Posted on 03/07/2015 12:04:48 PM PST by Colofornian
Should we baptize babies? The Christian Church continues to be sharply divided over this important question. Those who answer "yes" (Lutherans, Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, etc.) claim Biblical support for their position. Those who answer "no" (Baptists, Seventh Day Adventists, many "Bible" or "evangelical," or "non-denominational" churches) say the Bible is on their side. The pro-infant baptism churches assert that Christ commanded infant baptism. The opposing side asserts that nowhere is such a thing commanded. They hold that at best it is useless and at worst harmful. It is their practice to rebaptize adults who were baptized as babies.
The Lutheran Church has always taught that baptism is for everyone, including infants. We believe that Jesus wants babies to be baptized. We do so for the following reasons.
Many raise the objection: "There is not a single example of infant baptism in the New Testament, nor is there any command to do so. Therefore Christians should not baptize babies."
But Jesus has commanded infant baptism. In Matthew 28:19 He says, "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 . . .." Before He ascended, the Lord of the Church commanded us to baptize "all nations," a phrase the Church has always understood to mean "everyone." Matthew 25:31-32 also uses the phrase "all nations" in this way. All nations are to be baptized, regardless of race, color, sex, age, class, or education. Jesus makes no exceptions. He doesn't say, "Baptize all nations except . . .." Everyone is to be baptized, including infants. If we say that babies are not to be included in Christ's Great Commission, then where will it stop? What other people will we exclude?
It is true that there is no example in Scripture of a baby being baptized. However, to conclude from this that babies are not to be baptized is absurd. Neither are there any specific examples of the elderly being baptized, or teenagers, or little children. Instead we read about men (Acts 2:41; 8:35) women (Acts 16:14-15), and entire households being baptized (Acts 10:24,47-48; 16:14-15; 16:30-33; 1 Co. 1:16). The authors of the New Testament documents didn't feel compelled to give examples of every age group or category being baptized. Why should they have? Certainly they understood that "all nations" is all-inclusive.
The Bible teaches that infants are born sinful and are in need of forgiveness. Scripture says nothing about an "Age of Accountability" that begins at the age of reason. Its message is that accountability begins at conception. David confesses in Psalm 51:5, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me." The Bible teaches original sin, that the corruption and guilt of Adam's sin is passed on to every human being at conception. Jesus affirms this teaching when He says, "Flesh gives birth to flesh" (John 3:5). Paul takes it up in Romans 5:18: "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
Furthermore, Jesus said, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; he who believes not shall be damned" (Mark 16:16). According to Jesus, ANYONE who does not believe in Him will be damned. Jesus makes no exception for infants. Babies will not be saved without faith in Jesus. Parents who think they are placing their children under God's grace by "dedicating" them are deceiving themselves. The only dedication that the New Testament knows of is the "dedication" that take place via baptism. That is why infants should be baptized. Like everyone else, they desperately need forgiveness. If infants die before they believe in Jesus, they will be eternally condemned. They, like everyone else, need to be baptized so that they can be born again. Jesus said, "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). We believe that baptism is God's special means of grace for children by which He causes them to be born again. To keep them from baptism is to keep them from forgiveness and to endanger them with damnation.
God's covenant with Abraham (Genesis 17:10-14) demanded that every male child was to be circumcised when eight days old. By circumcision, the baby entered into a covenant relationship with the true God.
St. Paul teaches us that in the New Testament baptism has replaced circumcision. "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism . . ." (Col. 2:11-12).
Given this fact, it would have been natural for first century Jewish believers to baptize infants, since they were accustomed to circumcise their male children at eight days old. It is also logical that if God regarded eight day old male babies as members of His covenant people through circumcision, He will also regard newborn babies to be members of His kingdom through baptism, the "circumcision made without hands."
The most frequent objection to infant baptism is that babies cannot believe. They do not, says the objection, have the intellect necessary to repent and believe in Jesus.
If this is your opinion, Jesus disagrees with you. Luke 18 tells us that certain parents were bringing infants (Greek - brephe) to Jesus, that He might bless them. The disciples rebuked those who brought the babies. Jesus' response is well known: "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it" (Luke 18:15-17). Some have objected that it is "little children" and not infants that Jesus speaks of here. Yet the very little children that the disciples were forbidding were infants. The infants are the focus of the passage. Clearly on this occasion Jesus had babies in mind when He said what He did!
Does this passage speak of infant baptism? No, not directly. It does show that Jesus did not raise the objection that so many do today about babies not being able to believe. According to Jesus, these babies had what it took to be members of the kingdom of God, feeble intellect and all! "Do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God."
Now Jesus does not contradict Himself. The central message of His ministry (the Gospel) was that there was only way to enter God's kingdom. There was only one way to be saved. "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). Repeatedly Christ taught that faith in Him was the one way to become a member of God's kingdom (cf. John 3:16-18). Therefore, when He says about babies, "for of such is the kingdom of God," He is telling us that babies can believe (for how else could they enter the kingdom?!).
So if Jesus maintained that babies can believe (though their faith is very simple), who are we to deny it? And who are we to deny baptism to those who can believe? For those still stumbling over infant faith, remember: it is purely by God's grace that any person, adult or child, can believe. Faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit as much for the adult as for the child (see John 6:44; 1 Cor. 12:3; Eph. 2:1-4). When the adult believes in Christ it is only because the Holy Spirit, working through the Gospel, has worked the miracle of faith in his heart. So with the infant. If faith, then, is always a miracle, why can we not believe that God would work such miraculous faith in a baby?
Someone might ask, "If babies can believe then why do they need baptism?" Answer: it is through baptism that faith is created in the infant's heart. Baptism, far from being the empty symbolism that many imagine it to be, is the visible Gospel, a powerful means of grace. According to Scripture, baptism "washes away sin" (Acts 22:16), "saves" (1 Peter 3:21; Mark 16:16), causes one to "die to sin, to be buried, and raised up with Christ" (Romans 6:3-4) causes one to be "clothed with Christ" (Galatians 3:27), and to be a member of the body of Christ: "for by one Spirit, were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:13). It bears repeating: baptism is a special means of God's grace by which He gives faith, forgiveness, and salvation to the infant.
Those who deny infant baptism have a problem. They must explain why the fathers of the Church's first centuries speak of infant baptism as a universal custom. The Fathers is what we now call Pastors who led the Church after the death of the apostles. When we examine the writings of Irenaeus (d. 202), Tertullian (d. 240), Origen (d. 254), Cyprian (d. 258), and Augustine (d. 430), we see that they all spoke of infant baptism as accepted custom (though Tertullian disagreed with it).
Irenaeus remarks, "For He came to save all through means of Himself all, I say, who through Him are born again to God, infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men" (Against Heresies, Book 1, Ch. 22.4).
In his commentary on Romans, Origin writes, "The Church has received from the apostles the custom of administering baptism even to infants. For those who have been entrusted with the secrets of divine mysteries, knew very well that all are tainted with the stain of original sin, which must be washed off by water and spirit" (Romans Commentary, 5.9).
Cyprian writes, "In respect of the case of infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man... Spiritual circumcision ought not to be hindered by carnal circumcision... we ought to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins - that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another" (Letter 58 to Fidus).
And in his Enchiridion, Augustine declares, "For from the infant newly born to the old man bent with age, as there is none shut out from baptism, so there is none who in baptism does not die to sin" (Enchiridion; ch. 43).
For completeness sake, I have listed five reasons why Christians should baptize infants. The first reason should have been enough. Jesus has commanded His Church to "make disciples of all nations baptizing them . . .." Christ made no exceptions. Infants are part of all nations, as are every other age group. We do not have to prove this. The burden of proof is on those who deny that infants are to be included in "all nations." To deny the blessing of infant baptism because you can't find the words "infant baptism" in the Bible makes as much sense as rejecting the teaching of the Trinity because you can't find the words "Trinity" or "triune" in the Bible.
As to babies not being of the age of reason and therefore not able to believe, I have shown that Christ disagrees. So in a sense, the teaching of infant baptism reveals who your Lord is. Lord Jesus Christ has commanded us to baptize all nations, has declared that everyone who dies without faith is damned, and has taught us that infants can believe by God's grace working through baptism. Lord Reason says, "I don't understand how a baby can believe, therefore I reject infant baptism. It makes more sense to me to do it my way." Which Lord will you obey? Will you obey Christ and baptize "all nations," including infants, even though you don't understand it? Or will you obey Reason and reject infant baptism because you don't understand how babies can believe? Which Lord will you obey?
Pastor Richard Bucher, Th.D
I don’t read the early church “fathers” much. 254 AD is middle of 3rd century. And whatever decision they made, it’s still unscriptural.
However, so do Charismatic revival meetings, producing more damned infidels with fake confessions than they do in actually leading anyone to salvation. I escaped from them myself, though I was never really one of them (could never "speak in tongues). A friend that came out of them, however, admitted to never actually even knowing what the Gospel was.
