Infant Baptism
Infant Baptism, is it biblical?
What is its history?
Is it practiced today? If so, why? If not, why not?
Comments
-
I cannot find direct mention of infant baptism in the NT. But I find lots of references to believer's baptism. And that by dipping in water.
I believe infant baptism came about along with the concept of the visible institutional church. Made up of believers and unbelievers alike. I view it as an attempt to reconstruct a christian version of OT Israel where infant baptism replaces circumcision of infants.
But NT Israel is believers only and baptism follows the New Birth.
-
It's not Biblical as it is nowhere in Scripture. It is heavily practiced today in several large denominations.
If it is viewed as more of a baby dedication, I don't see a problem with it. If it is used as a basis for salvation, obviously there are issues.
-
I see a problem with it. Infant baptism means disobeying Matthew 28:19. Ideally one gets baptized when becoming a disciple.
Main reasons for infant baptism seem to be tradition (therefore contradicting "sola scriptura"), or superstition that the baby is magically saved by the water, or the words, or the act (in any case, a form of idolatry). I can't think of another reason, but maybe I've missed something...? -
Having spent some time reading defenses of Infant Baptism, I think tradition is a strong part of it. However, if one embraces strong Covenental theology and understands baptism to replace circumcision, then I can see a strong argument in favor. Thus such people aren't crazy or blind. I just understand the matter very differently and personally I think it matters.
-
I forgot to mention that my position is baptism for adult (whatever that means) believers. I do not support infant baptism, but can see why some may authentically believe it to be valid.
-
Baptism signifies death to a “self-centered” and “self-directed” life and resurrection to a new life. It is a radical expression of conversion to enter a disciplined life.This is why infant baptism proves to be invalid. In many churches, an infant is dedicated by parents as well as the congregation to the care of God.
The reasons being are two-fold:
__ (1) “Baptism is contingent on an affirmation of faith on the part of the baptismal candidate.”
__ (2) “Baptism is to be proceeded by instruction in the holy scriptures and acceptance of their teaching.”"All who have committed their lives to the Saviour may participate.” Can an infant do this?
Karl Barth had a negative view of infant baptism. He changed his view of baptism, in general, but his negative attitude toward infant baptism was consistent. In an earlier work, he denied a growth nature of baptism but recognized the cognitive power in baptism. This cognitive In doing so, his view of the nature of baptism led him to conclude that infant baptism is untenable, because the baptized person is not “merely passive instrument (Behandelter),” rather “an active partner (Handelnder),” and “no infants can be such a person.”
However, it needs to be noted that Barth didn't consider infant baptism that was already given as invalid:
“Baptism without the willingness and readiness of the baptized is true, effectual and effective baptism, but it is not correct; it is not done in obedience, it is not administered according to proper order, and therefore it is necessarily clouded baptism.”
Barth found no clear evidence for infant baptism in the Bible, and at the same time, he didn't find any solid theological foundation in the history of dogmatics.
It is noteworthy that Moltmann points out that “Infant baptism is without any doubt the basic pillar of the corpus christianum . . . Infant baptism is the foundation of a national church.”
Regardless, the Bible and the example of Jesus is our guide and will have the last word on the matter.
Sources:
-- K. Barth, The Teaching of The Church Regarding Baptism (London: SCM Press, 1948), 12, 41, 42ff -- Jürgen Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit: A Contribution to Messianic Ecclesiology, trans. Margaret Kohl (New York, Hagerstown, San Francisco, London: Harper & Row Publishers, 1977), 225.
There is no hint or suggestion in the Scriptures that infants are proper subjects for baptism. Consider the views of scholars and history-- next time. CM
-
As pointed out, infant baptism is unscriptural. But even Baptists and Evangelicals who understand what the word baptism means, get it wrong, also placing catholic tradition above scripture. This when they baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The triune God's personal name is Jesus Christ in whose name they baptized throughout Acts.
