Infant baptism
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Infant baptism
Can anyone clarify something for me? Some of my Christian friends insist that I should baptize my children, including our baby, whether or not they have come to faith in Christ. They say that the Jews' practice of circumcizing their infants sets a precedent for us doing the same, only with baptism. Any help here?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi D.K.,
The practice of baptizing infants has a long history, going back to the very earliest centuries of the church—but not, so far as we can determine, back to apostolic times.
The proper order mentioned in scripture is, “believe and be baptized” (Mark 16:16), and “repent…and be baptized” (Acts 2:38). We never read of a person, in scripture, being baptized prior to their believing or repenting. This may seem like a relatively small matter, but being on the politically incorrect side of this issue caused many thousands of godly Anabaptists to be martyred, in the 16th century, because they insisted that there had been no biblical validity in their having been baptized as infants, and had the audacity of being re-baptized.
Those who killed the Anabaptists were Roman Catholics and Reformed Christians, who insisted that the children of Christians are born into covenant privileges with their parents, just as Jewish children, in the Old Testament, were born into the covenant community of Israel. The Israelites were commanded to circumcise their male babies at eight days old, as the emblem of their being part of that covenant community. Therefore, it is argued, Christians should administer baptism— the New Testament counterpart of circumcision—to their infants as well.
The question of infant baptism is really part of a broader concept— "household baptism." The idea is that, if the head of the household is a Christian, then his whole household should be baptized. It is said that there is a scriptural precedent for this in the case of the Philippian jailor. He “and all his family” were baptized (Acts 16:33).
But this proves nothing about a general practice of "household baptism," nor, especially, of "infant" baptism. We are not told that there were any infants in the jailor's family. There is no evidence that anyone in his home was baptized apart from their own personal decision to become a Christian. In fact, we are told that everyone in his household came to believe the Gospel: “[the jailor] rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household” (Acts 16:34). This pretty much tells us there were no infants in the household.
No one is killing anyone else over this issue anymore, but the Protestant denominations are still not unified in their beliefs about the legitimacy of infant baptism—or pedobaptism, as it is also called.
The main argument, which likens baptism to circumcision, has some merit, but is flawed to the point of being useless for the purpose of establishing the case for pedobaptism. To a degree, there is a likeness between circumcision and baptism, in that both were rituals performed upon people who converted to Judaism and Christianity, respectively, from heathen backgrounds (eventually both circumcision and baptism were administered by the Jews upon their proselytes). But the similarities end there.
To say that baptism is the antitype, or the New Testament counterpart, of circumcision has no biblical support. There is no statement of scripture that makes such a claim. Circumcision and baptism are mentioned together in Colossians 2:11-12, but not in any way that would identify one as the type or the counterpart of the other. Any such inference from this passage is mere speculation.
Old Testament ceremonies (such as circumcision) generally do have New Testament counterparts—Passover, Pentecost, the temple, the priesthood, the sacrifices, etc., are all recognized as having spiritual counterparts in the New Testament order. But that’s just the point: the New Testament counterparts are generally spiritual, not ritual. We might say that Passover has a ritual counterpart in the Lord’s Supper, but this would be a rare (possibly, unique) exception, and Paul seems to see the fulfillment of Passover in the Christian's living a life without the spiritual “leaven” of malice and wickedness (1 Cor.5:7-8).
In the case of Old Testament circumcision, there is actually a spiritual (not ritual) fulfillment identified in scripture. It is not the ritual of baptism, but the spiritual phenomenon of the “circumcision of the heart” (Rom.2:28-29/ Phil.3:3/Col.2:11) that identifies one as a member of the New Covenant community.
If we are making an argument for baptizing those who are born into the covenant community, we should at least recognize that, scripturally, people are born into that community by regeneration, not natural birth (John 3:3, 5/ Tit.3:5/ 1 Pet.1:23). The Jews could circumcise their babies for the simple reason that their babies were born Jews! Babies born to Christian parents are not born Christians—until they are born again. I believe, if we are to follow the apostolic practice, that baptism should be administered to those who are spiritual infants, when they are reborn into the family of God.