If John the Baptist could leap within the womb at the presence of Jesus Christ, then an infant is just as much capable of salvation as anyone else. In fact, since all salvation is itself a supernatural act (no one confesses Christ but by the Holy Ghost), I would argue that the salvation of infants and the salvation of adults is entirely the same in nature.
#1...Christianity didn't become "state" ized til Constantine. And that was the fourth century. Therefore, your historical facts are way off! The Council of Nicae was 325 a.d.
#2 I know this is "hard" for individualistically minded Westerners to think that whole families were baptized "on the spot" -- minus an in-depth 16 week Inquirer's class -- but they were...
Now we don't know how much lead-up time for such families as Stephanus (1 Cor. 1:16)...but we know this oikos reality (oikos is Greek Biblical word for household) included the totality of these families...see Acts 11:14; 16:15,33; Acts 18:8).
You see the families in the Middle East rated see themselves as a unit, not as individuals. Both in the case of circumcisions -- which Paul ties to baptism in Col. 2:11ff -- and also proselyte baptism...the place of the WHOLE FAMILY was significantly high.
Credobaptists assume NONE of these above families had infants in them.
And for that matter, they basically have to assume these whole families were essentially childless. Why? Because the ages of the kids -- of ANY age -- are not given.
Therefore, if credobaptists say there is no warrant for infant baptism, then why stop at infants? There's no Biblical warrant for teen baptism, either! Or pre-teen baptism!
#3 Those who object to infant baptism tend to try to "substitute" baby "dedications."
Now there's something that's been introduced into the Church just in recent times!
Where's the Biblical precedent for that???
I agree. But failure in that area lends no support for infant baptism. However, those who are unworthily baptized class with the same who unworthily ingest the tokens of the Lord’s Passion. Away with it all.
This wasn't a situation where infant baptism wasn't practiced and they "decided" to implement it in 254 A.D.
It was a situation where there WAS NO controversy in the Church about its open practice in the first, second, and third centuries! No controversy at all, and not even raised as an "issue" until mid-3rd century.
And when the 66 existing bishops reviewed it...men who were born within just over a 100 years from when the apostle John died, they simply affirmed its already existing widespread practice!
Well, you seem to cite "Lord Reason" vs. any Scriptural verses.
Can you cite any Scripture that says what you just said?
(Or are you just making that up because of your religious tradition?)
Whern is the last time you read your Bible on this? Do you even know what the water baptism is all about? Don't feel bad, most denominsations have gone way, way out of the boundaries on this.
My belief is totally and fully Biblical. For a lengthier accurate treatment, go here:
Baptism of Disciples, or Water Baptism"
Refute this if you can. Until then, I think I'm done here.
Exactly.
When we look at Jesus' most succinct statement of defining "eternal life," it's John 17:3, which He defined as KNOWING the Father -- and Jesus.
An infant KNOWS others personally.
An infant trusts others personally. (We know he/she trusts Mom to be fed!)
Faith, before anything else, is trust.
So I'm not sure why people argue that babies aren't capable of trusting -- of relating personally.
And, btw, many of these same arguments we hear vs. infants apply to...
...toddlers...
...pre-schoolers...
...kindergarteners...
...primary-age kids...
...and even adults with down syndrome, other mental retardations, and "special" mental disabilities.
Many of the most loving people I've EVER met are in this last category.
Many people want others to have all this "rational" degree in theology before they can be baptized.
Jesus knows them all as His little lambs. And even at a very early age, young kids pray to Him. Know Him. Worship Him. Trust Him to keep them secure.
“Read the early church fathers.”
If you took your own advice, you probably wouldn’t be a Protestant for very long.
I’m just saying. . .
Agreed.
Hoss
No it doesn't teach that at all. Ezekiel 18 clearly explains that children do not inherit the sins of their fathers. Salvation is also predicated on having understanding to understand the Gospel and obey it by being baptized. An infant can not do that on his/her own. Such "...children are born in sin." is false and should not be taught.
The answer is — no. Show me something a bit earlier, before the Platonists messed up the theology. Better yet, show me where an infant was a willing, rational disciple. And who is called an infant in those days? A newly born? How old?
I’m not going to debate this further with anyone who thinks that babies are held accountable for their original sin, as these bishops must have thought to be at all logical.
You are exactly right. Infant baptism was NOT practiced in the early church, but was introduced later.
You are a false teacher in a total sort of way.