-
@Dave_L said:
As pointed out, infant baptism is unscriptural. But even Baptists and Evangelicals who understand what the word baptism means, get it wrong, also placing catholic tradition above scripture. This when they baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The triune God's personal name is Jesus Christ in whose name they baptized throughout Acts.Dave,
Is Matt 28:19-20, Catholic?- 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
- 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
If anything, isn't it more important to use the correct METHOD of baptism, over the words spoken? Besides, see the texts above, the words are clear. What is it that the Baptists and Evangelicals are getting wrong when it comes to baptism? Are they using another method of Baptism? Immersion is the ONLY correct method of baptism. Am I missing something? Baptism is one's entry into the church and the beginning of one's Christian journey. CM
-
History teaches the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" method replaced Peter's "Name of Jesus Christ" method in the second century.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II, page 263:
"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."
-
@Dave_L said:
History teaches the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" method replaced Peter's "Name of Jesus Christ" method in the second century.Is Peter God? Is Peter greater than Jesus, The Christ (The Anointed One)? If one were to make a big deal over it, isn't "Our God is One God? Which of the "Trinity" is not God? If one were to call the name of One, is not he's including the others or better yet, the Godhead? Let's not be duped into "fool-ology."
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II, page 263:
"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."
A brief reflection one sees many things that the Catholic Church through it Popes and Councils have changed. For example Day of worship, the method of baptism, means of salvation, etc. Does this make it so for Protestants? Who's driving the Salvation-redemption Train here; God, through the revelation of His Word (Bible) or the Catholic Church?
If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
History teaches the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" method replaced Peter's "Name of Jesus Christ" method in the second century.Is Peter God? Is Peter greater than Jesus, The Christ (The Anointed One)? If one were to make a big deal over it, isn't "Our God is One God? Which of the "Trinity" is not God? If one were to call the name of One, is not he's including the others or better yet, the Godhead? Let's not be duped into "fool-ology."
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II, page 263:
"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."
A brief reflection one sees many things that the Catholic Church through it Popes and Councils have changed. For example Day of worship, the method of baptism, means of salvation, etc. Does this make it so for Protestants? Who's driving the Salvation-redemption Train here; God, through the revelation of His Word (Bible) or the Catholic Church?
If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected. CM
If Peter got it wrong, all of scripture is worthless.................Stand corrected.
-
@Dave_L said:
If Peter got it wrong, all of scripture is worthless.................Stand corrected.
Dave,
Thanks for your response. Please consider my points and/or questions below.- Please re-read my post above. Also, what specifically are you supposed to be correcting me concerning my above statements? I am not sure of what part of my statements you agreed. You may want to make this clear before moving forward to have a meaning exchange.
- You may have to pull out the history books/texts to refresh my memory; if it's there, at all.
- Where, when and how did Peter become greater than Jesus, The Christ (The Anointed One)?
- Under what authority Peter had or were given to instituted changes over Jesus, for all disciples to follow? It would be helpful to direct me to references or resources beyond your declaration.
- What do you mean, "if Peter got it wrong, all of scripture is worthless...?"
Until next time, peace. CM
-
Thanks for asking. If Peter misunderstood Jesus, then the whole church misunderstood him until the 2nd century on Baptism in Jesus' name. And he needed the Catholics to figure it out.
-
@Dave_L said:
Thanks for asking. If Peter misunderstood Jesus, then the whole church misunderstood him until the 2nd century on Baptism in Jesus' name. And he needed the Catholics to figure it out.What did Peter understood Jesus to say or mean what you speak? CM
-
Peter must have understood "baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" as baptizing in the personal name of the trinity - Jesus Christ. And not baptizing in the names of the roles performed by each member of the Godhead.
All detailed mention of baptism in Acts is in the name of Jesus Christ.
-
Thanks, Dave,
Oh, does it make a world of difference to baptize in the name of "Jesus" or "baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"? CM -
I think both groups are genuinely baptized by immersion in water as believers. But I think since Baptism symbolizes Jesus' death, burial and resurrection, and identifies us with that, it is best to baptize in his name.
But I do not think Oneness Pentecostals have it right, since they reject the doctrine of the Trinity and thereby worship a false Christ.