The practice of baptizing infants has a long history, going back to the very earliest centuries of the church—but not, so far as we can determine, back to apostolic times.
The proper order mentioned in scripture is, “believe and be baptized” (Mark 16:16), and “repent…and be baptized” (Acts 2:38). We never read of a person, in scripture, being baptized prior to their believing or repenting. This may seem like a relatively small matter, but being on the politically incorrect side of this issue caused many thousands of godly Anabaptists to be martyred, in the 16th century, because they insisted that there had been no biblical validity in their having been baptized as infants, and had the audacity of being re-baptized.
Those who killed the Anabaptists were Roman Catholics and Reformed Christians, who insisted that the children of Christians are born into covenant privileges with their parents, just as Jewish children, in the Old Testament, were born into the covenant community of Israel. The Israelites were commanded to circumcise their male babies at eight days old, as the emblem of their being part of that covenant community. Therefore, it is argued, Christians should administer baptism— the New Testament counterpart of circumcision—to their infants as well.
The question of infant baptism is really part of a broader concept— "household baptism." The idea is that, if the head of the household is a Christian, then his whole household should be baptized. It is said that there is a scriptural precedent for this in the case of the Philippian jailor. He “and all his family” were baptized (Acts 16:33).
But this proves nothing about a general practice of "household baptism," nor, especially, of "infant" baptism. We are not told that there were any infants in the jailor's family. There is no evidence that anyone in his home was baptized apart from their own personal decision to become a Christian. In fact, we are told that everyone in his household came to believe the Gospel: “[the jailor] rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household” (Acts 16:34). This pretty much tells us there were no infants in the household.
No one is killing anyone else over this issue anymore, but the Protestant denominations are still not unified in their beliefs about the legitimacy of infant baptism—or pedobaptism, as it is also called.
The main argument, which likens baptism to circumcision, has some merit, but is flawed to the point of being useless for the purpose of establishing the case for pedobaptism. To a degree, there is a likeness between circumcision and baptism, in that both were rituals performed upon people who converted to Judaism and Christianity, respectively, from heathen backgrounds (eventually both circumcision and baptism were administered by the Jews upon their proselytes). But the similarities end there.
To say that baptism is the antitype, or the New Testament counterpart, of circumcision has no biblical support. There is no statement of scripture that makes such a claim. Circumcision and baptism are mentioned together in Colossians 2:11-12, but not in any way that would identify one as the type or the counterpart of the other. Any such inference from this passage is mere speculation.
Old Testament ceremonies (such as circumcision) generally do have New Testament counterparts—Passover, Pentecost, the temple, the priesthood, the sacrifices, etc., are all recognized as having spiritual counterparts in the New Testament order. But that’s just the point: the New Testament counterparts are generally spiritual, not ritual. We might say that Passover has a ritual counterpart in the Lord’s Supper, but this would be a rare (possibly, unique) exception, and Paul seems to see the fulfillment of Passover in the Christian's living a life without the spiritual “leaven” of malice and wickedness (1 Cor.5:7-8).
In the case of Old Testament circumcision, there is actually a spiritual (not ritual) fulfillment identified in scripture. It is not the ritual of baptism, but the spiritual phenomenon of the “circumcision of the heart” (Rom.2:28-29/ Phil.3:3/Col.2:11) that identifies one as a member of the New Covenant community.
If we are making an argument for baptizing those who are born into the covenant community, we should at least recognize that, scripturally, people are born into that community by regeneration, not natural birth (John 3:3, 5/ Tit.3:5/ 1 Pet.1:23). The Jews could circumcise their babies for the simple reason that their babies were born Jews! Babies born to Christian parents are not born Christians—until they are born again. I believe, if we are to follow the apostolic practice, that baptism should be administered to those who are spiritual infants, when they are reborn into the family of God.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve