A friend asked me to write down my thoughts on infant baptism. It's a difficult topic, as evident by the fact that there are so many Christians committed to the same high view of Scripture who disagree over it. It seems that those with a higher ecclesiology seem to be in favour of infant baptism, which suggests that the strongest arguments may well presuppose that the Church can decide on secondary issues. I'm going to try to ignore that argument and concentrate on some which are more traditionally evangelical in style (i.e. ignore all tradition since the Apostles). Even then, a lot of the classic arguments are rubbish. Overall, it's a tricky argument because it needs answers to other difficult questions.
Who should be baptised?
Baptism as such seems to start in the Bible with John the Baptist, but picks up on symbolism going a long way back. So in 1 Peter 3, Peter says that Noah being saved from the flood was a picture of baptism.
John the Baptist baptised people who wanted to change the way they were living (e.g. Mark 1:4-5). It didn't require a commitment to Jesus, because Jesus only really started his ministry once John was put into prison. In Acts 19:4, Paul links John's baptism to being told to follow Jesus, but not necessarily to follow Jesus.
Christians took baptism and used it differently – baptism was either in the name of Jesus (e.g. Acts 19:5) or in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (e.g. Matthew 28:19), and was seen as being different to John's baptism (as seen in Acts 19). It was seen as linked with repentance and with forgiveness (e.g. Acts 2:38) and with union with Christ (Romans 6:3).
Baptism was seen as the first thing that happened to someone as a Christian – it was linked very closely to conversion. That means there were some examples where they baptised people who later turned out not to be Christians, for example Simon Magus in Acts 8:9ff. There doesn't seem to have been detailed examinations of belief before baptism.
1 Corinthians 10 gives a striking parallel with the Old Testament. Paul argues that the whole nation of Israel was baptised, though most of them didn't “keep going”.
For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptised into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did.
1 Corinthians 10:1-6, ESV
Paul clearly saw parallels between those who had been baptised in the church in Corinth and those who were physical members of the covenant people of Israel.
Conclusion – baptism seems to have been used as an initiation into the Christian community. Sometimes people were baptised who didn't keep going as Christians. In other words, it seems sensible that we should say that Christians should be baptised, but to err on the side of baptising too many people rather than too few if we are to follow the pattern of the apostolic Church.
Who is a Christian?
Since the Reformation, the trend to try to define Christians by whether they believe a certain set of beliefs has been very strong. But it doesn't seem to be the way the Bible sees saving faith – the key question is not the intellectual content of the faith, but the object of the faith.
And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years, and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse. She had heard the reports about Jesus and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment. For she said, "If I touch even his garments, I will be made well." And immediately the flow of blood dried up, and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease.
And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone out from him, immediately turned about in the crowd and said, "Who touched my garments?" And his disciples said to him, "You see the crowd pressing around you, and yet you say, 'Who touched me?'" And he looked around to see who had done it. But the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came in fear and trembling and fell down before him and told him the whole truth. And he said to her, "Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease."
Mark 5:25-34, ESV
Biblically, I'd suggest that saving faith seems to have been trusting that Jesus could save and that no-one else could. It doesn't require any level of intellectual sophistication, though it will have more intellectual sophistication in some people than in others. The woman with bleeding thought that just touching Jesus could heal her in what we would call a superstitious way. The centurion in Matthew 8 recognised that Jesus could heal at a distance by just saying a word. Both had saving faith.
Saving faith isn't about believing precisely the right things or being able to articulate them – it's about looking to Jesus for rescue and not looking to anyone else.
Baptising Children
So then, should we baptise children?
The obvious answer is “yes, if they are Christians”.
Are children Christians? This where the arguments against infant baptism really get tied up, with the question of what the minimum age for a child to be considered a Christian is (let alone the pastoral question of the death of children before they reach that age). The most common (and consistent) view is that the right age for baptism is whenever the child can articulate a faith of their own and request baptism, though some impose arbitrary age limits. There are however significant difficulties with either position.