“Suffer the little children to com unto me for such is the kingdom of heaven”- Jesus of Nazareth. No need to baptize children for such “is the kingdom of heaven” and those in heaven need no baptism. A dying infant and child is automatically saved. Can any of you state with a straight face that a two year old unbaptized child is thrown, by Jesus, into raging the fires of hell? Nonsense. Frighten a small child with the threat of Hell and one risks violating the other warning “If any of you offend one of these little ones I say that it is better for that man that he had never been born.”
I have had my catholic relatives foaming at the mouth over this and have not had contact with them for 20 years. No loss. You can threaten to kill me or burn me alive and I would not concede the point. Let it rest.
Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
Yes.
Per the Bible...water baptism, as accompanied by God's Word -- which IS the empowering agent involved (Eph. 5:25) alongside the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5; John 3:5)...
...Establishes you as Christ's disciple -- as you enter the Name of the Trinity (Matthew 28:19)
...are rebirthed from above (John 3:5)
...regenerated by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5)
...justifies us when linked to Name of Christ and enacted by Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:11; Gal. 3:27)
...are saved (1 Peter 3:21; Titus 3:5)
...is the entry way for the Holy Spirit (John 3:5; Acts 2:38, etc)
...you become buried in Christ's death and raised with Him in resurrection (Romans 6:3-4; Col. 2:12)
...are forgiven (Acts 2:38; 22:16) -- certainly an infant's original sin -- there from birth per Ps. 51:5; 58:3 is forgiven...and we ALL know that repentance for ANY of us -- child or adult -- is NOT a one-time thing! It's ongoing in our lifestyle
...clothes us in Christ (Gal. 3:26-27)
Now, tell me:
Does a person's "intellect" accomplish any of these things?
Is baptism primarily something man does -- instead of something that God does (thru man)?
Since the above references supernatural DIVINE power undertakings...no mere man has the capacity to make these realities come into fruition.
IF the emphasis remains that baptism is what WE do...and we have to be "XYZ" developed to accomplish it...I would say NONE of us are able to do these things...such as...
* Rebirth/Regenerate/save/justify ourselves (John specifically says our adoption as sons is NOT of ANY human decision!!! see John 1:12-13)
* Be buried in Christ's death by being baptized into Him
* Forgive ourselves
* Cleanse ourselves (Eph. 5:25-26)
* Sprinkle our hearts clean from an evil conscience (Heb. 10:22)
* Be given a new heart sprinkled upon us (Eze. 36:25-27)
* Initiate spiritual adoption proceedings (Gal. 3:26; John 1:12-13)
These are ALL ONLY things God can accomplish!!!
The MAJOR problem with credobaptism is that it reduces baptism to what men do -- and tends to leave God out of it other than God "decreed" it (the meaning of "ordinance"). It's almost like a version of deism...where, yeah, God created all things...but now just sits back & lets men have it without an active participatory involvement.
Yet...what does the Bible say? Even...
* ...repentance in the book of Acts is described as something ONLY God can grant!
* ...saying Jesus is Lord can ONLY done by the Holy Spirit leading us to say that! (1 Cor. 12:3)
It's PAST time for the churches to de-ritualize credobaptism!
For it makes what is clearly divine power subjugated to the rational & reason of men performing what they deem as mere religious rites.
Tell you what: you better take some scissors to your Bible then:
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. (Psalm 51:5)
Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies. (Psalm 58:3)
In case you haven't noticed, the most self-centered people on earth actually tend to be babies & toddlers.
Your family's toddlers didn't "environmentally" appropriate sinful habits.
Jesus talked about "sin" in the singular. “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin
The sins are the individual acts & omissions (wrong-doing or right-neglecting). Sin itself is a power that controls.
Infants & toddlers haven't wrung up the sins plural. But they inherit that power of sin in their nature.
That is standard Christian teaching across about all Christian denominations.
Please explain: Why stop at infants?
What about toddlers?
What about Any aged kid?
What about adults with mental disabilities?
What about adults who haven't heard the Gospel?
By the time you list all of the "What abouts...?" you basically could readily arrive at some semi-conclusion of "Hey, why bother to..."
...disciple anybody?
...missionize anybody?
...baptize anybody?
Why "frighten" anyone with ANY shred of revelation about hell?
Why, ya might as well just embrace universalism.
...Dying infants...
We do have one OT glimpse here. As a punishment for David's sin with Bathsheba, the Bible indicates David's young son was taken.
David then said that the boy would not return to him, but that David would return to the son.
But it's all left with at least a degree of mystery.
For whatever we conclude in that verse, we also need to temper it -- as applied to ALL people:
"I am the way, the truth, and the life. NO ONE comes to the Father but by ME." -- Jesus, John 14:6
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.