their writings were copied because they were affirmative of the dominant church.
The deciding factor is simple. There are no examples of infant baptism in Scripture. The model is always the same first believe and then be baptized.
It ain’t in the NT.
Settles it for me.
So salvation is not available to those who pass prior to being able to believe?
I think if you study the Christian Churches that were not under Roman control you will find a common thread of believers baptism.
Parents would have been confused at the new absence of any kind of initiation for their children as had been the case for Jews.
Creating the perfect environment for a new practice to emerge. Also, by baptizing infants you would increase your numbers.
3. Why are there no 'follow-up' baptisms in the NT? There are many references in the epistles to missionaries re-visiting and following up with congregations and families of believers.
Because local congregations selected their own pastors and they baptized believers. A centralized hierarchy only became dominant later.
4. Likewise, why is there no prohibition on baptizing infants? There is a warning against taking communion without proper preparation and faith. It is thus reasonable that there would be a corresponding warning for baptism, if it could be mis-practiced to the harm of the recipient.
How can it be bring harm to a recipient if it is done after belief in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour?
BTW, great questions.
Having lost a son when he was 11 months old I think about this a great deal. I don't have a definitive answer for you. All I can tell you is I trust God is merciful.
I’m not quite understanding what you are saying here.
Very sorry about your infant son. God bless you all.
Why would anyone WANT to baptize an infant? What is the purpose supposed to be?
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.