My parents are (and were) Christians. I was baptised as an infant. I consciously identified myself as a Christian from at least the age of 4. I could and did articulate a faith of my own and requested to be confirmed, and was confirmed. I very much suspect that in a baptist church except for one with an arbitrary age limit over 15, I'd have been baptised. But the first time I realised my sinfulness and need of salvation and repented and meant it, rather that saying what I knew was the right answer was when I was 15, after baptism and confirmation.
One of the standard baptist arguments is that “God has no grandchildren”, which is true. And so they wait until the children of Christians make their own confession of faith rather than baptising them as infants. Given that, they'd have baptised me before many people would say I became a Christian (but they'd only say that retrospectively), which is exactly what their policy tries to avoid. How many 6-year old children of committed Christian parents fail to identify themselves as Christians?
Conversely, if they impose an arbitrary age limit, they are consciously refusing to baptise those who are able to confess faith and who may well be Christians by anyone's definition. I certainly know adults who are Christians today, and who say that, as far as they remember, they have always been Christians. Given that the apostles clearly erred on the side of baptising too many people rather than too few, and that baptism followed as soon as possible after conversion, can that policy be right?
Summary – Two Arguments
I think the following points are all obvious, and between them they constitute two strong arguments for baptising the infant children of committed Christians:
First Argument
- Committed Christians seek to raise their children to be Christians
- Young children understand more than they can articulate
- Young children trust their parents
- While of course they have to decide later whether to continue in the faith, children of committed Christian parents are almost invariably professing Christians at age 6, and have at no stage prior to that professed to be not Christian.
- The baptismal policy of the apostles was more likely to include too many people than too few, and to baptise early rather than late. There are no recorded cases of declining to baptise someone who was professing faith.
Therefore, it being clear that children of committed Christian parents trust Jesus (or think they trust Jesus) before they can profess it, and that they pretty much invariably profess faith early, it seems only sensible to baptise them at the earliest opportunity.
Second Argument
- The Parable of the Wheat and the Tares/Weeds teaches that “the evil is always intermingled with the good” - that there are people visibly in the Church who are not “saved”, and that it will stay that way until the judgement.
- While theologically, the significance of baptism is linked to inclusion in the group of those who are “saved”, practically it seems that baptism was rather inclusion into the visible Church (as seen from the example of Simon the Sorcerer).
- Examining the apostolic practice of baptism, it is clear that both the Wheat and the Tares were baptised.
- Infants of Christian couples are part of the visible Church
Hence they should be baptised.
Further considerations
I haven't discussed verses like 1 Corinthians 7:14, which says that the children of Christian couples are made holy by their parents. I think that actually works along the lines of my second argument.
There's also the question of rebaptism. If Simon had come back to faith, would the apostles have rebaptised him? My gut answer is “yes”; the policy of the C of E is “no”, and I think the usual Biblical argument for the “no” position – saying there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 5:4) doesn't work. In context that verse means that we should respect and accept the baptisms done by other Christian groups – I accept that people baptised by the Roman Catholics have been baptised and so on. It just isn't addressing the question of whether people who have been baptised, have backslidden to the point they were no longer part of the Church, and then come back to faith should be baptised again or not. On the other hand, the C of E is quite clear in its policy, and I'm happy to abide by that bit of church discipline.
The most important thing in all this, though, is for Christians to love one another, and respect that other Christians may disagree with us, that by and large they don't disagree because they're evil, but because they're genuinely trying to follow God and submit to the teaching of the Bible just as much as we are.
27 comments:
In this essay:
http://kerrins.co.uk/biblical-baptism/
I lay out my own understanding of baptism, following (surprise surprise) Calvin and the 39 Articles.
