A Good Baptist
I just finished my History of the Baptist class here at Southern Seminary and as expected there was a discussion about the biblical validity for paedo (infant) baptism and why Baptists historically thought it was wrong. In scripture I think it is a stretch to say that there is a New Testament foundation for baptizing infants. But it really doesn’t bother me just as long as they aknowledge the truth that it doesn’t in save the infant in any way. But I have a question if there are any paedobaptist bretheren out there.
Suppose two Christian couples came into a Methodist/Presbyterian/Episcopal church and joined the church but one couple had an infant and the other couple had a six year old child. I am supposing that if each couple wanting their child to be baptized the church would only allow the infant to be baptized unless the six year old gave a confession of faith. But if the six year old does not give a confession of faith why should they be excluded from baptism? Both the infant and the six year old will be raised in a Christian home and part of the visible church. Why should an infant be allowed baptism if they do not give a confession of faith in Christ while a six year old in the same situation be denied baptism because of a lack of a confession of faith?
I do not mean to start a fight but I was thinking about the reasonings behind infant baptism and the reasoning of it. If it is allowed why not allow it for non-confessing six year olds or for that matter twelve year olds or maybe even sixteen year olds if they are living in a Christian home being raised by Christian parents as part of the visible church.
Michael,
The Pentecostals and Baptists dedicate their children as infants. The baptism of the infants is the same. Why make a deal of it?
Comment by David Pate — January 21, 2006 @ 12:11 am
The difference is that Pentecostals and Baptists believe that baptism is only for professing believers, whereas the others give it to their children with no idea of whether they will grow up to be Christian or not. Baptism of a believer means something significant to the adult since it is a representation of their being dead and raised with Christ. While infant baptism protestants (at least reformed ones) know that infant baptism does nothing for the child’s faith, so since it cannot represent a faith that is not there, there is no reason to do it. The idea came from the catholic church in which they think (or at least used) that baptism erases original sin, so they thought it was necessary to get rid of that sin in case the infant died which was a problem in the early church. If I remember correctly they started doing it around 300 AD, it just hung around even through reformation until the Anabaptists (today’s Mennonites) showed up and until the Baptists (which for the most part came out of Calvinist Puritanism) in England around 1600.
Comment by Michael P. — January 21, 2006 @ 8:59 pm
Now days I think that most people do not think of it that way, but as a way for the baby to be presented to the body for help in growing. Anyway that’s the way I look at it whatever it is called.
Comment by David Pate — January 22, 2006 @ 2:29 pm
Michael P. said, “the others give it to their children with no idea of whether they will grow up to be Christian or not…”
why give baptism to infants???? not resolved. but - would you ask the same question to Abraham when he circumsized his kids??? You must admit that it was and is a Sovereign blessing that children are born into Christian homes. Should we not recognize that? Do we do it with baptism?? the paedos say yes. again…i am not resolved. I do, however have a hard time tossing John Owen’s stuggles with this issue in the can.
Comment by scott m — January 31, 2006 @ 6:49 pm
another thing also…i have seen many times in the Bible the AFFIRMATION of adult baptism (or believer’s baptism)so, it is only right and Biblical to affirm the position.
BUT - I have not seen where the Bible AFFIRMS that children are unfit for baptism. Do you have any?
Comment by scott m — February 3, 2006 @ 12:55 pm
Scott, no I can’t think of any explicit texts that state that children are unfit for baptism. But in Scripture baptism seems to be closely connected to belief/repentance with regards to time, it would even seem that baptism always came after belief and never before. Only adults (that had the mental capacity to repent and believe and did so) were explicitly baptized in the New Testament as far as I can tell.
This is not to deny that baptism is a parallel to circumcision in the OT. It was commanded by God to Abraham to circumcise all of his children and in the same way baptism in the new covenant is only for the children of God, who have been born of the water and of the Spirit (John 3:5).
It is a sovereign blessing for a child to grow up in a Christian home but that does not make them more apart of the family of God than the pagan down the street. The entrance into the family of God (born of the Spirit) merits baptism, not entrance (being born naturally) into a godly family. There must be a differentiation between God’s family and a godly family.