-
@Dave_L said:
I think both groups are genuinely baptized by immersion in water as believers. But I think since Baptism symbolizes Jesus' death, burial and resurrection, and identifies us with that...You're correct. I agree.
"...it is best to baptize in his name."
As for this, you may want to avoid being dogmatic about it. Thus far, you have not been persuasive or convincing. Did the Book of Acts give an example of actual baptisms? You may want to restudy this or abandon your consistent. Am I missing something? Please show me where the method of Baptism in Acts of the NT.
Dave, "The United Pentecostal church is a community of faith that rejects the Trinity on the basis that the concept of Trinity is incompatible with faith in one God. Father, Son and Holy Spirit cannot be real, distinct and co-equal persons; they are but different roles performed by one divine being. In essence, it is a community of faith that affirms modalistic Monarchianism."
A Trinitarian worldview comes out of a study of Scripture and an observation of how the very being of God impacts all of what God does in both his creation and church, so argues Seamands.
The "Oneness Pentecostals" are just one of four groups that call upon the name of Jesus yet reject the historical doctrine of the Trinity. The others are:
-- Latter-Day Saints
-- Jehovah Witnesses
-- Christian ScienceTheir "Holy Books" alone could mostly explain their doctrinal views and understanding. These four well-known groups are said to "lack a historical orthodox understanding of God." Even though most Protestant denominations hold to a Triune belief in God, a gap exists between ORTHODOXY [correct belief and the practice of rituals] and ORTHOPRAXY [correct conduct, both ethical and liturgical, as opposed to faith or grace etc].
Keep studying... CM
Sources:
-- Gregory A. Boyd, Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992). For information on the beliefs of this community of faith.
-- Watkins, Willam D. “Review of ‘Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity’ and Trinity and Process: A Critical Evaluation and Reconstruction of Hartshorne’s Di-Polar Theism Towards a Trinitarian Metaphysics.” Christian Research Journal 16 (1993): 43-44.
-- Seamands, Stephen A. Ministry in the Image of God: The Trinitarian Shape of Christian Service. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2005, 42-243.
-
@Dave_L said:
History teaches the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" method replaced Peter's "Name of Jesus Christ" method in the second century.Dave, what is your view and understanding of Peter? Do you see him as the head of the Church? You seem to be, overly, beholding to this one disciple. Are you trying to say the modern Christian Church is built upon Peter? If so, when, where and by whose authority? CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
History teaches the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" method replaced Peter's "Name of Jesus Christ" method in the second century.Dave, what is your view and understanding of Peter? Do you see him as the head of the Church? You seem to be, overly, beholding to this one disciple. Are you trying to say the modern Christian Church is built upon Peter? If so, when, where and by whose authority? CM
Every detailed example of Baptism in Acts is in the Name of the Lord, or In the Name of Jesus Christ. None are in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
-
What is it about John's baptism that needs to be understood?
- The baptism of John is mentioned in all of the Synoptics (Matt 3:11, 16; Mark 9:22; Luke 3:16) and in John.
- Besides the baptism of John in Acts 1:5, Christian baptism is recorded several times (Acts 8:36, 38, 39; 10:47).
- The Pharisees of Mt 6:17, …Rejected Christ's counsel and refused to be baptized with the baptism of John.
- In Luke 3:1-17 the crowds come out to receive John’s baptism whereas there is no mention of the Pharisees coming to John.
- Jesus accepted the baptism of John and became part of this remnant. He chose His first apostles from the followers of John the Baptist. John was sent at the right time, with an urgent message of repentance to awaken Israel to God’s will and to His imminent visitation. His message created a new remnant people within the nation of Israel.
- In the NT he mentioned Paul meeting with twelve individuals who were baptized in the baptism of John and knew nothing about the Holy Spirit.
- The adult Jesus complied with the baptism of John.
- The theory of apostolic succession, the Bible says absolutely nothing about it. The Twelve could not hand down or transfer their prerogatives to anybody else. Some try to use Acts 1:15-26 as justification. This passage tells at Peter’s suggestion how a substitute was found for Judas Iscariot, who had betrayed Jesus. Acts 1:22, specifies the basic qualification of the man the apostles needed to appoint: “Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection”. Matthias was selected over “Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus.
- But perhaps most significant are Jesus’ words affirming the role of John as God’s messenger sent “before your face who will prepare your way before you”. What John’s “preparation” consists in, namely repentance, is made clear by Luke’s parenthetical statement: “all the people – even the **tax collectors justified God because they had been baptized with the baptism of John” **(Lk 7:29).
- In the New Testament, water also carries symbolic meanings. Water is used in the baptism of John the Baptist to represent repentance (Matt 3:11; Mark 1:8; Acts 1:5; 11:16).
- It is also used to symbolize the New Testament baptism (Acts 8:36-39; Heb 10:22; 1 Pet 3:20) and cleansing from all impurities (Heb 10:22).
Let's keep the "main thing, the main thing."The symbol"= over the name.
Baptism stands represent:
-- Repentance
-- cleansing from all impurities
-- Entry church fellowship
-- New way of life in following Christ.
-- Water resp. The New Testament baptismHAPPY IN JESUS! CM
SOURCE:
-- Cullinan, Thomas. “The Passion of Political Love.” Cross Currents 32, no. 4 (Winter 1982-1983): 431-439. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed May 22, 2011), pp 431-432.
-
“So Paul said, “Into what then were you baptized?” “Into John’s baptism,” they replied.Paul said, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.” When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,” (Acts 19:3–5) (NET)
-
The Baptism of Acts 19:1-7_____
Not water alone, but water and Spirit meet God's pattern of baptism. Apollos knew nothing of the influence of the Holy Spirit in the life of John the Baptist (Luke 1:15), of the conception of Jesus through the Holy Spirit (verses 34, 35), of the descent of the Spirit on Jesus (3:21, 22), nor of Jesus' Spirit-filled ministry (4:18). He had no acquaintance with Pentecost or other Spirit-blessed events. In fact, he did not even know that there was a Holy Spirit.
How does this story demonstrate the uniqueness of God's saving action in Jesus Christ? Acts 19:4, 5. Like John the Baptist, Apollos testified about Jesus but fell short of proclaiming a fully Christian gospel. In accepting further instruction, the twelve men (Acts 19:7) showed a correct attitude toward receiving additional truth.
"With deep interest and grateful, wondering joy the brethren listened to Paul's words. By faith, they grasped the wonderful truth of Christ's atoning sacrifice and received Him as their Redeemer. They were then baptized in the name of Jesus, and as Paul 'laid his hands upon them,' they received also the baptism of the Holy Spirit, by which they were enabled to speak the languages of other nations and to prophesy. Thus they were qualified to labor as missionaries in Ephesus and its vicinity and also to go forth to proclaim the gospel in Asia Minor."
What say ye? CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Infant Baptism, is it biblical?
What is its history?
Is it practiced today? If so, why? If not, why not?No, it is not biblical. It's practiced today because they say it replaces circumcision and circumcision happened at birth. But there is no biblical backing for infant baptism at all, nor is there any evidence that the early church practiced it either.
-
David,
You're so right!One more note from the pages of history speaks against Infant Baptism. Gregory of Nyssa [shared the common belief that man is free and responsible for the entrance and continuation of sin.] repudiated original guilt in his opposition to infant baptism, but he introduced a curious mixture of cherished Eastern proclivities and Western traducianism which indicates some foreshadowing of Augustinianism.
Infants who die are placed beyond the reach of God’s punishments. "Gregory's humane and reasonable suggestion of some state analogous to what was later called the limbus puerorum, as the solution of this problem, stands in the most vivid contrast to the heartless fanaticism with which Augustine condemns unbaptised little ones to eternal fire, and is the surest warrant that he was completely out of sympathy with the theory which impelled the Doctor of Hippo to this gruesome conclusion." CM
SOURCE:
Norman Powell Williams, The Ideas of the Fall and of Original Sin (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1927), pp. 282, 279.