This quotation comes from section 12 of the essay:
'.. no church should baptize on the basis of someone's 'mature faith', but on the basis of God's call, of God's grace... If this is accepted, there is no theological barrier to the baptism of infants... The church is the community of people who are all baptized as babes, whose lives have no other foundation than the grace of God, forgiving their sin, offered once-for-all at their baptism, and reflected in their ongoing life together of faith and obedience.'
Obviously the church is also the community of those not baptized as babies but baptized as adults..!
Thanks for this, Custard.
The problem I have with your arguments is that you seem to be resting your case largely on the fact that children can profess faith at an age (6) much earlier than that at which most Baptist churches baptize. But this is not an argument against credobaptism. Rather, it is an argument against a popular implementation of credobaptism. The key tenet of paedobaptism is that the ability to profess faith or request baptism is not necessary for a baptism to be valid or permissible. And, of course, in paedobaptistic churches the infants baptized are often unable to speak at all, let alone profess faith.
With regard to your detailed arguments, the problem I have with the first argument is that it is not at all clear that children of committed Christian parents trust Jesus. In fact, it is clear that they don't all trust Jesus, since one cannot truly trust Jesus at one stage and not at another (perseverance of the saints). It may be that they trust their parents, and it may be that their parents trust Jesus, but this doesn't make the children Christians any more than their parents' trusting David Cameron makes the children Conservatives.
The problem I have with the second argument is when you say `Infants of Christian couples are part of the visible Church'. What is the argument for this?
Thanks for a thought-provoking post.
While it is true that the apostles were very quick to baptize, I do not know of any biblical examples of children's being baptized (Acts 16 is one possibility). Of course, "children" itself is a malleable term, and the differences between baptizing a fifteen-year old (the age at which I was baptized, by the way), six-year old, and one-year old are pretty subjective. And people in my church would argue that six-year olds aren't mature enough to understand what baptism really entails, but the apostles themselves didn't really understand what they were doing until the resurrection, and I doubt each person baptized during Pentecost was any better informed than a six-year old raised in the church. I do think it should be noted that Jesus equated children with innocence. I'm not sure it's fair for me to say he was making a theological point, but it is consistent with the credobaptist view.
Semantics is such a huge problem with these arguments...
With regard to your detailed arguments, the problem I have with the first argument is that it is not at all clear that children of committed Christian parents trust Jesus. In fact, it is clear that they don't all trust Jesus, since one cannot truly trust Jesus at one stage and not at another (perseverance of the saints).
But that's not the point. Baptism doesn't take place on people trusting Jesus (else Simon the Sorcerer wouldn't have been baptised). It takes place on people claiming to trust Jesus. As JP points out, such claims are frequently made by 6 year olds. But yes, both arguments founder on the fact that there are no examples in either direction in the Bible for what to do with children in Christian families.
The problem I have with the second argument is when you say `Infants of Christian couples are part of the visible Church'. What is the argument for this?
It's obvious. Ask anyone in church (even a baptist church) if the infant children of church members are part of the visible church.
'Baptism doesn't take place on people trusting Jesus (else Simon the Sorcerer wouldn't have been baptised). It takes place on people claiming to trust Jesus.'
But this is the credobaptistic position. Paedobaptists say that the claim to trust Jesus is not necessary on the part of the baptized. Paedobaptistic churches typically baptize infants when they are too young to make any claims, let alone the claim to trust Jesus.
'It's obvious. Ask anyone in church (even a baptist church) if the infant children of church members are part of the visible church.'
Baptists typically deny that infants are members of the visible church. The visible church is the congregation of professors, in credobaptistic thought. Just because someone is in the church building doesn't make them part of the visible church!
Daniel -
But this is the credobaptistic position.
Your arguments strongly suggest that the credobaptistic position is to require evidence beyond mere claim to believe. Read your previous comment, specifically "In fact, it is clear that they don't all trust Jesus, since one cannot truly trust Jesus at one stage and not at another (perseverance of the saints)." Now if the credobaptistic position is that a claim to belief is all that is required, then your argument here is invalid.