Comment by Michael P. — February 11, 2006 @ 2:21 pm
Mike - If baptism is parallel to circumcision in the OT, then it is easily understandable that children would be fit subjects for baptism as they were circumcision in the OT.
I do agree that baptism is closely connected to repentance and belief - but not only to those who repent and believe (i.e. the children of those who believe). This sounds a little odd until the proper definition of baptism is understood. What is baptism and what is its purpose? It is NOT a sign FROM us TO the world that we have made a commitment to God. Rather it is a sign of what GOD has and is doing in the world with His people - namely that He keeps His promise - His ‘everlasting covenant’with Abraham and his offspring after him. (Gen 17). ‘You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant b/t me and you. Every male throughout your generations…shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.’
This promise did not stop after the OT but rather continued on through the NT - Acts 2:38-39. “…the promise is for you and YOUR CHILDREN…”
Just as circumcision did not INSURE salvation for those in the OT, neither does baptism in the NT. That too is clear.
But there is a certain protection for those in the Christian’s home. God will bless them - His glory depends on thier (spiritual) prosperity. “For the unbelieving husband is made holy b/c of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy b/c of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.” 1 Cor 7:14
The problem that arises with infant baptism (and believe me…I still have problems with it), in my opinion must be also taken to circumcision in the OT. The same objections that people have with infant bap. are directly related (if applied) to “infant circumcision”. To put it another way….
You ask, “Why would you baptize your children?”
I respond, “Why did Abraham circumcise his children?”
If these questions are related - I have an avenue to embrace infant baptism. If they do not - I must wrestle on.
I love you Mike - my brother.
Comment by scott m — February 14, 2006 @ 2:51 pm
Scott, I am not sure of the exact purpose of baptism, this is something I am exploring as well. I do agree with you that baptism is ‘a sign of what God has and is doing in the world with His people.’ But with that I know that Calvin says, ‘He has given baptism to encourage our faith in him and also a way of confessing it before others.’ [Institues, Book 4, Ch. 15, 1]. And I know that Bunyan argued that Baptism is primarily for the believers edification/encouragement, where he disagreed that it was necessary for membership into a local church. Those are just their opinions but they are not slouches either and therefore merit notice.
Along with that, I would say that though baptism is in some ways parallel to circumcision but I don’t see it as a continuous uninterupted line from the Old to the New Covenant. I would argue that circumcision of the heart of the New Covenant is a more correct parallel to the Old Covenant circumcision (Romans 2:28-29). Circumcision of the New Covenant is circumcision of the heart which we cannot do ourselves, only God can do.
Baptism is related to OT circumcision in that when a person becomes a child of God they are commanded to be baptized (Acts 2:38; Matt 28:19), just like when a person became a person of physical Israel they were circumcized. But baptism goes beyond circumcision for it identifies us with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:3-4). There is the spiritual reality of our baptism and the physical representation of it in water baptism to all. Baptism connects us with Christ whereas circumcision does not, that is where the parallel begins to break down.
About Acts 2:39, the whole verse is: “For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” But what is this promise? It is the Holy Spirit (v.33) which Christ is pouring out since he has returned to the Father. I do not see it in the context as a promise of a covenant just the pouring out of the HS. I would say that the promise is salvation accomplished by the HS, which they were experiencing then, is for their children (in that the Lord is not rejecting the Jews totally for if I understand this right the Jews were Peter’s main audience), and thank the Lord that salvation is for all [peoples] that are far off, not just the Jews (otherwise you and I would be screwed). This seems to reflect what Jesus told Nicodemus, “For God so loved the world (not only the Jews but all peoples)…” But if we say the covenant is for the children of believers and that they deserve baptism then why not give it to everybody, regenerate and unregenerate, since the text states it is for everyone also (”all that are far off”)?
I’ll have to wait to think about I Cor. 7:14 and Gen. 17.
Grace from Louisville,
Mike
Comment by Michael P. — February 15, 2006 @ 12:08 am
So interesting site, thanks!
2.0 http://www2-0.gmail.com/ 2.1 http://www2-1.gmail.com/ 2.2 http://www2-2.gmail.com/
Comment by barrycmster — June 5, 2006 @ 1:47 pm