My argument here (well one of them) is roughly
* children of Christian parents claim to believe, therefore we should baptise them
* children of Christian parents pretty much invariably claim to believe at the age of 6, even if they later decide not to
* hence their existence in itself could be construed as a claim to belief.
Baptists typically deny that infants are members of the visible church. The visible church is the congregation of professors, in credobaptistic thought. Just because someone is in the church building doesn't make them part of the visible church!
Which is why I carefully avoided the word "members", which often seems to be overdefined in a way that Paul doesn't. Find a committed credobaptist with young children. Ask them if their children are part of the church, even though they aren't members of the church.
Thanks, Custard.
You say: 'Your arguments strongly suggest that the credobaptistic position is to require evidence beyond mere claim to believe.'
Credobaptists differ here. My instinct is *not* to require more than a mere claim. But this is not the crux point between credobaptism and paedobaptism -- after all, paedobaptists are faced with the same problem with adults seeking baptism and with parents seeking baptism for their children. The crucial point is that credobaptists say that *a* necessary condition for a valid (or, perhaps, licit) baptism is the subject's confession of faith (and perhaps repentance too). Paedobaptists deny this.
You say that this argument of mine is invalid: "In fact, it is clear that they don't all trust Jesus, since one cannot truly trust Jesus at one stage and not at another (perseverance of the saints)."
It's not invalid. This argument shows that it's not the case that all children of Christians trust Jesus. It isn't anything to do with profession of faith or claims to belief; it was a challenge to your statement 'it being clear that children of committed Christian parents trust Jesus (or think they trust Jesus)'.
Concerning your argument, when you say 'children of Christian parents claim to believe'; I reply that if they claim to believe then baptize them then. But paedobaptists baptize them before they claim to believe. Moreover, even if they never claim to believe, paedobaptists still regard their baptism as vaid. I just don't see how you can construe somebody's existence at 6 months as a claim to faith if they don't actually make that claim till 6 years later. We don't know who will actually make that claim; why don't we wait and see?
You say 'Ask them if their children are part of the church, even though they aren't members of the church'. The invisible church is the collection of true believers. It has no parts that aren't members. The visible church is the collection of those that profess to be true believers. It, like the invisible church, has no parts that aren't members. I don't see how one can be a part without being a member.
Since you tell me to ask a baptist, let me quote from one (Gary A. Hand):
'One cannot be a member of the New Covenant, obtain salvation or be a part of the true church without faith, and that element is not granted through baptism. Infants are not part of the church, cannot be part of the church, are not part of the New Covenant of Grace and cannot be part of the New Covenant of Grace, because they cannot exercise faith.'
I have just noticed that Gary Hand doesn't specify that he is talking about the visible church (and, indeed, he is probably talking about the invisible church), so let me quote from the Internet Monk instead:
'Infants and children of believers occupy a somewhat unique place among God’s people, in that they are part of the household of faith in a potential, “fleshly” sense, but not part of the visible church until they have confessed faith in Christ and been baptized.'
Thanks for your help, Custard -- much appreciated.
I have also just read some of Grudem's comments on this issue in Systematic Theology. On p. 856 he says the visible church `includes all who profess faith in Christ and give evidence of that faith in their lives'. In a footnote (no. 7) he adds `Both Calvin and Luther would add the third qualification that those who are considered part of the visible church must partake of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper'. Note that he appears to use `includes' and `contains as a part' synonymously. So, I think Grudem would also deny that infants are part of the visible church. (He also argues on p. 970 that since baptism is a `symbol of beginning the Christian life, [it] should only be given to those who have in fact begun the Christian life', and on p. 982 that the age for baptism should be when the child is `old enough to give a believable profession of faith'.)
Compare also The Baptist Faith and Message of the Southern Baptist Convention (http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp):
`We believe that the visible church is composed of persons who have given a credible profession of faith in Christ through baptism and consistent Christian living.'
I am pretty sure that `composed' here indicates that the SBC does not view infants as part of the visible church -- after all, a thing is composed of its parts.
It's worth saying that I've put JC Ryle's thoughts on baptism here.
You say that this argument of mine is invalid: "In fact, it is clear that they don't all trust Jesus, since one cannot truly trust Jesus at one stage and not at another (perseverance of the saints)."
It's not invalid. This argument shows that it's not the case that all children of Christians trust Jesus. It isn't anything to do with profession of faith or claims to belief; it was a challenge to your statement 'it being clear that children of committed Christian parents trust Jesus (or think they trust Jesus)'.
Sorry - doesn't work. Your argument only shows that some children of Christians are not going to stay professing, not that any of them is non-professing, which is what it would need to show.
I just don't see how you can construe somebody's existence at 6 months as a claim to faith if they don't actually make that claim till 6 years later. We don't know who will actually make that claim; why don't we wait and see?
Which is why my argument for children believing more than they articulate is relevant.
Correctly noted that I'm talking about the visible church.
'Infants and children of believers occupy a somewhat unique place among God’s people, in that they are part of the household of faith in a potential, “fleshly” sense, but not part of the visible church until they have confessed faith in Christ and been baptized.'
Well done for finding those references. It's interesting that baptists then feel the need to construct an unscriptural third category to include children of believers.
'Your argument only shows that some children of Christians are not going to stay professing, not that any of them is non-professing, which is what it would need to show.'
I think we must be talking at cross purposes; my argument says nothing at all about profession. To recap: you asserted that it was clear that children of committed Christian parents trust Jesus (or think they trust Jesus) before they can profess it. I took this (wrongly?) to mean that you think that (almost) all children of committed Christian parents trust Jesus. My argument was for the denial of this assertion. The first premiss was the perseverance of the saints: if someone trusts Jesus at one time he or she trusts Jesus at all subsequent times. The second premiss was that it's not the case that (almost) all children of Christians end up trusting Jesus: this is suggested by Scripture (the case of Esau) and by observation.
'my argument for children believing more than they articulate is relevant'.
I can grant that children believe more than they can articulate, but the point is that we cannot have a good idea which ones do trust Jesus or not if they cannot articulate (or otherwise demonstrate (e.g. leaping in the womb)) that trust.
'baptists then feel the need to construct an unscriptural third category to include children of believers.'
I suggest, with Grudem et al, that there are only two relevant categories: wrt to the invisible church, the regenerate and the unregenerate (including all infants, except John the Baptist), and, wrt to the visible church, those believably professing regeneration and those not believably professing regeneration. What's the argument against the position that the church is exclusively composed of the first category in each case?
I think we must be talking at cross purposes; my argument says nothing at all about profession. To recap: you asserted that it was clear that children of committed Christian parents trust Jesus (or think they trust Jesus) before they can profess it.
Why do you think I included "(or think they trust Jesus)"?
I took this (wrongly?) to mean that you think that (almost) all children of committed Christian parents trust Jesus.
You were indeed wrong. That is not what I said.
I suggest, with Grudem et al, that there are only two relevant categories: wrt to the invisible church, the regenerate and the unregenerate (including all infants, except John the Baptist), and, wrt to the visible church, those believably professing regeneration and those not believably professing regeneration. What's the argument against the position that the church is exclusively composed of the first category in each case?
And as I've been saying all along, who we should baptise has very little to do with membership of the invisible church. And, as I've argued, it is not the place of baptismal policy to draw a distinction between those who we think are regenerate and those who we think are not regenerate. The apostles seem to have baptised everyone who professed, as I've argued.
What is your basis for thinking we should baptise only those whom we believe to be regenerate?
Do you think that infants who die go to Hell?
Thanks, Custard.
Can you clarify, please: are you asserting that all children of committed Christian parents trust Jesus (or think they trust Jesus)? It was this that my argument was denying: I think that many children of committed Christians never even think that they trust Jesus.
You ask 'What is your basis for thinking we should baptise only those whom we believe to be regenerate?'. There is a separate debate here: should we baptize all those that profess or only those that profess believably? But this is not the debate about infant baptism. After all, paedobaptists have to decide the same question concerning the parents of the infants, and concerning the adults they baptize too. The key point is that both sorts of credobaptists agree that a profession of faith is necessary for baptism. Do you deny this?
To answer your point directly: I think that baptism is a symbol of regeneration (hence the washing or submerging in water), and so the symbol should correspond with the reality. And similarly for the Eucharist: the symbol of eating bread and wine should correspond with the reality of union with Christ. Profession is the easiest way, in general, of finding out what someone believes, which is, in turn, an indication of whether or not he or she is regenerate. By adding `believably' I was trying to rule out wind-ups, play-actors etc.
What is your argument for your contention that `Infants of Christian couples are part of the visible Church'? And what is your argument for baptizing infants who show no signs (profession or otherwise) of regeneration?
One further question: you have suggested that your answer to my last question might be that the infants in question will profess later in life. But most paedobaptists (e.g. Gordon Brown) will baptize infants that are going to die and not have any opportunity to profess. Would you baptize such a one?
I don't believe that all infants dying in infancy go to Hell, no. In fact, I have found no theologian that believes this; nor is there a hint of it in Scripture. But even if an infant goes to Heaven after death that doesn't mean that the infant was regenerate from birth.
Thanks again for your help.
I think I may have to leave this argument here. It isn't going anywhere, and I've got better things to do with my time.
Can you clarify, please: are you asserting that all children of committed Christian parents trust Jesus (or think they trust Jesus)? It was this that my argument was denying: I think that many children of committed Christians never even think that they trust Jesus.
I don't think I've ever met one who didn't think they were a Christian at age 6.
You ask 'What is your basis for thinking we should baptise only those whom we believe to be regenerate?'. There is a separate debate here: should we baptize all those that profess or only those that profess believably? But this is not the debate about infant baptism.
I think it is the same debate, because if you accept that all who profess should be baptised, including false believers rather than excluding true ones, it's much harder to maintain that infants shouldn't.
And I think it's fairly easy to settle Biblically what the apostles would have said from what they did.
By adding `believably' I was trying to rule out wind-ups, play-actors etc.
Ah yes. One of the great advantages of persecution...
What is your argument for your contention that `Infants of Christian couples are part of the visible Church'?
It seems obvious. They attend the visible Church; it would cause concern if they did not attend. The Church specifically seeks to include them.
And what is your argument for baptizing infants who show no signs (profession or otherwise) of regeneration?
That they are part of the visible Church.
One further question: you have suggested that your answer to my last question might be that the infants in question will profess later in life. But most paedobaptists (e.g. Gordon Brown) will baptize infants that are going to die and not have any opportunity to profess. Would you baptize such a one?
If the parents asked me to, yes.
I don't believe that all infants dying in infancy go to Hell, no. In fact, I have found no theologian that believes this; nor is there a hint of it in Scripture. But even if an infant goes to Heaven after death that doesn't mean that the infant was regenerate from birth.
No it doesn't.
My contention (or one of them) is that we should not refuse baptism to any believer, even if the believer in question is unable to profess it for reasons of age.
Refusing baptism to a believer seems to me to be completely indefensible.
Thanks again for your help, Custard.
I think I may have to leave this argument here. It isn't going anywhere, and I've got better things to do with my time.
Well, I'll make this my last post, then. Thanks for trying, anyway.
I don't think I've ever met one who didn't think they were a Christian at age 6.
But paedobaptists baptize infants before they profess. I'd have no problem baptizing 6-year olds that profess. The problem is with the baptism of 6-month olds that don't profess.
if you accept that all who profess should be baptised, including false believers rather than excluding true ones, it's much harder to maintain that infants shouldn't.
No, it's easier, since infants don't profess. All and only believable professors should be baptized, including 6-year old believable professors.
And I think it's fairly easy to settle Biblically what the apostles would have said from what they did.
It's trickier to assess whether they thought that Simon Magus's profession was believable. I think they did.
They attend the visible Church; it would cause concern if they did not attend. The Church specifically seeks to include them.
Attending the visible church doesn't make one part of it. We don't baptize those adults that attend for social reasons and refuse to profess faith.
That they are part of the visible Church.
This, of course, is where most Baptists will disagree.
If the parents asked me to, yes.
But then you cannot justify your practice on the grounds that the baptizands will later profess faith . . . .
My contention (or one of them) is that we should not refuse baptism to any believer, even if the believer in question is unable to profess it for reasons of age. Refusing baptism to a believer seems to me to be completely indefensible.
Yes, but how do we know who the believers are? Answer: by profession or other sign (e.g. leaping in the womb). And yet paedobaptists baptize infants that show no such signs . . . .
Thanks again, Custard.
To me the bible is clear and teaches that all who were to become disciples (Christians) were baptized (immersed in water) in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit Matthew 28:19. Remember Christ has all authority, Matthew 28:18. Acts 10:48, says he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, this means by the authority of Jesus Christ, consider Col 3:17, And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus. Infants are not to be baptized because Mark 16:16 says whoever believes and is baptized, an infant is not capable of belief. Also, Matthew 28:20 says teaching them and an infant can’t be taught to be a disciple.
1) Why do you think that "baptised" = "immersed"?
2) Why do you think Mark 16:16 is authoritative - it isn't in any of the early Bible manuscripts and it looks like a made up ending someone else tacked on?
3) In Matthew 28:20, the command to teach comes after the command to baptise. So the teaching comes after the baptism. So what are you doing teaching children before they are baptised?
The Greek word baptizo that is translated as baptized means to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk) see www.crosswalk.com Greek Lexicon for the King James Bible. Read the account of the Eunuch who was baptized by Phillip, Acts 8:34-40, verse 38 And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. Note they went down into the water and verse 39 tells us that they came up out of the water. Can this be anything but immersion? The bible never says anything about sprinkling or pouring.
Also consider Romans 6:4 when New Testament converts were buried by baptism (to be buried we must be immersed) Romans 6:4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. If we are buried in baptism how can that be sprinkling or pouring?
Mark 16:9-20
I understand that some think Mark 16:9-20 should not be in the bible even with out it does not change any doctrine. However it is in the bible with good reason. It is in the Ephraem Manuscript, Codex Bezae, other early uncials, all the late uncials and minuscules, the Vulgate, and the Syriac Peshitta version.
Besides Irenaeus, clearly shows the existence of Mark 16:9-20 in the 2nd Century and that Mark was the author. The above information is from "How We Got The Bible", by Neil R. Lightfoot, PhD, Duke University.
I believe that the bible teaches that a person has to hear the Gospel to be saved. A baby can't obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ and profess faith and that rules out infant baptism. If you study the book of Acts it only documents that believers where baptized not infants.
Consider Romans 1:16 Paul says:
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. An infant cannot believe the Gospel.
On baptizo - it can also mean just washing before a meal (Luke 11:38 - see here.
I agree that the Pauline picture in Romans 6 suggests immersion, which is why I prefer baptism by immersion for those who can cope with it. But for the full symbolism from Romans 6, you'd need to use soil.
On the ending of Mark, the question is which hypothesis better explains the data available. In this case, it's worth pointing out that Clement of Alexandria and Origen thought it ended at 16v8 and Eusebius and Jerome saw v9ff as something that was only in a minority of manuscripts. Which raises the question - if v9ff is genuine, why would it be missing from so many of the early manuscripts? And why is it notably different in style to the rest of Mark? And why does it look like a hastily cobbled-together summary of what all the other gospels say?
The hypothesis that either Mark ended at 16v8, or that there was an earlier ending that was lost, and then someone decided to add on a devotional ending to make the end of the gospel look neat explains the data. The idea that v9ff were original doesn't.
I discuss the issue of faith and baptism here.
A baby can't obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ
Depends what you mean by "obey". As with mentally handicapped people, the level of obedience reflects the capacity for obedience.
If you study the book of Acts it only documents that believers where baptized
Not true. In Acts 16:14-15, only Lydia is described as believing, and her whole household is baptised. In Acts 16:29-34, only the jailer hears the gospel and believes, but his whole household is baptised.
I think you've swallowed too much of the individualistic lies of our culture.
You have assumed in the biblical text of Acts 16 that Lydia's household included infants. How can you assume that infants were present? The bible does not say that Lydia was married, if she owned slaves or anything about her household. The truth is you don’t know and it is an assumption that infants were baptized.
It is also an assumption and an opinion that infants were baptized with the Phillipian Jailer in Acts 16. The bible says that his household was baptized but that does not prove anything. We don’t know anything about his household either.
We do know that adults were documented as being baptized in the bible and you can read about it in the book of Acts. We should use the bible when it has revealed truth, not based upon assumptions, conjecture, opinions, and traditions. In the bible there is not one specific mention of an infant being baptized.
An infant could not understand The Apostle Peters sermon on the Day of Pentecost. Consider Acts 2:37-38 Verse 37, Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?"
Verse 38, Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. How can infant be pierced to the heart and repent?
You have assumed in the biblical text of Acts 16 that Lydia's household included infants.
No I didn't; you assumed I was arguing something I wasn't.
All I assumed was that Lydia and the Philippian jailer's households contained people other than themselves. Because in both cases, it looks like the head of the household has the authority to make some form of decision about whether those in their household are baptised.
Which suggests the idea of corporate incorporation, that baptism reflects membership of the visible church rather than the invisible church, etc.
I think your argument will become much stronger when you take the Bible as a whole, and not look only at the New Testament as you seem to do now. Baptism was not some completely new instution that had no background anywhere, it was a continuation and expansion of Gods earlier promise to the people of Israel. Therefore baptism should be seen in the light of what the people of Israel were told to do once someone was converted to Judaism: circumcision. Not just the person, but all males of the family. And also new born babies.
The reason is clear when you read the Old Testament and understand the trend displayed through all the books. God makes a promise, he accepts us as we are, and he puts that into the sign of circumcision. You are part of my people, and I will be there for you, is what that sign says. At the same time people (in this case in the form of the people of Israel) show all the time they are not trustworthy and disappoint God. But still they, or their children, or even their children’s children, are shown to have a way back to God. Not through re-circumcision, because Gods promise still stands, but through a show of remorse and a change in habits and rituals back to how God told Israel to live.
So too is baptism a promise from God, not from the church or any other human institution. How can you say a child at 2 is not able to express its believe and therefore it cannot be baptized? Does God only make his promise based on believe expressed? It is clear from the Old Testament that God extends his promise to everyone in the family.
There is no argument in saying: you don’t know they will turn into Christians or not. Even 16, 17 years old children that have with full understanding chosen to be baptized, are not guaranteed to be dying as Christians. Even Church elders and ministers are failing all the time and leaving church. People just don’t know how they themselves will turn out over the years, leave alone they will know how other people will turn out. However, Gods promise to his people (Israel, church) will always stand. That is how God is different. Approaching baptism from the direction that we, people, will need to be able to judge whether a person will become a Christian is destined to fail.
P.S. just read your other entry on Ryle and see he has more or less the same stance.
The problem with the suggestion of Martijn and Indri Doekes is that we don't know to whom the internal promise of God goes out, whereas the external promise of God is supposed to go out to all.
Post a Comment